[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 24, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5322-H5346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H5322]]
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
488 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 5120.
{time} 1059
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5120) 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, 2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July
23, 2002, amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) had been disposed of and the bill was open from page 75, line
11, through page 103, line 10.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
to the bill may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the
purpose of debate;
Amendments numbered 2, 8, 12, and 18 printed in the Congressional
Record, debatable for 5 minutes each;
An amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr)
regarding a national media campaign, and an amendment by the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller) regarding Federal acquisition
regulation, debatable for 20 minutes each;
Amendment No. 16, printed in the Congressional Record, an amendment
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) regarding high sea
repairs, and the amendment at the desk offered by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) debatable for 10 minutes each;
Amendment No. 21 printed in the Congressional Record, debatable for
40 minutes; and
An amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
regarding taxation of pension plans, debatable for 30 minutes.
Each amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in the
order of the House, or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be
printed, or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be
subject to a demand for a division of the question.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
At the end of title VI (page ____, line ____), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by an executive agency to establish, apply, or
enforce any numerical goal, target, or quota for subjecting
the employees of the agency to public-private competitions or
converting such employees or the work performed by such
employees to private contractor performance under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other
administrative regulation, directive, or policy.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
2002, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This amendment is necesary because the Office of Management and
Budget has issued an arbitrary requirement on all of the Federal
agencies to privatize 127,500 Federal jobs by the end of this fiscal
year, and as many as 425,000 Federal jobs by the end of fiscal year
2004. That is nearly a quarter of the entire Federal workforce.
OMB's one-size-fits-all arbitrary privatization quotas do not
consider the unique needs of different Federal agencies, and we believe
will harm the ability of those Federal agencies to most effectively
carry out their missions. My amendment today is wholly consistent with
what is called the FAIR Act. This is an act that requires the Federal
agencies to identify what jobs could possibly be performed by the
private sector. In other words, what jobs could be subject to
outsourcing.
This amendment does not put a halt to any agency's ability to
contract out a single Federal job, and I am not opposed to
privatization where it works. There is $120 billion being contracted
out now. In fact, there are more people working for the private sector
doing Federal work than actual Federal employees. What this amendment
is all about is imposing arbitrary one-size-fits-all quotas on all of
the Federal agencies.
They are not all alike. The Internal Revenue Service is different
from the Department of Defense; the Department of Defense is different
from the Department of Justice; and on and on. We think managers should
be able to exercise their own individual judgment and knowledge of
their agency's mission. I supported the FAIR Act, I still do, but the
FAIR Act intentionally left those decisions on how many or how few jobs
to contract out to Federal executives.
Now, there was a Commercial Activities Panel, controversial because
many of the Federal employee union organizations felt that they were
not adequately represented, but they stated, as one of their
principles, that the Federal Government should avoid arbitrary
numerical goals. That is what this amendment does. It simply says that
OMB cannot issue these arbitrary quotas across all the Federal
agencies.
The Commercial Activities Panel said the success of government
programs should be measured by the results achieved in terms of
providing value to the taxpayer, not the size of the in-house or the
contractor workforce. The use of arbitrary percentages, and I am
quoting, ``the use of arbitrary percentages or numerical targets can be
counterproductive.'' That is the purpose of this amendment.
On that panel was Kay Coles James, who is Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, and Angela Styles, the Administrator of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
The Federal workforce has been reduced by 600,000 Federal jobs for
functions carried out by private contractors. That trend is going to
continue, but it should continue in a logical, intelligent, responsible
way. This quota approach is not responsible, Mr. Chairman.
Now, as I said, there is over $120 billion for services being
contracted out. That does not include any of the submarines ships,
planes, tanks, et cetera. This is an effort that is going to continue,
but it should continue in a responsible manner.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) seek time
in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. ISTOOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I seek to manage the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an amendment that is a wolf in
sheep's clothing. We heard from its sponsor that this is supposedly to
stop people from being arbitrary; to stop people from setting some
arbitrary quota, as they call it. The amendment has nothing to do with
whether things are being done in an arbitrary fashion. The amendment
has as its goal stopping the Federal Government from privatizing or
outsourcing, or even trying to, anything that involves work that is
currently being done by Federal workers.
It has as its goal stopping the Bush administration's management
initiative that is trying to save taxpayers significant dollars.
Indeed, they project that typically, when it is proper to do so,
outsourcing work can save the taxpayers 30 to 50 percent of normal cost
for doing certain functions.
There is a process that is established by prior legislation of this
Congress, what is called the FAIR Act, what is
[[Page H5323]]
known as the A76 process, and through this there has already been
underway for months an effort to identify work that is done by Federal
workers that is considered competitive in nature, where it is competing
with the private sector. It may involve data processing, it may involve
food services.
The Marine Corps, for example, Mr. Chairman, has just contracted out
hiring people to feed our Marines. Rather than having to hire them at
the wage rates and the benefit rates and the built-in bureaucracy of
Federal employees, they hire people who are experienced in handling
food; in ordering it, in preparing it, in keeping the inventories on
hand, in managing the right numbers, seeking to save the taxpayers
tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars a year.
We have already had a process that has identified, through the
process that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) claims he
supports, it has already identified 850,000 people that are on the
Federal payroll, doing work that could be done by the private sector,
saving the taxpayers potentially 25 to 50 percent of what we are paying
now. However, the Federal employees unions, which are perhaps the
strongest labor unions in the country, say we do not want that to
happen. We do not care if it saves taxpayers money, we want to make
sure that these are union jobs.
That is what is really behind the amendment. The amendment does not
say what we have been told it says. I want to read to you, Mr.
Chairman, and to the other Members, what the amendment actually says.
The amendment states: ``None of the funds made available in this act
may be used by an executive agency to establish, apply, or enforce any
numerical goal, target, or quota for subjecting the employees of the
agency to public-private competitions or converting such employees or
the work performed by such employees to private contractor performance
under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other
administrative regulation, directive, or policy.''
What it does is to try to stop cold the process of identifying
government jobs that are commercial in nature that could be performed
by the private sector. It is not about stopping some supposed arbitrary
quota. The term arbitrary is not in the amendment. It says you cannot
set any goal that involves a number. You cannot set any target that
involves a number.
If the goal was to save the taxpayers $1, that is a numerical goal
that is outlawed by this outrageous amendment. It is so overreaching.
It is not trying to stop people from being arbitrary in having private-
public competition, to see who can do the job, who can do it best and
who can do it at the best cost for the taxpayers, it is trying to stop
the very concept. It is not trying to stop quotas.
If the measure offered by the gentleman from Virginia only said we
are going to stop arbitrary quotas and then defined what arbitrary
quotas were, then perhaps he might have a case. But his amendment says
we are outlawing any numerical goal, any numerical target. And what the
Bush administration has done, through the Office of Management and
Budget, after going through this process, mandated by statute, mandated
by laws passed by this Congress, the process has identified 850,000
jobs currently held by Federal workers that could be done by the
private sector and possibly done for as much as 50 percent less than we
are paying, they have said, okay, let us try in the next year to
compete 15 percent of those. That is 127,500.
It does not say we are going to award those to the private sector. It
is saying that 15 percent of these Federal jobs that are commercial in
nature, in the next year, are going to have to justify whether they
should be Federal jobs or whether they should be outsourced potentially
to the private sector, and let the private sector come in and compete
and tell us this is what we say we can do and how much we say we can do
it for and how we can save the taxpayers money. No guarantee of who is
going to win that competition.
But the Moran amendment, by saying we outlaw any goal or any target
that has a number, the number may be one employee, the number may be
trying to save $1, or the number could be saying we are trying to save
the taxpayers $100 million, it does not matter. Any goal, any target
that involves a number under this outrageous, overreaching amendment
could not happen. We would be locked into the current rate of spending.
Now, right now I am very concerned about how much of the taxpayers'
money we are spending and the Moran amendment would guarantee that we
could not accomplish savings for the taxpayers. We could not try to
hold the line on the size of the Federal Government. We could not try
to make things more efficient. We could not let the private sector save
us money when they say they can. No. By using language that I believe
is deceptive to people, we are told that we cannot have any sort of
numerical target because they want to say, oh, that is a quota or that
is not a quota.
There is no guarantee of results under the process that is underway,
but there is a guarantee of results if we adopt the Moran amendment.
The guarantee is taxpayers will lose money. That is the guarantee of
adopting the Moran amendment. It denies opportunity to those who want
to be able to perform services, whether it be data processing, delivery
services, food handling, you name it. If they want to try to provide a
service for less to taxpayers, the Moran amendment says ``no.''
{time} 1115
Mr. Chairman, we ought to say ``no'' to the Moran amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, to respond to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook),
I have a letter that I would like to share with the gentleman from the
Federal Managers Association, which represents 200,000 executives,
managers, and supervisors in the Federal Government. They say: ``This
amendment would simply allow agencies to have the flexibility to make
the best decisions for the use of taxpayer dollars without being forced
to comply with target percentages.'' That is all they want to be able
to do, to be able to exercise their executive judgment. The FAIR Act,
which we supported, intentionally left the decision to the agencies on
how many or how few jobs to contract out, so those agencies would have
the discretion to determine how best to balance their work loads with
their budgets.
I do not understand why it would jeopardize the Federal taxpayers'
money when private contractors are now receiving $120 billion just for
services and Federal payroll is $108 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella), who is a valued member on the Subcommittee on Civil
Service, Census and Agency Organization.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor and strong supporter of
the amendment. The attempt to set quotas to contract out an arbitrary
number achieves nothing. It is bad policy, and I would like to point
out some of the misconceptions with regard to the plan: one, that the
Federal employee workforce is enormous; and, two, that contracting out
immediately makes the government a more efficient, cost-effective
workforce. Those are both patently untrue.
Do Members know what the size of the Federal Government was in 1964?
It was roughly 1.8 million workers. Do Members know what the size of
the Federal work force is today? It is roughly 1.8 million employees.
Those individuals railing against big government do not know the facts.
If there is a big government problem, it certainly is not due to number
of employees. The real growth of government has come through expansion
of grants, contracts and entitlements.
Each year the Federal Government doles out $120 billion to
contractors compared to $108 billion in salaries and benefits for the
Federal workforce. So given this reality, I am puzzled by the recent
OMB directive telling agencies to develop plans for competing at least
5 percent of positions listed on their FAIR Act inventories in the next
fiscal year. OMB also says all agencies will eventually be required to
compete 50 percent of their commercial jobs. That
[[Page H5324]]
decision is even more puzzling when studies comparing public servants
with private contractors have shown that keeping work in-house is a
better deal for taxpayers.
In 1994, GAO studied nine contracting-out situations, finding out
that in each case tax dollars would have been saved if the work had
been done by public servants. A 1998 Army study, the most comprehensive
ever done, found that it was paying 46 percent more for each private
contractor employee than for each Army public servant.
So the facts are in. Federal employees are a good deal for taxpayers.
They do great work for the American people. Really, it is about time
that we recognize that situation and stop supporting measures that
undermine their efforts. It is clear that setting an arbitrary number
of positions that should be outsourced compounds the problems that we
have in many agencies.
To meet OMB's quotas, the Department of the Interior can contract out
97 percent of its FAIR Act jobs without public-private competition, and
HHS is contracting out 70 percent of its jobs without public-private
competition.
This amendment deserves to be passed, and that is why the Moran-Wolf-
Morella amendment is so important and so logical.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of
the amendment. The question has always been do we take a matter in-
house or outsource it. The overriding goal of procurement policy should
always be, how did we get the best value for the American taxpayer,
period; how do we pay the least cost for the best service.
Sometimes this can best be done in-house with trained Federal workers
who have done something over a long period of time. Sometimes it can be
done more efficiently by taking it out to the private sector. Sometimes
it can be done because the private sector has a certain expertise and
experience level we just cannot get through the Federal employees.
Now, the previous administration had numerous initiatives whereby
they would eliminate Federal jobs, and they defined their success by
how few Federal employees they had. This was a mistake. What we should
have been asking was how much money do we save the American taxpayer,
not how many employees we have, how much we are outsourcing and the
like.
In some cases the jobs eliminated did not save anything because these
jobs were off-budget. They were fee paid for, and they were not costing
the taxpayers or the general fund a nickel. In some cases we found out
we eliminated Federal jobs, but it ended up costing us more money by
going outside. But it was driven by quotas, it was driven by numbers,
and I submit that is the wrong approach; and that is the problem with
the current legislation, which is why I support the Moran amendment
because the current legislation looks at arbitrary percentages and says
when it comes to outsourcing and competing things in-house, we are
going to look at certain percentages in certain agencies, and we are
going to define it by this rather than where do we think we can get the
best value for the American taxpayer, not how much money will it save.
There is precious little evidence that the elimination of Federal
employees by itself saved money during the previous administration. In
some cases, as I noted before, these were fee-based employees, and
whatever happened was not going to cost the taxpayers or fee payers a
penny, but it was arbitrary.
Competitive sourcing is a good thing; but arbitrary quotas, numerical
targets, are a bad thing. I would say to this body that the Moran
amendment eliminates the arbitrary numbers. This will still allow
discretion within Federal agencies to go and compete things. We should
encourage them to do that where it makes sense and where we can bring
savings to the American taxpayers.
Our goal should not be to preserve jobs at the Federal level, nor
should it be to get a certain percentage to get outsourced. Our number
one priority that should drive procurement policy, how do we get the
best value to the American taxpayer, this amendment furthers that goal.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moran
amendment, and also acknowledge the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella) for her work on this amendment and all of the hard work she
does for Federal employees.
To meet OMB's quotas, agencies can contract out these Federal
employee jobs without even conducting a public-private competition to
determine what the best deal is for the American taxpayer. These
targets have absolutely no demonstrated managerial, scientific, or
economic justification.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is exactly right, they were
picked to meet an arbitrary quota. That is not the way to run the
government. Under these quotas, the IRS and the Department of Commerce
and the Department of Justice, which includes the FBI which is in the
forefront of the battle with regard to terrorism, will all be required
to meet the same targets.
With the current response effort with the war on terrorism, that does
not make any sense. This one-size-fits-all mandate does not consider
the unique needs of different agencies and certainly harms the ability
of Federal agencies to effectively carry out their mission. For
instance, Customs Service, working under heightened levels of security,
so much so that the President wants to put it into the new Department
of Homeland Security, has no flexibility under these arbitrary quotas.
The Moran amendment would give Federal agencies the flexibility to
contract out as much or as little of government work as they feel is
necessary to meet the mission requirements. I urge Members to join us
in supporting the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran),
which recognizes that decisions about how best to deliver government
services at the lowest cost to taxpayers should be driven by unique
agency mission requirements and not some arbitrary, numerical target or
quota that no one understands.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I think part of the problem with this as part of not
being what it is said to be, is that this amendment seeks to outlaw
math. It says we cannot adopt a target or a goal for outsourcing jobs
if there is a number involved in the goal. We cannot set a numerical
target.
Each agency has identified under law what they have that are jobs
being done by Federal workers that are actually commercial in nature.
It could be cleaning, data processing, payroll services, construction.
This says the administration's goal for each agency, take whatever they
have identified, and do not try to compete them all, just compete 15
percent. They say because it is a number, they outlaw it.
If they are serious about this, they should say we should not try to
compete more than this percentage of each agency's jobs; but they are
trying to say we cannot set a goal that involves a number, which means
we cannot set a goal. This effort to save taxpayers money will not do
anything because they will stop that effort.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, today what we are talking about is the
effectiveness of the United States Government. Today is yet another
attempt by those who wish to place handcuffs and arbitrarily stop the
government from making sure that the best available worker is available
to do a job that is very important for the American people. This
administration understands what this amendment is about, and they said
the following: ``The administration understands that an amendment may
be offered on the floor that would effectively shut down the
administration's competitive sourcing initiatives to fundamentally
improve the performance of the government's many commercial activities.
If the final version of the bill would contain such a provision, the
President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.''
Mr. Chairman, it is very plain what this is about. This is about an
opportunity to hamper the President of the
[[Page H5325]]
United States, the OMB, from their ability to manage what is a dynamic
workforce today on behalf of the United States Government, a workforce
that is not just someone who is concerned about inherently governmental
activities that the government performs, but about tens of millions of
other jobs, tens of thousands of other jobs, that the government can no
longer effectively manage and be able to properly make sure that the
American taxpayer gets their dollar in return.
I am in favor of this government having every single penny that they
need, but not more than that. We need to make sure that this government
has the ability to manage its resources, whether we are talking about
cooks, or people who take care of lawns, or whether we are talking
about people who provide secretarial services or administrative
services. What this will do today is to say directly to the OMB, who
falls underneath this bill, that they cannot manage outsourcing
activities to make sure that the government is properly organized and
run.
{time} 1130
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman that
one of the major concerns on our side for people who represent
thousands of government employees, is that there is supposed to be a
competition under A76 in order to let the civilian employees try to
maintain their jobs. Sometimes they reorganize into a smaller unit and
then they try to compete. Part of our concern is that OMB is saying do
not do competition in order to achieve these quotas, and I think that
is wrong. I think that violates the existing law. That is why we are so
concerned about it. We do not object to the A76 competition if the
civilians have an opportunity to compete for their jobs. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate that. The gentleman is a
friend of mine. This is an honest discussion. The fact of the matter is
that it stops dead in its tracks the Bush Administration for reform to
make sure that every single government job that is performed on behalf
of a grateful Nation is reviewed and looked at in terms of its ability
to be price competitive and efficient, and that is what this is all
about. And I believe that even those people who stand up today who are
offering this amendment would argue with me. We want a more efficient
Government. But this is a process that will be stopped dead in its
tracks. It is not something that would maybe balance out a
circumstance.
The Bush Administration, now more than ever, in dealing with the
events of September 11, has had to employ many, many people outside of
the Government because the Government is busy doing the things they do.
The Government is having to provide all sorts of things to help people
even in New York City today that would not come from a Government
organization but would come from the Government. The Government simply
needs the help, they need the ability, and they need the flexibility.
This is about stopping the Bush Administration from providing
efficiency and the flexibility to Government. Not on a balanced
measure, but on a total stopping basis because they did it right. The
people who do not want this went right to OMB and where they are
funded.
I urge my colleagues, I urge Members, please do not do this when now
more than ever this Government needs the flexibility to address
people's issues, to do it effectively and efficiently.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
very distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton), our foremost advocate for civil rights and civil service.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for this amendment that I hope brings us to our senses. I am
bemused to hear some Republicans on this floor arguing for quotas. I
thought the administration and the Republican Congress stood against
quotas. I want to make it clear I do not support quotas in any context,
and I certainly do not support or believe Government can tolerate
deciding who gets to perform Government work by the numbers. Let us be
clear. The Moran amendment leaves in place total ability to contract
out work. It is contracting out without competition that assures a fair
deal for the taxpayers that is at issue here on this floor. Contracting
by the quotas is arbitrary on its face.
Here is an example. In 1 year, they are supposed to go from 15
percent quota to 50 percent quota in certain job categories. That does
not exactly lead to careful analysis. And the DOD has decided that the
way to meet such an escalated quota is to simply contract out all of
the work without any competition. The other agencies are sure to follow
when they see that that is how DOD is going to do it. Why not let civil
servants compete to do this work? They have been doing it. Let us see
who does it best. I thought that is what the other side stood for.
Another reason that makes no sense is that we need to retain workers
for 3 years. We on the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency
Organization, the House and Senate, have been working to keep workers
in this Government. When they hear their work is going to be contracted
out, they are going to be out of here.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Is it correct that as the advocate of the committee's
position, I have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I noticed the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks)
said that the intent is to make sure that, under the laws that we have
passed, there is competition for jobs that are commercial in nature so
that Federal employees have the right to compete against the private
employees and they are not automatically outsourced. I think that is a
very valid position. It is not, however, what the amendment advocates,
because the amendment by its express terms prevents public-private
competitions.
Any time that you set a goal, if you say we are going to have one
competition between the public and private sector, it is outlawed. If
you say that 1 percent of the commercial jobs in the Federal sector is
going to be competed, it is outlawed. The amendment does not do what
many people claim it does. The amendment stops all efforts to have
public-private competitions to see if we can save taxpayers' money
which typically those competitions save the taxpayers 30 to 50 percent.
The Department of Defense reports that during the Clinton
administration years, they outsourced some 550 different initiatives
that will be saving taxpayers about $1.5 billion each year. Those
efforts could not be pursued by the administration under the language
proposed by the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The gentleman is absolutely wrong. The Federal executives will be
able to contract out all the jobs they want based upon their judgment
of what is in the best taxpayers' interest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks), the ranking member on Interior appropriations.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. The FAIR
Act was created to list these commercial jobs. It said nothing about
quotas or forcing these jobs to be contracted out. That is all we are
asking for. Do not set quotas. Let them go in and have a competition
under A-76 for these jobs.
I would say to the gentleman, I have served on the Defense
Subcommittee, and I know for a fact that once we contract these jobs
out, then the cost of the work goes up. OMB fought against us. We used
to have postcontracting audits to make certain that once the thing was
contracted out, that we actually saved money and did not pay all these
contractors more money than we were paying the civil servants. This is
ridiculous. This Moran amendment is needed. We do not need quotas. We
need A76 competition. Let us have
[[Page H5326]]
competition between the public employees and the private employees and
let us see who can do the best job and let us do it on an agency by
agency basis. Let us support the Moran amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
(Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, as the founder and cochairman of the
Correctional Officers Caucus, I rise in support of this amendment.
I rise today in support of the Moran-Wolf-Morella amendment. As a co-
chairman of the Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus, I am
acutely aware of the placement of thousands of correctional jobs in our
Federal prisons on the FAIR Act inventory. Here's a list from the
Department of Justice--it lists 10,260 DOJ jobs that are quote-unquote
``commercial activities.'' Of those ten thousand jobs that the OMB
would have us turn over to the private sector, 7,670 are from the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. Quite frankly, anyone who says that a job in
a prison is ``not inherently governmental'' has not spent enough time
in a prison. I worked in a state correctional facility in Ohio for
eight years and I will not accept that OMB should be able to force a
prison to replace its trained correctional workers with untrained,
private-sector cooks or night-shift janitors just because the cost is
cheaper. Prisons can be dangerous, and workers cannot switch between
private-sector jobs and prison jobs without risking their own safety
and that of others. Now, more than ever, with our increased focus on
terrorism, we need trained, Federal, correctional workers in our
Federal prisons. These prisons often serve as administrative holding
pens for the INS and Federal courts for terrorists. For example, in
1998, two defendants on trial for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
assaulted an employees of a facility in Lower Manhattan, immobilizing
him for life. This amendment would prevent OMB from setting prison
policy. It would ensure that our Federal correctional workers are just
that: Federal. For this House to vote to federalize all baggage
screeners at airports, and then to allow OMB to force ill-prepared
workers into the ranks of our Federal prisons is abominable. Let's let
the agencies manage their own personnel, and let OMB manage itself.
Vote ``Yes'' on the Moran-Wolf-Morella amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment recognizes the
principle that competition should drive decisions about work
management. We all know that over the years, there has been some
sentiment that somehow or another government work is inferior, that the
private sector can do it more effectively, more efficiently and save
the taxpayers money. But that is a flawed notion. It is a flawed
argument. There is a cadre, a corps of competent, hard-working Federal
employees who have the expertise and skill to do the job. We need to
provide for them the opportunity to compete, to display their skills
and talent. That means the only way we can do it is to support the
Moran amendment. I urge its support.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
I think the most important thing that anybody can do, Mr. Chairman,
in this particular debate, or any debate when people say, well, this
amendment does one thing and someone says, no, it does not, it does
something else, the most important thing people can do is read the
amendment. Look for yourself.
The gentleman from Virginia would have people believe that this
amendment is just about outlawing quotas, that it is about outlawing
arbitrariness.
Not at all. Nothing in the amendment says anything about arbitrary
decisions. And although, yes, it does mention outlawing quotas, it goes
far, far beyond that. It outlaws setting goals. It outlaws the very
first steps in the process of trying to determine whether taxpayers are
best served by having certain work done by government workers or by
workers in the private sector.
We spent a lot of time in this Congress setting up this process to
compete public and private jobs, but the amendment states, you cannot
establish, and I quote, any numerical goal, target or quota. It does
not say we are outlawing quotas. It says we are outlawing numerical
goals. We are outlawing targets. We are outlawing things in the very
first stage of the process, the goal-setting stage. If you say our goal
is to save the taxpayers $10 million, oh, no, can't do it under the
Moran amendment. If you say our goal is to compete 1 percent of the
jobs that have already been identified by the agencies as being
commercial in nature and we just want to have a competition to see can
it best be done in the public sector or can it best be done in the
private sector, no, because you said we want to compete 1 percent.
If the Bush administration or its Office of Management and Budget,
should they contact an agency and say we want you to try to at least
compete 1 percent of the jobs you have, or just one job, under the
gentleman from Virginia's amendment, that is illegal. Nobody has any
control over the Federal bureaucracy under the gentleman from
Virginia's amendment except, of course, the Federal employees labor
unions. That is not right.
Let people set goals and have the competition. Let us see who wins
the competition. Which is best for the taxpayer in each specific
instance: Is it best that this work be done by the public sector or
best to be done by the private sector? Do not be afraid of finding out.
Vote against the Moran amendment. When in doubt, read the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, let us make no mistake about what this
debate is all about. It is about privatization, not about whether we
should save taxpayers' money.
Did you know that today, any Federal manager who wants to outsource
or privatize any or all of his or her Federal workforce's jobs can do
so? Today they can outsource or privatize any or all of their work if
they can demonstrate it saves taxpayers' money. So why has the Bush
administration and so many of my Republican colleagues said we need a
quota where by the end of fiscal year 2003, 85,000 Federal jobs must be
privatized when they can do so now if the managers feel it is important
and will save taxpayers' money?
{time} 1145
Why do they want that privatization quota? Because my friends on the
Republican side of the aisle, most of them, and this President, believe
in privatization. That is why they still want to privatize Social
Security. That is why when we talked about prescription drugs for
seniors, Democrats said put it under Medicare where it will be safe and
all seniors can get it. My Republican friends said, no, prescription
drugs for seniors, give it to private insurance companies to manage.
Privatize it, just like the Medigap coverage. They believe in
privatization.
They hate big government. That is why they wanted to privatize Social
Security, that is why they voted against Medicare when it first came
up, and they want to do this now with prescription drugs and these
employees.
Support the Moran amendment, and let competition be the rule of the
day, not quotas and privatization.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, you have heard the truth today. This is
all about employee labor unions, government labor unions, versus the
White House. But there is so much more that needs to be said. We have
talked about government efficiency. The fact of the matter is that this
United States Congress is going to provide the most money we have ever
provided, ever, to the United States Government to perform its tasks
and duties that need to be done. The Bush White House believes that
government will and should get every dollar it needs, but not a penny
more that might go to waste.
What this Bush Administration is asking for is the ability that they
have to manage the workforce with the dollars that have been given to
them. There are things that happen every day, not just September 11,
but disasters across this country. The Bush administration may want to
do the right
[[Page H5327]]
thing by outsourcing things that might be done to where people can be
helped.
The bottom line is this is about whether we are going to stop the
Bush Administration from doing those things that are oriented to
reform, about whether the Bush administration is not going to be able
to manage its resources and assets out of the OMB. It is real simple. I
understand it, and I get it.
I think this body should respond by saying we need to give this
President the opportunity to not only reform government, but to make
sure that efficiency and correctness is done with the efficiency and
assets that are given to the government.
George Bush is honest and sincere about taking care of people's
problems and needs, but he needs the ability to manage that in a
dynamic workplace and in a dynamic country where the needs pop up every
day.
If you say all the work only has to be done by government employees,
then I think that the American people are missing out. I support what
we are doing today to say no to the Moran amendment, because it is
wrong and does not help government efficiency.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) has expired.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired? Would you double-check
that, please?
The CHAIRMAN. Two minutes was yielded to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions), and that expired all the time for the gentleman from
Oklahoma.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot move to strike the last word until
the time for debate has expired.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under the rule, I am the ranking member.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is pending. There are 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining for debate under the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), and until that time has been completed, the
Member cannot strike the last word.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Moran amendment. It
is an important amendment, and I urge all Members to vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would prohibit federal
agencies from using arbitrary quotas to subject federal employees to
either public-private competitions or direct conversions.
This Administration has directed agencies to review for outsourcing
425,000 jobs by the end of 2004. In March 2001, OMB directed all
agencies to contract out at least 5 percent of the jobs capable of
being outsourced. That's 42,500 jobs. That quota increases to 10
percent in FY 03--another 85,000 jobs.
The use of these quotas has been roundly criticized for their one-
size-fits-all approach to improving efficiency in the federal
government. Arbitrarily assigning quotas is poor management practice.
It demoralizes the workforce and forces reductions where none may be
warranted.
These quotas will also encourage agencies to contract out the jobs of
federal employees through direct conversions, without the often time-
consuming public-private competitions. This unfairly denies Federal
employees the opportunity to defend their jobs and denies the taxpayer
the benefits of such competition.
I know that Representative Tom Davis from the Government Reform
Committee agrees with these concerns. At a hearing last year he said he
was ``alarmed'' by OMB's use of quotas and that ``No justification for
these percentages has been offered to date.''
So this amendment should not be controversial. It would not prevent
agencies from competing, converting, or contracting out Federal jobs.
However, agencies would no longer be forced to comply with arbitrary
quotas.
When debating this issue, we used to hear the argument that we needed
to wait for GAO's Commercial Activities Panel to issue its report
before prohibiting the use of quotas. Well that report was issued in
April and one of its principle recommendations was to ``Avoid arbitrary
full-time equivalent or other arbitrary numerical goals.'' It goes on
to say that ``the success of government programs should be measured by
the results achieved in terms of providing value to the taxpayer, not
the size of the in-house or contractor workforce. . . . The use of
percentage or numerical targets can be counterproductive.''
OMB has generally endorsed the results of the GAO Panel report. It
should endorse the recommendation on quotas. They are generally
recognized to be bad management technique and we should eliminate them.
I urge members to vote for the Moran amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that we are not opposing
privatization, we are not opposing outsourcing, and the point that the
gentleman from Oklahoma was trying to make simply is not consistent at
all with this amendment.
We are opposed to arbitrary quotas. They are arbitrary because they
apply to every single Federal agency. The Department of Defense is
different from the IRS. More than 225,000 jobs in the Department of
Defense are supposed to be privatized by the end of 2004. The managers
at DOD said that is not going to work. But at the IRS, do we really
want to apply the same arbitrary quotas? Do we really want private
accounting firms reviewing income tax returns, private collection
agencies enforcing income tax receipts? I do not think so.
Every agency is different, and every Federal manager understands
their agency. We do not want arbitrary quotas, but we certainly want
the best use of the Federal taxpayers' money. It is only managers that
can identify what jobs should be privatized by function.
Mr. Chairman, OMB's directive is so burdensome that the result is
direct conversion of jobs to the private sector against the wishes of
the managers, because the managers know that the only way they are
going to get a green light, which is the system that OMB is imposing,
is to meet these targets. But they also know they are arbitrary. They
know they are not in the best interests of the taxpayer.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be an
additional 5 minutes of debate on this amendment, and that that time be
equally divided, 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the committee and
2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this
amendment.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) makes a good point. All of us
want the government managed so that we save taxpayers' dollars and we
effect the ends that this Congress wants effected on behalf of the
American people. This is not a partisan amendment. This is not a union
amendment, let me say. I want to read you two quotes that I hope
Members listen to.
One is from David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United
States. By the way, he is not a Democrat, as you probably know. In
considering this issue, and the issue is simply whether or not you set
numerical, and that is the key, ``numerical,'' that is the word in this
amendment, and, yes, I have read the amendment, numerical, because once
you set the numerical, then you in effect say either you have to or you
in fact have an expectation that you will get to X percentage,
irrespective of whether the competition and the analysis shows you save
money. Irrespective of that. That is the problem with the policy that
the President is pursuing through OMB.
Now, what does the Comptroller General, a Republican, the head of
GAO, the head of overlooking efficiency and effectiveness in
government, say? ``It is inappropriate to have quantitative targets in
the area of competitive sourcing.'' The Comptroller General. He
disagrees with your proposition, therefore. He disagrees with the
President's proposition. Why? Because it is
[[Page H5328]]
not an effective and efficient way to accomplish the objective that all
of us share.
Secondly, not a partisan politician, Paul Light, respected overseer
of the Brookings Institution view of public employment, says this:
``The Bush administration should show that it means business by
imposing a moratorium on its competition initiative which has a,''
listen to this, ``ready-fire-aim quality, and think more systemically
about what the Federal Government needs to do its job.''
That is what the Moran amendment says.
Support the Moran amendment. Reject arbitrary and capricious
management by numbers.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to be amazed by the difference between the
rhetoric and the reality. The amendment that we are asked to approve
does not outlaw just results, it outlaws the competition. The amendment
states you cannot set a goal for what percentage of jobs or how many or
what dollar targets. You cannot set a goal for how many jobs you will
compete.
We are not talking about a guarantee of the results of the public-
private competition. They want to stop the competition from ever
happening.
A couple of years ago, Mr. Chairman, we in Oklahoma were so proud
that the Oklahoma Sooners had a chance to play for the national
championship game in football against Florida State in the Orange Bowl.
But under their scenario each side could say, ``You know, we have got
the better team,'' but you could never play the game.
They outlaw the competition under this amendment. They say you cannot
play the game. So it does not matter what else they may say about it or
what else they may include in the amendment. The killer in their
amendment is you cannot set a goal for what you are going to subject to
competition.
The Bush administration is not setting a goal saying you must
transfer so many jobs from the public sector to the private sector.
They are saying of the jobs that you have already identified as being
commercial in nature, take 15 percent of the jobs that you identified
and find out. Have the competition between the public sector and the
private sector, but do not outlaw the game from being played.
You cannot set a goal, you cannot set a target, without including a
number. They say any goal, any target that has a number in it, is
illegal. That is wrong. That undercuts the reforms that this Congress
has adopted trying to save the taxpayers money.
The Department of Defense says they are already saving about $1.5
billion each year because they have followed this process. We have the
potential for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of savings to
Federal taxpayers by saying, Federal employees, compete against the
private sector for activities that are inherently commercial in nature.
Let it happen. Play the game. Find out who is right or wrong. Do not
stifle competition. Do not outlaw competition, like the Moran amendment
does. Vote no.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by my colleague Mr. Moran of Virginia, which affords
flexibility to Federal agencies in decisions concerning contracting out
of government work.
There has been a growing sentiment over the years that government
work is inherently inferior to that offered by the private sector--that
somehow the private sector has a monopoly on brains, diligence, and
professionalism. As a result, there has been a thrust towards
establishing across-the-board quotas to privatize more and more of the
work traditionally done by the government.
However, these assumptions are flawed. We have certainly learned a
lot in the last year. First, there is a core of extremely competent
Federal employees dedicated to serving the American public. Second,
there is an undercurrent of greed and abuse in the private business
world that is not worthy of emulation.
Representative Moran's amendment recognizes that decisions about how
best to deliver government services in a quality manner at the lowest
cost should depend on unique agency mission requirements, and not on
arbitrary across-the-board quotas for privatization. I urge my
colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Moran-Wolf-
Morella amendment that would prohibit the use of arbitrary outsourcing
quotas for federal jobs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
issued a requirement that every federal agency open up 15 percent of
the federal jobs listed on its Federal Activities Inventory Reform
(FAIR) Act inventory to outsourcing by the end of FY 2003. OMB has also
stated its ultimate desire to establish a final quota to outsource 50
percent of these inventoried positions, roughly a quarter of the entire
federal workforce.
This one-size-fits all mandate does not consider the unique need of
different agencies and could harm the ability of federal agencies to
effectively carry out their mission. Some agencies have more experience
with outsourcing than others. At present, the Department of Defense
(DOD) is a leader in outsourcing federal jobs. However, the Government
Accounting Office (GAO) has found that DOD has had difficulty
determining the actual costs of contracting out services and these
problems call into question the purported savings incurred.
Currently, I am experiencing this issue first hand in western
Wisconsin where the employees at Ft. McCoy lost a contract bid to
provide administrative services at the Fort. This decision threatens
over 400 jobs. I, along with other members of the Wisconsin delegation,
have asked DOD to review the decision to determine if outsourcing, in
this instance, is the best way to optimize Ft. McCoy's mission and
achieve real savings.
Opponents claim that the Moran-Wolf-Morella amendment would end the
contracting out program. This is simply false. The amendment would
provide the agencies with the flexibility to outsource as they see fit.
It just would prohibit OMB or another agency from using numerical
quotas, targets or goals for opening up federal employment jobs to
private contractors.
Decisions regarding how to best deliver government services at the
lowest cost should be driven by unique agency mission requirements, not
arbitrary numerical requirements for privatization. I urge my
colleagues to support the Moran-Wolf-Morella amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
Page 103, after line 10, insert the following new section:
Sec. ____. The amount otherwise provided by this act under
the heading ``Allowances and Office Staff for Former
Presidents'' is hereby reduced by $339,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
2002, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) will control 5
minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for the first time in our Nation's history, we have
five former presidents alive at the same time. We are also in the
process of recovering from an economic downturn and all Americans are
being asked to tighten their budgets to make ends meet.
{time} 1200
That should include all government employees and agencies, even our
former Presidents. We should make a strong effort to use cost-effective
methods of operating our offices.
The trend of drastically increasing the amount of money we give our
former Presidents to operate their offices is a trend that we have the
ability to control. We have a situation where former President
Clinton's rental expenses will end up costing taxpayers at
[[Page H5329]]
least $436,000 next year, whereas the expense of Ford, Carter, Reagan
and Bush's offices combined would only cost $528,000.
We are also seeing a drastic increase in miscellaneous services.
Former President Clinton received $80,000 for what is called ``other
services'' in fiscal year 2002. That is roughly five times the amount
that former President Reagan used, six times the amount that former
President Bush used, and eight times the amount that former President
Ford used in fiscal year 2002.
Now, I am not picking on President Clinton. What I am trying to do
here is simply show a trend. After all, there are more Republican
former Presidents than there are Democrat former Presidents, and may it
always be the case; but there is a trend there.
Many of the allowances for former Presidents are necessary; no
question about that. However, numerous costs leave room to be reduced.
I am asking for a reduction in these budgets, as they have seen
strong growth in the past few years. I want to take care of our past
Presidents, but enough is enough. I am merely asking for a slight
reduction in allotting these funds. We cannot continue to increase the
allowance at the rate of more than 10 percent every year.
What I am asking for, Mr. Chairman, is that in the time of impending
budget deficits, we tighten our belts where we can. What we are talking
about is a little over $300,000 worth of reduction here, not a
monumental amount as our budgets go; but at least it would reverse this
trend of ever increasing these particular accounts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we passed on suspension a bill that passed
overwhelmingly that allocated $10 billion. It was subjected to 40
minutes of debate on this floor last night. We voted. There were hardly
any votes in opposition.
This issue is so de minimis in terms of its dollars, any dollar is
important, I understand that, but that it must be interpreted simply as
either symbolic or annoying.
The gentleman from Colorado projects this as a small amount of
dollars but, relatively speaking, I will tell my friend, they are a
relatively large number of dollars. In fact, they are 41 percent of the
discretionary dollars from which this cut would have to be made, almost
half.
Now, why do I say that? Because pensions are given, salaries of those
currently on board working for President Ford, President Clinton,
President Bush, President Carter are not going to be cut, so that the
remaining money will simply be cut from the $880,000 for all five
Presidents, and Mrs. Johnson, the widow, who gets a very, very small
sum and, therefore, the sum that the gentleman suggests, while yes,
presumably a smaller sum of the whole, but because so much of the whole
is already committed, that which remains, the discretionary dollars
from which it is cut, it is a 41 percent cut.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there are more Republican former Presidents, but
let me tell my colleagues one that I speak to most frequently,
interestingly enough, not a Democrat, but a Republican, for whom I have
great respect and unlimited affection, and that is President Gerald
Ford, who has used his resources, his position, his experience, his
wisdom in a very positive way, as has President Carter, and as have all
of the other Presidents. I will tell my colleagues that President Ford
believes these kinds of amendments are, in effect, simply scratching
former Presidents, as if somehow they are a problem fiscally for the
country. Indeed, I look at them as just the opposite: a great resource
for this country, that we spend some $3.3 million on, to allow them to
be effective in their role, unique role, as former Presidents.
So I would ask my colleagues to review this amendment in the terms
of, A, it is a relatively small amount of money in the context of the
dollars that we are talking about, even in this relatively small bill,
but a significant sum in undermining the ability of former Presidents
to travel and, frankly, when they travel on the private sector, my
colleagues must understand, they travel at private sector expense, not
a public expense, not at taxpayer expense.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the gentleman from Maryland has a good point, this is a small
amount, and it is somewhat symbolic. It is saying, when we are trying
to get our budget back in balance, we need to cut wherever we can cut.
But even though I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
that it is a small amount, it amounts to all of the taxes, Federal
income taxes paid by 60 American taxpayers, average taxpayers. That is
a lot of money for them. That is all their taxes.
What we are saying is, for those 60 taxpayers, we are going to use
your money in a more effective way. We are going to use it for things
that maybe are a little more important.
I tell my colleagues, when we are in this kind of a situation, when
we are in great times, we do not seem to worry about it much; but when
we are in these kinds of tight times, we really do need to put value
judgments on where we spend our money and where we do not spend our
money and where we save money wherever we can.
So I would again encourage the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although I have, frankly, a great amount of
sympathy for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) and I think there is a need for us to do something regarding
the accounts of former Presidents, I do not believe this amendment is
the way to do it, because I believe we need to lay a groundwork and to
do whatever we might accomplish through an understanding between the
Congress and the offices of the former Presidents.
These accounts were established, of course, back in the years when
former Presidents did not have a stipend, did not have very huge
speaking fees and other sources of revenue, and played a very different
role than they do today. I think there are some things that we can
accomplish in having some savings, but I believe that comity between
the executive and the legislative branches requires that we try to do
that in an orderly fashion and lay a groundwork with former Presidents,
rather than try to change the ground rules that we have followed for
many years arbitrarily.
So, therefore, despite my sympathy for it, I do urge a ``no'' vote on
the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would hope that not only the respect for these five former
Presidents, unique Americans, but also an understanding of the
important role they play in our country, would lead to Members opposing
this amendment, and I urge them to do so.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I respect our former Presidents, and I think they have a unique role
to play; and I want them to play that role, and I want us to provide
for them so that they can play that role. But do we really need half a
million dollars to support them playing that role each year? Ford,
Carter, Reagan, about a half a million dollars, a little more, a little
less, about a half a million dollars.
By the way, President Carter, who I have great respect for as a
former President, a tremendous former President, I think, he asked for
no increase whatsoever this year. President Bush, former President
Bush, he is moving up towards three-quarters of a million dollars, and,
of course, President Clinton is $1.1, a little over $1.1 million. Do we
really need, for instance, in Clinton's case, to spend $436,000 for
rent? Do we really need that? Now, he chose New York City. He could
have chosen Arkansas, where he is from; but he chose New York City. Do
we really need to spend half a million dollars on his rent? Do we need
to spend $174,000 for the rent of President Bush in Houston? Mr.
Chairman, I question these things. I think this symbolically does send
a message that we are trying to get a grip on spending up here. It does
not make a great impact on the total budget of the United States
Government, but it does send a message.
[[Page H5330]]
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman agree with me that the
items he has mentioned and, obviously, they go down the further the
President is a past President; does the gentleman agree with me that
the dollars he seeks to cut would not and could not be cut from those
items?
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, no, I do not.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 18 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. 18 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to enforce or implement discounts for the statistical
value of a human life estimated during regulatory reviews
through implementation of OMB Circular A-94 Guidelines and
Discount Rates for Benefit Cost Analysis of Federal Programs
or any guidance having the same substance.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
2002, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each
will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the Value of Human
Life Amendment. I believe that all human lives are equal. Our founders
said as much when the Declaration of Independence was drafted: ``All
men are created equal.'' Whether young or old, born last year or next
year, no one person is worth more money than the other intrinsically. I
think that nearly all of my colleagues in the House would agree with me
on this point. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget has
been acting in a way contrary to this deeply held principle of human
equality.
When the Office of Management and Budget goes through a regulatory
review, it expects that an agency has completed a cost-benefit
analysis. As part of the cost-benefit analysis, sometimes, human lives
are included.
For example, the arsenic rule that was accepted by the EPA last year
will result in a savings of many human lives that otherwise, if exposed
to a higher exposure to arsenic, would have been lost. For the cost-
benefit analysis for that rule, all of the lives that would have been
saved were added up in dollars at a rate of about $6.1 million per
person. In the cost-benefit analysis, EPA included the total figure, in
dollars, as part of the total benefits of lowering arsenic levels in
the drinking water.
Now, what if, instead of being worth all the same, many lives were
valued at a much lower level, say $1.1 million. This is exactly what an
outside group, the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
did in its study. It did not want to see arsenic levels in drinking
water lowered, so it employed the tactic of human discounting. Human
discounting is when a discount rate is applied over a time period to
reduce the dollar value of the human lives that are saved. So instead
of calculating the number of lives saved at the same value, human
discounting artificially reduces the dollar value of human lives. By
reducing the value, it makes the benefit appear smaller.
AEI-Brookings assumed that the cancers caused by arsenic would not
apply for 30 years, so it applied a discount rate over 30 years.
Applying these calculations, it estimated the value of a life at $1.1
million instead of the EPA's estimate of $6.1 million.
The impact of using discounting on the value of human life was
enormous.
Relying upon the AEI-Brookings study, the Washington Post ran a
series criticizing EPA, and the Administration held off on the rule for
8 months, accepting it only after enormous public outcry.
The use of human discounting is a tactic used to distort the benefits
of a policy. Instead of having a discussion of saving lives, it allows
opponents to reduces lives to dollars, and then reduce the dollar
value. Human discounting is literally, a discount on life. It places a
reduced value on a human life. Human discounting cheapens life. Human
discounting says, a person is not worth as much next year as he is
today, and the dollar value or his or her head is less next year than
it is today.
For tangible objects, like buildings or machines, the concept of
discounting makes sense. We employ depreciation rates all the time.
Capital things depreciate, and that can be reasonably measured. But is
it just to or even reasonable to employ depreciation rates for people?
Congress has never allowed it before.
Since 1992, when the OMB presented Circular A-94 that specifically
advised agencies to use a 7 percent discount rate, it has continued to
issue guidance and communications to agencies to apply this discount
rate to human lives. However, there is no statute that Congress has
passed that tells agencies to sue a discount on human lives. There is
no statute that even permits it. Yet OMB has advised agencies that
discounts should be applied to human lives when cost-benefit analyses
are completed.
Ending human discounting is the ethical thing to do by refusing to
put different dollar values on different people. If OMB advises
agencies to discriminate between different ages of people, what is to
stop it from putting different values on people based on income, race
or gender?
I urge OMB and other agencies to stop this practice and use the same
value for all human lives.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has
expired.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, before taking time or pressing a point of
order, I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing to withdraw his
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me just state that each Member was recognized for
2\1/2\ minutes, a total of 5 minutes debate under the unanimous consent
agreement on this amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, rather than my consuming the time and
pressing the point of order, I would inquire of the gentleman from Ohio
if he is willing to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
{time} 1215
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
2002, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking we make a 1 percent reduction in our
spending for the Treasury and Postal Services appropriations. With a
discretionary budget of roughly $18.5 million, a 1 percent reduction
with amount to $185 million, which is a lot of money to most of us but
not a lot compared to the overall budget. When dealing with these
billions and billions of dollars of spending, this is a figure that the
agencies can easily work around.
I am not criticizing, Mr. Chairman, the work of the committee. I know
the dynamics of getting a bill through the committee and getting it to
the floor, and I think they have done a good job on this bill. But the
last estimate for
[[Page H5331]]
this year's budget deficit would amount to roughly $150 billion
dollars.
In order to balance this budget, Mr. Chairman, I am asking that every
agency make a minor decrease in its rate of spending. I am not asking
for any agency to take a big cut. I am requesting that they reduce
their spending. If every agency complies with this request, we can
actually come close to offering a balanced budget this year. We would
the excuse that. We are at war and we are at a time of economic
downturn. And, by gosh, that is a good excuse. It is not only an
excuse, it is a reason. And if we want a reason to not balance the
budget this year, we have got reasons for not balancing the budget this
year. But I think we need to adopt the philosophy that if we do not
have it, we do not spend it. We tighten our belts and we figure a way
to maintain that balanced budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Despite my great sympathy for the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), I cannot support it. This particular bill,
were it subjected to across-the-board cuts, would find that we have
significant cuts and reduction in homeland security efforts which are
the major focus of the bill.
We have already identified in the subcommittee and the committee
several places where we have applied significant cuts, for example, the
Bureau of Public Debt, some $23 million. Bureaucracy within the Office
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in excess of $10 million. The First
Accounts Program with the Treasury Department, approximately $6 million
say from what we had last year and yet improve the program, I believe.
These are certain examples and there will be others.
We have what we have done, Mr. Chairman, in this bill is to try to
accomplish savings every place we can and plow those into the front
lines of homeland security. Border security, in particular with the
Customs Service, where we have significant increases in the air and
marine program, the investment and information technology, in the
research and developments to use better levels of technology to secure
our borders, the Container Security Initiative, trying to protect us
from having something brought in within the $8 billion daily of
commodities that come into the country as part of the international
trade. I do not think we could accomplish an across-the-board cut
without jeopardizing those.
I do agree with the gentleman about the need for significant cuts
overall in Federal spending. Unfortunately, because of the extreme
needs of homeland security and national defense and the as yet
unwillingness of people to make some sacrifices in some other places in
the government, I do not think it is a practical amendment at least
certainly not in this particular bill. I do want to work with the
gentleman and everyone else in this body to try to identify more
specific cuts that can be made in all of our bills, but I cannot
support this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. A
one percent across-the-board cut, small number.
First of all, let me say to the gentleman something he did not say,
the committee has already adopted the President's administrative cuts
of $50 million across the agencies with the exception of the law
enforcement agencies, with the exception of the law enforcement
agencies because as the gentleman has pointed out, we are confronting
terrorism here at home and around the world.
But let me speak to the larger question that the gentleman, I think,
probably does not know, and too many of our Members do not know this
fact, the public probably does not know this fact either.
In 1962, 40 years ago, this country spent 3.4 percent of its gross
domestic products on domestic discretionary spending. That is what this
is all about, spending on the Treasury Department, GSA building, the
President's salary, expenses that we are talking about, 3.4 percent.
The last year for which we have record, we are in 2002, for 2001, I
tell the gentleman, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about exploding
expenses, we spent 3.4 percent of GDP on domestic discretionary
spending.
Only one year I tell my friend, from 1981 through 1993, the
presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, only one of those years
did we spend as little as 3.4 percent of GDP. All the rest of the years
were either in the 3.5's or above or in the 4 percent of GDP.
So I tell my friend, the Committee on Appropriations, which all the
authorizers think is spending money willy nilly, is spending less money
today as a percentage of GDP than we did in the Reagan and Bush years.
So the belt has been tightened. That is important that the public
understand that.
I speak in strong opposition to this bill. It is so easy to come to
the floor and say do 1 percent across-the-boards, or 2 percent or 5
percent or 10 percent. That is easy. What is tough is to come to this
floor and say cut X or Y or Z because it is not as effective and
efficient.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is not here, so I
guess I will go ahead and close. I do not want to hold things up.
Both the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned the law enforcement portions of this
thing. I am not going into any accounts and picking out and saying cut
that except for the presidential thing that I did earlier. You have to
make choices. If law enforcement is the important thing now, we need to
put the emphasis on law enforcement.
I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) had very good figures
there about the percentage we were spending before and now, the point
is we have had a history of spending far, far too much money at the
Federal level over the years, and we continue this history. Now, we
have tightened our belts.
I have listened to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) but I have
to close this thing out. We have spent too much money traditionally. It
is the habit here and as I said in my statement, I am not criticizing
the committee for their work.
By golly, the gentlemen here do a good job on this committee. They do
the best they can. I understand too it is very tough to get a bill with
any cuts out of it out of committee because everybody has something
they are particularly interested in. Everybody has at least one thing
that is the most important thing in their life, and in committee those
dynamics work. On the floor, it may be those dynamics do not work as
well. It might be easier for us to pass something like this on the
floor than it is in committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's point. The
point I was going to make is when the gentleman says we spend too much
money, I agree with him. I am one of Democrats that voted on the
balanced budget amendment. I agree that we need to live within our
means. The point I want to make to my friends who are not on the
Committee on Appropriations, is this is an OMB figure I read, it is not
because we are spending more discretionary dollars. That is what we
focus on because those are the bills on the floor.
In the tax bills, it is not entitlement bills, et cetera, et cetera,
where we are spending the real money and when we look at those figures,
that is where the additional expenditures are occurring that the
gentleman is concerned about, not in the appropriations process.
I know it is difficult for Members who only get a chance to make
their point only when we come to the appropriations process. So it is
frustrating to say this is not the problem, but this is not the
problem.
Mr. HEFLEY. Reclaiming my time, I will say to the gentleman, we have
to try to save the money wherever we can save it, and there is where we
have a chance to save it.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by
[[Page H5332]]
my friend and colleague from Colorado, Mr. Hefley. Our simple amendment
is a sensible response to the more than $109 billion deficit we will
run next year. Reducing spending by one percent in the bill, we lower
that number by $185 million and speed the return of balanced budgets.
This amendment does not defund critical programs, but rather
encourages federal bureaucrats to become more efficient. Asking federal
agencies to get by with 99 cents on the dollar is fair when the
American people will be stuck with more than $100 billion of debt to
burden their children. Every family cuts back on expenditure when their
budget is cut. If federal bureaucrats cannot do the same then they do
not deserve the tax dollars of those families.
This bill, as written, is $537 million over the President's request
and more than 8 percent higher than last year. Passing the Hefley/Otter
Amendment will still leave this bill more than 6.9 percent larger than
last years bill and $352 million above the President's request. I
appreciate the efforts of Chairman Istook and the entire Appropriations
Committee in crafting this bill. They have worked diligently and
responsibly under difficult circumstances. I urge them to join with me
in supporting this Amendment.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to prevent the rehabilitation of urban and rural post
offices.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
2002, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) will be recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed to the amendment will be
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, so many of us come to this
floor with frustrations that we would hope that our colleagues would
join us in fixing.
This amendment deals with the urban and rural post offices so many of
us have in our respective districts that go unattended, with
dilapidated leaking roofs, and not lighted. This amendment in
particular deals with that concept of not preventing resources to be
used for fixing those post offices that so many of us use.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to enter into a colloquy on
this issue with the distinguished ranking member and the distinguished
chairman of this committee. They brought forth an excellent bill, but I
have a problem and so many of us have a problem. Mine in particular
deals with the Jensen Drive Postal Station in my district where, so
many times, I have been promised that it would be repaired for the
seniors who use it. First go to Washington, then go back to Houston.
I am concerned that the U.S. Postal Service is not doing enough to
improve this facility to serve its customers better. Right now it has
only 8 available parking slots of which one is for disabled parking and
only 2 are for senior citizens. This is an area dominated by senior
citizen residents. This causes traffic jams and creates an unsafe
environment.
As this bill moves forward, I would ask the chairman and ranking
member, who work so good together, to consider the inclusion of report
language that would encourage the Postal Service to work with local
officials and community leaders so the need of its facility and its
customers are addressed, particularly our elderly and disabled.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with
the gentlewoman, and I would be pleased to work with her to address
this issue with report language as we go to conference on this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for yielding and for his commitment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue. She has
talked to me and I know she has talked to the chairman. She has been
working tirelessly on this issue and has great concern about it. I
would be happy to work with her and the Postal Service to address the
facilities need of the Jensen Drive Postal Station in Houston.
As the gentlewoman knows, the committee is very concerned with the
financial system the Postal Service is in. As the Postal Service
continues to address their fiscal deficits, they should not lose sight
of the local communities that they serve. That is the gentlewoman's
point. She is absolutely right on that point. Her concerns for those
with disabilities and the elderly in accessing the Postal Service is
absolutely essential.
To that end, I think the gentlewoman will be successful in her
efforts working with us.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide any grant, loan, loan guarantee, contract,
or other assistance to any entity (including a State or
locality, but excluding any Federal entity) identified
specifically by name as the recipient in a report of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
or the Senate, or in a joint explanatory statement of the
committee of conference, accompanying this Act unless the
entity is also identified specifically by name as the
recipient in this Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
2002, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will be recognized for
2\1/2\ minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
{time} 1230
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We just had a discussion about our ability to rein in spending by the
Federal Government. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is exactly
right. We ought to save money where we can. We all know that
entitlements are running out of control. There are other things that
spend money, but we do have control over appropriation bills and
discretionary spending that comes to this floor. The problem is we have
far too little control. Those of us who do not serve on the Committee
on Appropriations are forced to look at only the bill language when we
amend on the floor. All we have is the bill. We can only amend what is
in the bill. The problem is the bill here in this case for this bill
that we are looking at is 103 pages. The committee report, on the other
hand, is 135 pages. The bill contains what are called hard marks or
directions for spending money. The committee report contains soft
marks. We do not have any control. We cannot get at the soft marks here
on the floor. Ordinary Members of Congress cannot go
[[Page H5333]]
in and cut out pork barrel spending because most of the pork barrel
spending happens and is directed within the conference report.
When I brought this amendment on the last appropriation bill we did,
I was ruled out of order because we cannot legislate on appropriation
bills. My amendment would assume that those who spend the money in
Federal agencies actually read our bills. Apparently we do not assume
that. They are not directed to. But we know they do because in every
case when they spend money they spend the soft marks. If they do not,
they are punished the next year by the Committee on Appropriations.
All my amendment says is that unless it is appropriated in a bill,
not in a report, in a bill that Members have the ability to amend, then
Federal agencies cannot spend it. That is not unreasonable. It is not
saying that we not have earmarks. The House, the Congress, has a
prerogative to earmark. It simply is saying do it in a bill where we
have sunlight, where everybody can see it, we are where we have an open
process, not hidden away in some committee language or conference
language or a report that nobody can get at. So I think that is a
reasonable request. However, I realize that I will be ruled out of
order again. I will commit to work on the language to make sure that we
can get around the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Internal Revenue Service for any activity that is
in contravention of Internal Revenue Service Notice 96-8
issued on January 18, 1996, section 411(b)(1)(H)(i) or
section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
section 204(b)(1)(G) or 204(b)(1)(H)(i) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or section 4(i)(1)(A)
of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey),
and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). This amendment
has the strong support of the AARP, the largest senior citizen group in
America, and the 13 million members of the AFL-CIO. It has the support
of the Pension Rights Center and many other groups.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about corporate accountability. Today
corporation after corporation has been caught misleading their
investors. Many of these same companies are doing exactly the same
thing with respect to employees' pensions. Mr. Chairman, enough is
enough.
This amendment addresses two issues. First it tells companies they
must stop discriminating against workers based on age by shifting to
the so-called cash balance scheme. Secondly, it tells companies that
they must not cheat their employees out of their hard-earned pension
benefits. Specifically this amendment would prohibit the Internal
Revenue Service from using any funds for activities that violate
current pension age discrimination laws, laws that have been on the
books since 1986. A similar amendment was passed by voice vote during
the consideration of the Fiscal Year 2001 Treasury Postal
Appropriations bill but was stripped from the conference report.
Mr. Chairman, age discrimination in general and age discrimination
with regard to pensions is unacceptable and must not be allowed to
happen. Unfortunately, hundreds of profitable companies across the
country, including IBM, AT&T, CBS, and Bell Atlantic, have converted
their traditional defined benefit pension plans to the controversial
cash balance approach. Cash balance schemes typically reduce the future
pension benefits of older workers by as much as 50 percent. Not only is
this immoral, it is also illegal because reductions in benefits are
directly tied to an employee's age which is in violation of Federal age
discrimination law.
What makes these conversions even more indefensible is the fact that
many of the companies that make these conversions have pension fund
surpluses in the billions of dollars. It is simply unacceptable that
during the time of large corporate profits, pension fund surpluses,
massive compensation for CEOs including, by the way, very generous
retirement benefits, that corporate America reneges on the commitments
they have made to workers by slashing their benefits and their
pensions.
Mr. Chairman, Congress must stand with older workers and insist that
anti-age discrimination statutes are enforced.
Mr. Chairman, let me quote from the letter from the AARP written to
me. ``AARP believes that cash balance plans violate current law
prohibitions on age discrimination. We commend you,'' me, ``for
offering this timely and important amendment. AARP hopes that this
amendment will send a strong message that we value older workers and
that we reaffirm that older workers should not be subject to age
discrimination in their pension plans.'' End of quote from the letter
that AARP wrote to me.
In addition, the Pension Rights Center writes in a letter to me, and
I quote, ``The Center has long been concerned that cash balance
conversions have deprived older workers of their hard-earned expected
pension benefits. The Center has joined labor and retiree organizations
in taking the position that cash balance conversions should be stopped
because they violate age discrimination laws and deprive older
employees of expected future benefits that they counted on earning in
their traditional defined benefit plans. As a public policy matter,
cash balance conversions rank high among abusive practices that
corporations have instituted to surreptitiously cut employees'
benefits. It is noteworthy that before the current calamities that
befell Enron and WorldCom, both companies had converted their secure
defined benefit plan to cash balance plans for the purpose of reducing
their older employees' benefits and increasing the corporate balance
sheet. Both companies then purported to ``improve'' the 401(k) plan
only to lure employees into investing into employer stock that soon
became worthless.'' Letter from the Pension Rights Center.
Mr. Chairman, through my involvement with the IBM cash balance
conversion, I have heard from hundreds of workers throughout the
country who have expressed their anger, their disappointment, and
feelings of betrayal by cash balance conversions. These are employees
who had often stuck with their company when times were tough, these
were employees who had often stayed at their jobs precisely because of
the pension program that the company offered, and these are the same
employees who woke up one day to discover that all of the promises that
their companies made to them were not worth the paper they were written
on.
Mr. Chairman, this is not acceptable. We must provide protections for
these workers who have been screaming out to Congress for help. We must
pass this amendment. Large multinational corporations with defined
benefit pension plans receive $100 billion a year in tax breaks alone,
according to the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Chairman, the IRS
should not be giving tax breaks to companies that willfully violate the
pension age discrimination statutes. To do so not only violates public
law and policy, it also provides taxpayer subsidies for illegal pension
conversions.
Mr. Chairman, there should be no tax breaks for companies that
discriminate on the basis of age.
This amendment also has another very important component designed to
[[Page H5334]]
protect the pension benefits of American workers. This amendment would
also prohibit any funding to the IRS to dilute the requirements of
current law as articulated by IRS Notice 96-8. This notice simply tells
companies what interest rate to use when calculating their employees'
pension benefits. This notice has been upheld by two U.S. Court of
Appeals and is vitally important to protecting American workers who
have seen their pensions slashed as a result of cash balance
conversions.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the
time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Employer/Employee Relations which has jurisdiction over ERISA, and a
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce with
jurisdiction over age discrimination issues. I am also a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means which also has jurisdiction on pension
issues.
Despite some assertion made recently by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) as ranking member of the Subcommittee on International
Monetary Policy and Trade, he has no jurisdiction over any pension
issues.
Congress should be in the business of encouraging, not discouraging,
employer-sponsored pension plans. Currently less than half of the
Americans who work in the private sector are covered by a retirement
plan. The reason for this anemic number is that we have so
overregulated these plans that many employers simply decide not to
offer this important employee benefit.
The decline in the defined benefit pension plans has been
particularly shocking. Earlier this year the Committee on Ways and
Means held a hearing on defined benefit pension plans and we heard
testimony on the decline of these plans that provide retirees
guaranteed income for life. The number of defined benefit pension plans
peaked in 1985 at 114,000 plans. In 2001 the number of these plans had
fallen to 35,000, a staggering decline of almost 70 percent. The reason
for this drop is that these plans were wrapped in so much red tape that
employers chose to stop offering this benefit to their employees.
One type of defined benefit pension plan that provides some glimmer
of hope that we will not see these plans become extinct is cash balance
pension plans. The accrued benefits in these plans are guaranteed not
to be reduced, a deal that many of us wish we could find for our
shrinking 401(k) and TSP balances. I think that it is important that we
maintain the employer's ability to do these things. The employer makes
contributions and the employer bears the risk of market reductions, not
the employee.
Finally, the United States Government insures cash balance plans
through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation in the event that the
employer goes bankrupt. These traits are enough of an incentive to
businesses that some have begun to offer cash balance defined benefit
plans. However, the Sanders amendment would put an end to businesses
implementing new cash balance plans. The amendment would prohibit any
new guidance being issued by Treasury or the IRS regarding cash balance
plans. The sponsors of this amendment claim that it is meant only to
prevent the IRS from changing its position on a notice and to prevent
them from violating age discrimination law. In reality the amendment
attempts to establish new pension rules and is fully within the
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and
the House Committee on Ways and Means. The Department of Treasury is
now in the process of issuing new cash balance regulations, some of
which we mandated in a bill last year that passed with overwhelming
support. Yet this amendment would undercut those regulations. This is
not a shoot-from-the-hip type of an issue. It needs to go through a
committee of jurisdiction and I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining, please?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders ) has 8 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Vermont for yielding me this time, and I thank him for bringing
this amendment.
This amendment just addresses a very fundamental question: When will
the corporations of America stop raiding the pensions of their workers?
If one listens to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the
suggestion is that corporations will only go to a defined benefit plan
or they will only go to a cash balance plan if they think they can
continue to raid the cash balance of the pension plan. What they
promise their workers they will give them is different than what they
will give them. And how do they do that? Because they are down working
with the Department of Labor, with the Department of Treasury trying to
concoct a means by which they can have unrealistic assumptions about
the rates of return and then use that to gyp the workers out of their
money.
{time} 1245
This is not just the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who says
this; this is not just me who says this. This is what the Inspector
General found as they have audited these plans. We find out that the
workers are underpaid.
Now, we have been through Enron, we have been through Dynergy, we
have been through Merck, and we have been through one scandal after
another. What is interesting is that these are many of the same
companies that not only killed their workers' 401(k) plans, but now
they are also in the process of looting the cash balance plans.
So the question is: Is this Congress going to put a stop to it? Is it
going to tell the Treasury Department that they should be able to do as
they have been doing and making realistic assumptions about rates of
return on these plans, or are they going to engage in some kind of
fiction and cooking of the books with the very corporations that have
destroyed families across this country?
This is a moment of truth for the Congress. Because the Treasury and
the IRS have been doing it one way, it has been upheld in court, it is
determined to be fair to the workers, it is determined to return to
them the value of the cash out of their pension plan; and now, in come
the companies. In come the companies, who have destroyed the stock
market, who have destroyed confidence in the American investment
system, who have destroyed these people's lives, and now they want us
to become their partner in depriving people of tens of millions of
dollars that they are owed, that they worked for, and that they were
promised.
Now maybe promising somebody something and keeping the promise was
old-fashioned in the 1990s, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it is
coming back into vogue; that it is going to be a basic value. These
companies promised these workers this pension for the work that they
did; and when they changed plans, they promised them that they would
have a balance; that it was the equivalent of the cash balance of that.
Now they want to cook the books.
The question for this Congress is: Are we going to be part of that?
The Sanders amendment gives us an opportunity to say no; to say no to
age discrimination and to say no to having this Congress and the
Treasury Department and the Labor Department be partners in cooking the
books. We must pass the Sanders amendment.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The complexity of cash balance plans has been the subject of study of
both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and there is no Federal
agency in any administration that found that cash
[[Page H5335]]
balance plans discriminate on the basis of age.
By its own admission, the Internal Revenue Service is trying to
clarify some of the ambiguities under its own notice 96-8. The passage
of this amendment, in our view, would prevent the IRS from modifying
96-8, a circumstance which could cause significant harm to many
workers.
So I would say that this amendment simply bars the administration,
which started under Clinton and now continues under Bush, from trying
to fix some of the problems that occur with our pension system.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Sanders amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with some of the things the gentleman from
Texas just said, and, that is, that the IRS has been studying this
thing for about 5 years, 5 years, and during that time millions of
Americans have seen their pensions change and the amount of money they
expected to receive dramatically changed while the IRS has studied
this.
This amendment is pretty straightforward. It just says it is time for
the IRS to get off the dime and come to a clear conclusion, the
conclusion that I think anyone who studies this issue objectively for
more than 10 minutes will come to, and, that is, for older workers,
when they convert from a defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan,
the older workers lose. That is a fact.
Now, I am not on any of the committees of jurisdiction. I am not on
the Committee on Ways and Means; but I did serve on the pension
commission back in the State legislature, and I do come from a part of
the country where a deal is a deal and a bargain is a bargain. And what
happened many years ago, the Congress made a bargain with large
employers. We called it ERISA. And the bargain was this: if you take
good care of your workers, we will protect you from legislation in the
50 States. You will only have to deal with one set of regulations.
Now, my colleagues, we never broke that bargain; but major
corporations have. They have changed the bargain on pensions. And when
they make these conversions, the truth of the matter is a lot of that
money is freed up and can be transferred to other parts of that
company's budget. Now, you may not want to call it raiding the pension
funds, but that has been the net practical effect, and millions of
workers have lost.
This is a straightforward amendment. It makes sense. It sends a clear
signal to the IRS that it is time to get off the dime and make it clear
that when they make these conversions, older workers lose. That is
wrong, and it is time for Congress to do something about it.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I thank the gentleman from Vermont.
I happen to feel, and I have been around this pension business a long
time, that the Sanders amendment is going to unfairly tie the hands of
the Treasury Department. Now, that is not important to some people, but
it is to the general public.
When it comes to writing new rules and issuing determination letters
for defined benefit pension plans, the history is this: the Treasury
and IRS issued a proposed ruling in 1996, and of course this is now in
need of updating and improvement. The Sanders amendment, and I can
understand where the gentleman from Vermont is coming from, but it
really, I think, could have damaging effects if adopted.
The cash balance pension conversions have already been thoroughly
addressed by this body right on this floor. A number of hearings in the
105th and 106th Congresses were held by the relevant committees of
jurisdiction; and Congress included in the 2001 tax law a provision
expanding the disclosure, the disclosure obligations of employers when
they convert to a cash balance defined benefit plan. Congress concluded
at that time that enhanced disclosure was the proper response to the
issue surrounding cash balance conversions, not stopping action by the
IRS to revise guidance on the proposed rules.
The Federal agencies, such as the IRS and the Treasury, responsible
for jurisdiction over the pension age issues, are currently engaged in
a thorough review of these age discrimination questions. The
Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, which I
am a member of, held a hearing last month on defined benefit plans; and
we would have the jurisdiction over any changes to the existing law.
Unfortunately, this amendment that we are looking at today cuts into
the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and
also the work which it is trying to do.
So, Mr. Chairman, I really feel that this is an unfortunate amendment
at this particular time, and I would hope people would oppose it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about the time for both
sides, please?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 3 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, beginning in 1995, this Congress began a
process of reducing regulations and freeing up the activities of
corporations across America. They also, during the beginning of that
period of time, weakened the IRS. The result of that is the kind of
corporate scandals, the kind of corporate crime wave we see sweeping
across the country today.
One of the less noticed aspects of that corporate crime wave includes
the way in which corporations have been robbing the pension systems of
American workers. They have been doing that by shifting from a so-
called defined benefit program, where the benefits are clear and well
stated, to a cash balance program, which enables them to manipulate the
pension program and, in fact, provide lesser benefits to the employees,
to the workers, over periods of time as they retire.
That has got to stop. The only way it can be stopped is by requiring
the IRS, which has been weakened by the leadership of this House, to
step forward and enforce the laws as they were intended to be enforced.
That is what this amendment would do. It would require the IRS to
enforce the laws, and it would stop the pension abuse that is going on
by corporations across this country that are costing American workers
and their families hundreds of millions of dollars.
We have the obligation and the responsibility to stop it. The only
way we can stop it is by passing this amendment. Therefore, I hope and
trust that the majority of the people in this House will step forward
and recognize their responsibilities and pass this amendment.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and let me rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and others that really would
be a back-door attempt at making substantive changes to our pension
law.
The fact is that this issue has been debated in the Portman-Cardin
bills from 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. We also dealt with it in the
Pension Reform Act we had on the floor of this House this past spring.
In every case, the Congress has decided not to discourage the
conversion to cash balance plans.
Now, cash balance plans are a hybrid between traditional defined
benefit plans and defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans.
Companies that have traditional defined benefit plans were under
pressure, under pressure from younger workers, who felt that they were
not getting the benefit of their pension benefits until they had stayed
[[Page H5336]]
there for 20 or 30 years. These conversions to cash balance plans,
these hybrids, are in the best interest of all employees of these
companies.
Now, we should all know that there have been over 500 conversions
from defined benefit plans to cash balance plans. In almost every
single case, companies made all employees whole. Now, there is a case,
and maybe a case and a half, where companies early on did not do this.
And the gentleman who is the sponsor of the amendment, and his
colleagues who are sponsoring amendments, all happen to represent
various facilities of the one company who did not do a very good job in
their conversion.
We do not want to make this huge change in pension laws on an
appropriation bill. It is not the right venue. The gentleman, I am
sure, is well aware of that. On top of that, the policy that is being
proposed here is not the right policy for the interest of American
workers.
Younger workers want to be able to see what kind of pension benefits
they have accumulated. Cash balance plans are a way for traditional
companies with defined benefit plans to in fact do that.
I think this is unwise. We should not go down this path today, and I
would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker made an indication that many
companies have switched over or converted to cash balance plans and
employees have been made whole. That simply is not the fact. It is not
what is happening. A large number of older Americans, people 40 years
and older, have in fact lost up to 50 percent of the value of their
plans.
This is not some substantive change in the law that is being asked
for here. The gentleman from Vermont, much to his credit, has come
forward and said we will just make sure that the IRS is not adding
insult to injury, and that in fact, when people stand that risk of
having their pension that they worked long and hard to secure taken
away from them by a conversion, the IRS will not allow any monies to go
to doing that. They will in fact have to enforce the law.
{time} 1300
The law says we cannot discriminate in such situations. The Inspector
General at the Department of Labor has found out that discrimination is
going on when you shift to a cash balance plan. Over 20 percent of the
60 plans that were audited resulted in those employees not getting what
they were entitled to. If we extrapolate that number out, we find out
the damage is $185 million to $190 million annually.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the
sponsors of this amendment for their tireless efforts, in particular on
behalf of employees in their particular districts affected by a poorly
executed conversion and their efforts thereafter to make sure that the
concern realized in that particular instance is not realized again.
I also congratulate them for advancing this amendment because I
believe it calls attention to a very important issue of pension
conversion and our great concern that people be treated fairly and
there not be age discrimination as their conversions move forward.
Having said that, I respectfully disagree with this amendment on this
appropriations bill. This is a very substantive alteration of ERISA
law. It is technical, it is complex, and there could be unintended
consequences. The consequence I am most worried about is, rather than
the conversion from defined benefit to cash balance, we are going to
have something even more dramatic and disadvantageous to the employee,
movement to defined contribution plans or gradual elimination of the
pension benefit altogether.
We operate in an environment where employers are not mandated to
provide these benefits, and 50 percent of the people in the workforce
today have no at-work savings. Therefore, as we try to address these
concerns, if we smack employers with perceived additional costs, we
absolutely stop the efforts to get additional employers to offer
retirement savings plans, and I believe we accelerate the conversion
from defined benefit to defined contribution plans.
Reasonable minds may differ on this, and I do not question for one
instance the absolute sincerity in the purpose behind this amendment. I
just think strategically that this is not the way to go at this time. I
think the fact that the amendment has been offered and is debated sends
a very clear signal to the Department of Treasury that this is not the
time for them to be altering that rule.
I think on the other hand their administrative processes should move
forward, the committees of jurisdiction should carefully watch over
those processes, and particularly interested Members of Congress should
also watch this process; and if we, indeed, see the rule being altered
in a way that has a discriminatory effect on elderly workers, we ought
to act at that time.
But to react now changing ERISA by an amendment on an appropriations
bill without a hearing, without careful deliberation about the full
range of what the consequences might be, this is reckless stuff on very
important business. There is not a worker in the workplace today with a
retirement savings plan that is not darn scared about what is happening
in the stock market and their security of income and retirement. We
should not compound the confusion, the anxiety, or raise other
questions by passing this amendment at this time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the American people are outraged at the degree to which
corporate America has ripped off investors and workers, and millions of
American employees are equally outraged at the degree to which
corporate America has ripped off their pension plans.
Let us pass this amendment. Let us join with the AARP, let us join
with the AFL-CIO, let us join with the Pension Center and say ``yes''
to American workers that they deserve what they have been promised.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, both the Department of Labor and the Treasury
Department are trying to examine the regulations and their effect on
cash balance plans.
The recent DOL Inspector General's report indicates there is
confusion on the part of employers as to the rules to be applied to
distributions from cash balance plans. The two Departments need time to
develop rules that are both understandable to employers and not harmful
to workers' benefits under these plans.
Congress must not impede the normal regulatory process of the
agencies by removing the flexibility they presently enjoy to craft
rules in the pension area. The Congress should be trying to encourage
the growth of employer-sponsored pension plans; and passage of the
Sanders amendment will have a chilling effect on cash balance plans.
The Federal Government should promote policies that will encourage
employers, particularly small businesses, to sponsor pension plans. As
the baby boomers age, we need increased pension plan coverage. Passage
of this amendment will impede that growth. I recommend a vote against
this amendment.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H5337]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
Insert at the end before the short title the following:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act under
the heading ``Special Forfeiture Fund (Including transfer of
funds)'' to support a national media campaign shall be used
to pay any amount pursuant to contract number N00600-02-C-
0123.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
2002, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It is just as
important for what it does not do as for what it does. This amendment,
goes to an issue regarding funding for the antidrug media campaign,
which is a very important part of our government's overall antidrug
message, and whether or not that program shall continue to be
administered by outside companies benefiting greatly, to the tune of
hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, should be limited
to companies with a good, honorable, upstanding, noncorruptable track
record in dealing with the government.
There is one company in particular which has benefited greatly from
taxpayer dollars in putting together the ads and buying the ad time for
the media antidrug campaign, and that is Ogilvy & Mather Corporation.
This company has already entered into a civil settlement with the
government well in excess of $1 million, almost $2 million, for fraud
in connection with overbilling and other fraudulent contracting
practices. The company is reportedly still under investigation by the
Department of Justice, that is the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York.
Insofar as there is a contract which has just been let which would go
through the year 2003 or through fiscal year 2003 for many hundreds of
millions of dollars, we think it is prudent right now here in the
House, and the Senate is doing likewise, to say to the American people
through this amendment on the House side that none of the funds made
available under this act may be used right now for the continuation of
this particular contract because of the very serious questions which
have been raised about this company.
I would like to make very clear that this amendment, if adopted, and
I do believe the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is prepared to
accept this amendment, and I hope the other side will, too, this
amendment will not and is not intended to stop in any way, shape, or
form or slow down the antidrug media campaign. It is designed to
strengthen it by ensuring that we have corporations involved in the
delivery of that message and the buying of the time to get that message
out that are reputable and do not themselves raise serious questions
about the integrity of the program.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we are both very supportive of the media
campaign, and we wish for it to continue; but what I want to make sure
that we clarify through the colloquy is that despite what may be the
concerns that some may have with the language, the intent of this
amendment is not to shut down the media campaign.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that
question. Like the gentleman, I support the antidrug media campaign. It
delivers a powerful message to youth and families across the country
about the dangers of illicit drugs. It is an important weapon aimed at
reducing drug abuse.
I am not seeking to prevent that message from being delivered loud
and clear. The message I also want to send loud and clear through this
amendment is that this media campaign is too important to allow a
company that has already admitted to defrauding the government and
reportedly remains under criminal investigation to receive more
taxpayer dollars at this time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
understand the intent of the amendment is to allow further competition
to make sure that other capable media firms are able to compete for the
public funds to buy time for this important antidrug campaign on
different media outlets.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, yes. Again, I seek to restore
integrity to the media campaign to ensure its ongoing success, not to
end it. It is time to draw a line in the sand and take a stand. It is
shameful for the government to reward any company that has admitted to
fraud and reportedly is subject to part of a criminal investigation for
its action.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
do understand and I sympathize with the concerns of the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr). I want to make sure that the gentleman understands
that the purpose of this is to ensure that this program continues in a
proper fashion, that the ad campaign is not disrupted, and that only
those who properly should be handling it are involved in contracts for
this matter.
I ask the gentleman, will he be willing to work with us during
conference to modify the language as I expect will probably be
necessary to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from this
amendment, and that there is no disruption of this very important
national antidrug campaign?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the gentleman
that is my intent. My intent is that we continue the campaign and spend
taxpayer dollars appropriately. Should we find another approach to
reach that goal, I would be happy to join with the chairman and others
in refining the language appropriately.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the sponsor say
that he wanted to see the program continue. One of the things I was
interested in is that there have been defense contractors, like
Halliburton, which have done things that were illegal; and I was just
wondering whether the gentleman will take the same stand with regard to
defense contractors who might have violated the law?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Maryland
looks at my record both as a United States Attorney and as a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Government Reform, and
the Committee on Financial Services, he will see that I am very
consistent in going after corruption, regardless of party, regardless
of company.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the Barr amendment,
and to thank the chairman for agreeing to work with the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr) and others as we go to conference to make sure that
we do not stop this worthy program. Drugs in America is a cancer. We
must do all we can to support our children.
{time} 1315
At the same time, we must make sure that our Federal dollars that
have been appropriated are spent wisely.
This company in question has padded their books, has been found
guilty of $1.8 million overcharging the Federal Government. It is
important that we monitor all of these contracts and that the moneys
being used for advertising go to those communities where the most need
is.
It is important that the gentleman from Georgia has introduced this
amendment. I look forward to working with him and the chairman and our
ranking member and just to reiterate how important it is that as we
spend these advertising dollars, we select those companies who have the
same mission that we have, which is to make sure the advertising gets
out correctly, that they do not pad their bills and mischarge the
Federal Government and come back for further business.
I stand in support of the gentleman's amendment barring payment of
contracts to support a national media campaign to any
[[Page H5338]]
company that has entered into a settlement to pay claims against it by
the Federal Government.
As far back as March of 1999, I began investigating the policies and
procedures of awarding Federal advertising contracts. My investigation
began with the advertising agency that had the ONDCP contract prior to
the current agency that has settled with the government to pay 1.8
million dollars for padding vouchers.
The amendment is necessary not only to prohibit funds to the current
agency (Ogilvy & Mather) who padded their invoices and overcharged the
government, but also because there are several large Federal Government
advertising contracts where the same allegations are being made.
The Army has an approximately $150 million annual advertising
campaign to recruit and retain enlistees. The Center for Disease
Control (CDC) has launched an annual $125 million advertising campaign
to combat obesity to target kids.
Once awarded most government advertising contracts can be renewed for
up to four additional years. Mr. Speaker, we must put a stop to the
practice of blindly awarding government advertising contracts.
In this era of corporate irresponsibility we must make corporations
more accountable for their actions. We cannot allow taxpayer dollars to
go to corporations that shortchange the American People.
I urge a yes vote on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Kilpatrick) for her contribution to the debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise as chairman of the authorizing
subcommittee for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the
media campaign to raise a couple of points about this important matter.
I believe the most important thing we need to do is protect the media
campaign, and there is a big dispute about the best way to do that. I
was hoping this could be worked out in conference and I am comforted by
some of the words here in the debate, but I am reluctantly going to
oppose the amendment.
I believe the media campaign is one of our only national programs
that we have to try to reduce demand for illegal drugs, and I
appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Georgia as well as other
members of our subcommittee to try to hold accountability and
effectiveness in the media campaign, and we agree on that fundamental
point. I am very disturbed about some of the process of the bidding. I
am disturbed about the violations of the law that Ogilvy has committed.
I am concerned about the processes of how the creativity is done. But
I also do not want the media campaign to go dark which the
administration has maintained could happen depending on how this goes.
I am concerned that if the Senate language and the House language are
too similar, this could be conferenced and not give us the flexibility.
We have a hearing scheduled for Friday to look and see whether this
would cause the media campaign to go dark. We need tougher answers from
the administration to make sure that they are not being biased in the
bidding process as opposed to real concerns that the media campaign can
go dark. I believe this needs a more careful approach. Generally
speaking, I totally agree with the gentleman from Georgia's point. When
somebody has violated the confidence of the taxpayers, they should not
be rebid unless there is compelling evidence, but in the Committee on
Government Reform, we have seen other agencies where, for example, in
long-term care, we have had to continue with some organizations, at
least for a period of time, to make sure that the people are serviced
as opposed to using an arbitrary one-size-fits-all standard.
I agree with the goals of this amendment. I believe that we need to
carefully review the process. I would hope that whatever happens with
this amendment, that the conference committee will continue to look
through and make sure that the media campaign can stay up and on the
air. We have a very effective antiterrorism message right now, but at
this point, I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The opposition by the distinguished chairman is completely
mystifying. There is plenty of money in the pipeline, I would remind
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. This amendment that we
are looking at now, I would remind respectfully the chairman of the
subcommittee, does not kick in even if it is adopted until the next
fiscal year. There is absolutely nothing in this amendment, and I wish
to again assure the chairman of the subcommittee as I assured in the
colloquy with the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, it is
not our intent to cause any part of the antidrug program to go dark. It
will not go dark. I do not know how much clearer we can make that. That
is not our intent. This will not do it. This has to do with the next
fiscal year. There is already money fully in the pipeline for whatever
company the government contracts with, including Ogilvy & Mather, to
continue their work. This simply gets a marker into the conference and
that is what I wish to assure the chairman of the subcommittee and ask
for his support on that basis.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, does the drug czar of the administration
agree that the campaign will not go dark?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. It does not matter whether they agree or not.
There is nothing in this amendment, absolutely nothing, I assure the
chairman, that will cause it to. And if, in fact, there is any problem
that makes it apparent that this specific approach would cause a
problem, as I stated in the colloquy and I state to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana, we will be glad to work, and I am sure that the
other members of the conference committee would be glad to work to
assure that that does not happen.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as someone who, with the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman) and others has worked on this important program, I am
glad to hear the assurances that this program will continue. We have to
be careful about the integrity of the contracting process. I hope all
of us agree on that. As we implement our care with the integrity of the
process, we also have to be sure that this important program is not
shut down. It has had some successes and it has had some lack of
successes, but overall, it is critical that the media effort, the
outreach on drugs, that this effort continue.
So we will take the assurances of the sponsor of the amendment and it
will go over to the Senate and then into conference, and I assume that
those assurances will be implemented in the final language. It is the
next fiscal year, but if there has to be recontracting, there could be
a hiatus if we are not careful and we have to make sure there is no
hiatus in this effort to make sure that the message about the danger of
drugs is carried throughout this country effectively.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
I just want to reiterate what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin)
just said. I think that it is very important that at a time when so
many of our young people are becoming addicted to drugs, and certainly
I, along with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) of our drug
subcommittee, have traveled with our subcommittee all over this
country, and we realize that drugs have no boundaries, that we keep the
campaign intact. The campaign is not perfect. There are some things
that we need to do to make it more effective, but we really do not want
it to go dark. I understand the gentleman's concerns, but I want to
make sure that we give every parent every tool that they can possibly
have to help lift their children up so that they can be all that God
meant for them to be.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by Mr. Barr.
[[Page H5339]]
Mr. Barr's amendment would prohibit ONDCP from honoring a contract
with advertising firm Ogilvy & Mather, under which Ogilvy would
continue to provide advertising and advertising-related services that
are central to the operation of ONDCP's Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
If this provision is enacted, it will shut down the media campaign
for at least the next year, and it will only make more difficult the
task of reauthorizing and retooling this important program. Mr. Barr
states that this is not his objective, but it will be the effect. So
while the ostensible target is Ogilvy, the real victims of the Barr
amendment will be American families who might benefit from the
campaign's anti-drug messaging.
If this amendment passes, Mr. Chairman, it will effectively shut down
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign--at least for the next
year. If this amendment passes, the Media Campaign will go dark in most
media markets by January 2003 and totally dark by March 2003. In fact,
the consequences are even more far-reaching: (1) there would be no
activity for nearly 75 percent of the program; (2) the Advertising
Council would lose nearly 50 percent in pro bono match; and (3) the
Partnership for a Drug Free America and ONDCP would lose an additional
match of $23 million. These are irreversible consequences.
Additionally, the Campaign would be required to eliminate all local
market and state-by-state media activity (local newspapers, local
radio, local out-of-home media and local television media buys).
As Ranking Minority Member of the Government Reform Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice and Drug Policy, I believe that the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign is an important part of our national drug
control strategy. Anti-drug messaging has worked in the past to reduce
drug use among children and teens, and in many places across the
country it appears to be working now.
Recent evaluations of the media campaign have not shown us the
overall results we'd like to see in terms of reducing marijuana-usage
among youth. But the same evaluations do show that anti-drug ads are
being seen and remembered by parents and youth, and that ads targeting
parents have been effective in getting parents to engage their children
on the issue of drugs. Mr. Chairman, as a parent, one of the anti-drugs
ads that I remember so vividly states this level of effectiveness most
accurately--it reads and I paraphrase: Parents are the anti-drug. In my
own 7th Congressional district in MD, there are 60,000 addicts in the
City of Baltimore alone. Most of whom started using drugs in their
early teens. I firmly believe that if their parents had talked to them
about drugs and drugs use--there would be a lot fewer than 60,000
addicts. I think many of my colleagues would agree with this
conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, the Barr amendment attempts to circumvent Federal
contracting law in order to impose upon one company punishment that
similarly-situated companies would not suffer.
Take, for example, Halliburton. This is a company that has profited,
and continues to profit, enormously from multiple contracts with the
Department of Defense. In February of this year, Halliburton subsidiary
KBR reached a $2 million settlement with the government, amid criminal
allegations of fraud, false claims, and false statements. KBR was
subsequently awarded a ten-year unlimited-cost contract with the Army.
Did we see a similar Barr amendment to the Defense Department
Appropriations bill? No, Mr. Speaker, we didn't. And I think we have to
ask why we are singling out one company and one program for special
treatment--especially in view of the crippling effect this provision
would have on the media campaign.
If we're going to set aside the duly enacted laws and regulations
that the Congress and executive branch have devised to prevent abuse by
Federal contractors, it seems to me we ought to be fair and consistent
about it. Either it's good policy or it's not. If it's good for Ogilvy
and ONDCP, then it ought to be good for Halliburton and the Army as
well.
Can the campaign do better? I believe so. Will it do better? It will
if we work together to make it better. For my part, I am committed to
working with Mr. Souder, Mr. Portman, members of the drug policy
subcommittee, our counterparts in the Senate and ONDCP Director Walters
to work through the problems with the campaign, with the single aim of
making it as effective as it can be.
The amendment by Mr. Barr is simply not constructive toward this end.
While it may make Members feel better to go after an easy political
target in Ogilvy, the bottom line we should all be concerned with is
this: passing this amendment will not improve the campaign. It will
simply shut it down. I know that my colleagues want to avoid this
result.
So I would say to my colleagues that if shutting down the media
campaign is what Members want to accomplish, then they should vote for
the Barr amendment. If they want to see the campaign live to do a
better job of deterring our children from using drugs, then they should
join Mr. Souder, Mr. Portman and me in opposing this amendment. Let's
not cut off our nose to spite or face.
Defense Criminal Investigative Service Press Release
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Department of
Defense (DoD), announced today that on February 7, 2002, a
settlement was reached with Brown and Root Services
Corporation (BRSC), Houston, TX, regarding allegations of
fraud, false claims and false statements. BRSC will pay $2
million in damages to the U.S. Government.
BRSC was the subject of a qui tam lawsuit filed by a former
BRSC employee who alleged BRSC engaged in international false
statements and misrepresentations to the Army Corps of
Engineers during negotiations for individual delivery orders
issued under a job order contract (JOC) for the former Fort
Ord, CA, military installation. Over 200 individual delivery
orders were issued under the Fort Ord JOC, valued in excess
of $18.4 million. The alleged conduct resulted in the
overvaluation of the cost of material and construction
methods provided by the BRSC. The former BRSC employee who
filed the qui tam lawsuit alleged that BRSC project general
managers directed BRSC construction cost estimators to
inflate the quantity and quality of higher cost materials and
then present the inflated value of those materials to U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers personnel during negotiations.
The settlement reached with the BRSC releases them from the
civil claims addressed in the qui tam lawsuit. The qui tam
relater will receive an undisclosed amount of the collected
damages.
This investigation was conducted by the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service (the criminal investigative arm of the
OIG, DoD). Assistant United States Attorneys Michael Hirst,
Chief of the Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit, and Kandall
Newman, Eastern District of California, Sacramento, CA,
negotiated the global settlement.
____
[From the New York Times, July 13, 2002]
In Tough Times, A Company Finds Profits in Terror War
(By Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr.)
The Halliburton Company, the Dallas oil services company
bedeviled lately by an array of accounting and business
issues, is benefiting very directly from the United States
efforts to combat terrorism.
From building cells for detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba
to feeding American troops in Uzbekistan, the Pentagon is
increasingly relying on a unit of Halliburton called KBR,
sometimes referred to as Kellogg Brown & Root. Although the
unit has been building projects all over the world for the
federal government for decades, the attacks of Sept. 11 have
led to significant additional business. KBR is the exclusive
logistics supplier for both the Navy and the Army, providing
services like cooking, construction, power generation and
fuel transportation. The contract recently won from the Army
is for 10 years and has no lid on costs, the only logistical
arrangement by the Army without an estimated cost.
The government business has been well timed for
Halliburton, whose stock price has tumbled almost two-thirds
in the last year because of concerns about its asbestos
liabilities, sagging profits in its energy business and an
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into
its accounting practices back when Vice President Dick Cheney
ran the company. The government contracts, which the company
said Mr. Cheney played no role in helping Halliburton win,
either while he led the company or after he left, offer the
prospect of a long and steady cash flow that impresses
financial analysts.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress has appropriated $30
billion in emergency money to support the campaign against
terrorism. About half has gone to the Pentagon, much of it to
buy weapons, supplies, and services. Although KBR is probably
not the largest recipient of all the government contracts
related to terror efforts, few companies have longer or
deeper ties to the Pentagon. And no company is better
positioned to capitalize on this trend.
The value of the contracts to Halliburton is hard to
quantify, but the company said government work generated less
than 10 percent of its $13 billion in revenue last year.
The government business is ``very good, a relatively stable
source of cash flow,'' said Alexandra S. Parker, senior vice
president of Moody's Investors Service. ``We view it
positively.''
By hiring an outside company to handle much of its
logistics, the Pentagon may wind up spending more taxpayer
money than if it did the work itself.
Under the new Army contract, KBR's work in Central Asia, at
least for the next year, will cost 10 percent to 20 percent
more than if military personnel were used, according to Army
contract managers. In Uzbekistan, the Army failed to
ascertain, as regulations require, whether its own units,
which handled logistics there for the first six months, were
available to work when it brought in the contractor,
according to Army spokesmen.
The costs for KBR's current work in Central Asia could
``dramatically escalate'' without proper monitoring, but
adequate cost control measures are in place, according to Lt.
Col. Clay Cole, who oversees the contract.
[[Page H5340]]
The Army contract is a cost-plus arrangement and shrouded
in secrecy. The contractor is reimbursed for its allowable
costs and gets a bonus based on performance. In the past, KBR
has usually received the maximum performance bonus, according
to Pentagon officials. Though modest now, the Army contract
could produce hundreds of millions of dollars for the
company. In the Balkans, for instance, its contract with the
Army started at less than $4 million and turned into a
multibillion-dollar agreement.
Mr. Cheney played no role, either as vice president or as
chief executive at Halliburton, in helping KBR win government
contracts, company officials said.
In a written statement, the company said that Mr. Cheney
``steadfastly refused'' to market KBR's services to the
United States government in the five years he served as chief
executive. Mr. Cheney concentrated on the company's energy
business, company officials said, though he was regularly
briefed on the company's Pentagon contracts. Mr. Cheney sold
Halliburton stock, worth more than $20 million, before he
became vice president. After he took office, he donated his
remaining stock options to charity.
Like other military contractors, KBR has numerous former
Pentagon officials who know the government contracts system
in its management ranks, including a former military aide to
Mr. Cheney when he was defense secretary. The senior vice
president responsible for KBR's Pentagon contracts is a
retired four-star admiral, Joe Lopez, who was Mr. Cheney's
military aide at the Pentagon in the early 1990's.
Halliburton said Mr. Lopez was hired in 1999 after a
suggestion from Mr. Cheney.
``Brown & Root had the upper hand with the Pentagon because
they knew the process like the back of their hand,'' said
T.C. McIntosh, a Pentagon criminal investigator who last year
examined some of the company's Army contracts in the 1990's.
He said he found that a contractor ``gets away with what they
can get away with.''
For example, KBR got the Army to agree to pay about
$750,000 for electrical repairs at a base in California that
cost only about $125,000, according to Mr. McIntosh, an agent
with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
KBR officials did not dispute the electrical cost figures,
which were part of an $18 million contract. But they said
government investigators tried to suggest wrongdoing when
there was not any.
``The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we
made more money on that others,'' said one company lawyer,
who insisted on anonymity. He added, ``On some projects the
contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others
it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract.''
Mr. McIntosh said he and an assistant United States
attorney in Sacramento were inclined to indict the company
last year after they developed evidence that a few KBR
employees had ``lied to the government'' in pricing proposals
for electrical repair work at Fort Ord. Mr. McIntosh said
the Sacramento prosecutor said to him, ``Let's go for
this, it's a winnable criminal case.''
A KBR lawyer said that the government's theory ``was novel
and unfairly tried to criminalize what was only a preliminary
proposal.''
The United States attorney's office in Sacramento declined
to discuss its internal deliberations in the cast. But it
dropped the criminal inquiry and reached a civil settlement
in February, in part because of weak contract monitoring by
the Army, according to Mr. McIntosh and a lawyer involved in
the case.
As part of the settlement, KBR paid $2 million but denied
any liability.
Last December the Army's Operations Support Command,
unaware of the criminal investigation, found KBR's past
contracting experiences to be exemplary as it awarded the
company the 10-year logistical support contract, according to
a command spokeswoman, Gale Smith.
The Army command's lengthy review of bidders did not
discover that KBR was the target of a criminal investigation
though it was disclosed in Halliburton's annual report
submitted with the bid, according to Ms. Smith. She said that
if the support command's managers had known of the criminal
inquiry, they would have looked further at the matter but not
changed the award.
KBR's ability to earn the Pentagon's trust dates back
decades.
``It's standard operating procedure for the Department of
Defense to haul in Brown & Root,'' said Gordon Adams, who
helped oversee the military budget for President Bill
Clinton.
The company's first military contract was in 1940, to build
a Naval air station in Corpus Christi, Tex. In the 1960's, it
built bases in Vietnam. By the 1990's, KBR was providing
logistical support in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans.
KBR's military logistics business began to escalate rapidly
with its selection for a $3.9 million contract in 1992, Mr.
Cheney's last year at the Pentagon. Over the last 10 years,
the revenues have totaled $2.5 billion, mostly a result of
widening American involvement in the Balkans after 1995.
``We did great things to support the U.S. military
overseas--we did better than they could support themselves,''
said Charles J. Fiala, a former operations officer for KBR.
``I was in the Department of Defense for 35 years. We knew
what the government was like.''
Robert E. Ayers, another former KBR executive who still
consults for the company, said Mr. Cheney ``stayed fairly
well informed'' on the Balkans contract.
Stan Solloway, a former top Pentagon procurement official
who now heads an association of contractors, said the company
``understood the military mind-set'' and ``did a very good
job in the Balkans.''
But reports in 1997 and 2000 by the General Accounting
Office, the audit arm of Congress, found weak contract
monitoring by the Army contributed to cost increases in the
Balkan contract that benefited KBR.
The audit agency's 1997 report concluded that the Army
allowed KBR to fly in plywood from the United States, at a
cost of $85.98 a sheet, because it did not have time to
procure it in Europe, where sheets costs $14.06.
Mr. Ayers, the former KBR executive, had worked on the
Balkans contract. ``If the rules weren't stiff and
specific,'' he said, ``the contractor could make money off of
overspending by the government.''
The contract awarded last December by the Army's Operations
Support Command, is ``open ended'' with ``no estimated
value,'' said Ms. Smith, the command's spokeswoman. She said
that was mainly ``because the various contingencies are
beginning to unfold.''
KBR won this and most of its other Pentagon contracts in a
competition with other contractors, but KBR is the sole
source for the many tasks that fall under the umbrella
contract.
Pentagon officials said the company had recently taken over
a wide range of tasks at Khanabad Air Base in Uzbekistan,
from running the dining operation to handling fuel and
generating power for the airfield. The company employs
Uzbeks, paying them in accordance with ``local laws and
customs'' but operating under United States health and safety
guidelines, according to Halliburton's statement.
For the first six months that American troops were at
Khanabad, the logistical support was provided by the Army's
First Corps Support Command. Mr. Cole, the contract manager
for the joint command in Kuwait, said the contract would
initially cost 10 to 20 percent more than if the Army had
done the work itself. He said that he and his staff
recommended using the contractor because ``they do a better
job of maintaining the infrastructure.'' In addition, he
said, the contractor should provide long-term flexibility, an
asset in a war with many unknowns, and cost savings by
avoiding Army troop transfers.
Ms. Smith said that the criticisms by the G.A.O. had led
the Army to build additional controls into the contract.
At its base in Cuba, the Navy has followed the same pattern
as the Army: use the military first and augment it with KBR.
The Navy's construction brigade, the Seabees, built the first
detention facility for battlefield detainees at Guantanamo
Bay. Then the Navy activated a recently awarded $300 million,
five-year logistic support contract with KBR to construct
more permanent facilities, some 600 units, built mostly by
workers from the Philippines and India, at a cost of $23
million.
John Peters, the Navy Facilities Engineering Command
spokesman, said the permanent camp was ``bigger, more
sophisticated than what Seabees do.'' But the Seabees built
the facilities for the troops guarding the detainees, and in
the 1990's the Seabees built two tent cities capable of
housing 20,000 refugees in Guantanamo Bay.
``Seabees typically can perform the work at about half the
cost of contractors, because labor costs are already sunk and
paid for,'' said Daryl Smith, a Seabees spokesman.
Zelma Branch, a KBR spokeswoman, said the company relied on
its excellent record rather than personal relationships to
win its contracts. But hiring former military officers can
help the company understand and anticipate the Pentagon's
needs.
``The key to the company's success is good client relations
and having somebody who could anticipate what the client's
needs are going to be,'' Mr. Ayers, the former company
executive, said.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I took the time in opposition, but I am not going to
oppose this amendment. Number one, it is my understanding with the
chairman, pursuant to the colloquy, this amendment will not be affected
as it now reads by the conference committee. Why? Because we want to
make sure that the program does not go dark, I say tangentially,
notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Walters says it is a program that has
not worked, or recently has not worked, and he was, of course, an
opponent of the program when it initially was adopted. That aside, let
me say that one of the reasons I will not oppose it is because I
believe the premise of the amendment is a premise that we all can
share.
The distinguished gentleman from Maryland already mentioned this, but
I think it bears mentioning again, not solely for political purposes,
although obviously it is a high-visibility item, but also because this
company is seeking to do business with the drug media
[[Page H5341]]
program. I mention Halliburton because it is a high-visibility company.
Obviously the Vice President had some dealings with it. But it falls
into the Ogilvy category. It is a company that has profited and
continues to profit enormously from multiple contracts with the
Department of Defense.
In February of this year, Halliburton subsidiary KBR reached a $2
million settlement, very similar to the Ogilvy settlement, with the
government amid criminal allegations of fraud, false claims and false
statements. KBR was subsequently, notwithstanding that, awarded a 10-
year unlimited cost contract with the Army. There were no amendments to
preclude that.
But the principle that the gentleman from Georgia puts before us is a
very valid principle, and the principle is, if you want to do business
with the government, play by the rules. We had an amendment on this
floor that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) fought very strongly
for that said if you want to abscond, if you want to dodge American
taxes and dodge your responsibility and go overseas, to Bermuda or
someplace else, then hey, we're not going to contract with you, we're
not going to give you millions, tens of millions and hundreds of
millions in contracts.
That is essentially the proposition that this amendment puts forward.
I think it is a proposition frankly that the other body has sympathy
with on both sides of the aisle. I do not think this is a partisan
issue. I think the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct on
that. Therefore, I have discussed this with the chairman, I think the
chairman and I are in agreement, A, we are going to make sure that this
program does not go dark. It may need to be made to operate more
effectively and better so that it has the impact.
We have spent a lot of money on it although we have cut the money, as
you know, that was originally asked for by the President by some $10
million, but this is an important program. But we want to make sure
that this program is conducted in a fashion that all of us can have
faith and trust and is not advantaging those who have undermined their
responsibility to deal fairly with the government and deal fairly and
legally with others.
In that context, Mr. Chairman, I will not object to this amendment,
would hope that we could adopt it by a voice vote and then, working
with the gentleman from Georgia and others, we will work in the
conference to come to a conclusion that I think will stand for the
proposition that this amendment stands for, and at the same time,
protect the program that all of us feel is an important one.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the eloquence of the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland cannot be added or subtracted to without doing
it an injustice. I appreciate the words of the gentleman from Maryland
in support of this amendment. I understand his concerns, which I share
about making sure the program continues. We wish to strengthen it
through this amendment and that is what I will work to do. I appreciate
also the support of the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) to whom I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. How much time, may I inquire, remains, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman had 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's
efforts to make sure that this contract that comes under the
jurisdiction of our subcommittee for this national antidrug campaign is
handled responsibly. The reason we have these questions is because
there has been a GAO inquiry into the prior performance of this same
contract by the Ogilvy firm and there has been a major fine assessed
for improper charges and handling and abuses in their performance of
that contract. That is why we have this language, to make sure that we
can have it reviewed to make sure that that contract is handled
properly.
However, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this was a proper
occasion for people to try to bring up extraneous matters that have not
been the subject of such investigation. We have not been here talking
on the floor about, for example, Global Crossing and tens of millions
of dollars--or was it hundreds of millions of dollars--obtained by
insiders and obtained by Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National
Committee chairman; we have not been bringing up the allegations of
abuses related to Enron and the possible involvement of Citibank
chaired by the former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin from the
Clinton administration; and I do not think it was appropriate for
people to try to bring this up as an opportunity to take shots at other
people in the debate here.
We have plenty of time to focus on each misdeed as we learn of it and
to make sure that we hold every person in America fully accountable
under our laws. That is what we want to make sure that we do in this
particular contract with the people that are involved in performing it.
We do not need to go far afield as I heard some people do earlier and
as I did myself only to point out that this is inappropriate. We are
here talking about the drug contract. We are here talking about the
firm that abused their position as a contractor with the taxpayers on
this and to make sure that abuse does not happen but that correcting
that abuse will not disrupt this important national drug effort.
{time} 1330
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 21, offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran),
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley);
amendment No. 16, offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley);
and amendment No. 7, offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261,
noes 166, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 336]
AYES--261
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
[[Page H5342]]
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--166
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Everett
Flake
Foley
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Bonior
Cannon
Cox
Delahunt
Stearns
Tancredo
Traficant
{time} 1353
Messrs. COBLE, LEWIS of California, and COOKSEY changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CHAMBLISS, KINGSTON, LaHOOD, FORBES, OWENS, THOMPSON of
Mississippi, JOHN, and STENHOLM changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 265, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 337]
AYES--165
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Boozman
Boswell
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeFazio
DeMint
Doggett
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehrlich
Evans
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kirk
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Manzullo
Matheson
McInnis
McIntyre
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOES--265
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Callahan
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goss
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
[[Page H5343]]
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Bonior
Stearns
Tancredo
Traficant
{time} 1402
Mrs. BIGGERT changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147,
noes 282, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 338]
AYES--147
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Duncan
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Graham
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hyde
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kirk
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Manzullo
Matheson
McInnis
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Norwood
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOES--282
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Bonior
Slaughter
Stearns
Tancredo
Traficant
{time} 1411
Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 338, Hefley
amendment #16.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Sanders
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 308,
noes 121, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 339]
AYES--308
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
[[Page H5344]]
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--121
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bereuter
Biggert
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Chambliss
Collins
Combest
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Flake
Gallegly
Gibbons
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kirk
Kolbe
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Putnam
Ramstad
Rehberg
Riley
Rogers (MI)
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shays
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Stenholm
Stump
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Vitter
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--5
Bonior
Knollenberg
Stearns
Tancredo
Traficant
{time} 1420
Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia and Mr. FORBES changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Wynn
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Wynn:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) Centralized Reporting System.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
each agency shall establish a centralized reporting system in
accordance with guidance promulgated by the Office of
Management and Budget that allows the agency to generate
periodic reports on the contracting efforts of the agency.
Such centralized reporting system shall be designed to enable
the agency to generate reports on efforts regarding both
contracting out and contracting in.
(b) Reports on Contracting Efforts.--(1) Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, every
agency shall generate and submit to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget a report on the contracting
efforts of the agency undertaken during the 2 fiscal years
immediately preceding the fiscal year during which this Act
is enacted. Such report shall comply with the requirements in
paragraph (3).
(2) For the current fiscal year and every fiscal year
thereafter, every agency shall complete and submit to the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget a report on
the contracting efforts undertaken by the agency during the
current fiscal year. Such reports shall comply with the
requirements in paragraph (3), and shall be completed and
submitted not later than the end of the first fiscal quarter
of the subsequent fiscal year.
(3) The reports referred to in this subsection shall
include the following information with regard to each
contracting effort undertaken by the agency:
(A) The contract number and the Federal supply class or
service code.
(B) A statement of why the contracting effort was
undertaken and an explanation of what alternatives to the
contracting effort were considered and why such alternatives
were ultimately rejected.
(C) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the
officials who supervised the contracting effort.
(D) The competitive process used or the statutory or
regulatory authority relied on to enter into the contract
without public-private competition.
(E) The cost of Federal employee performance at the time
the work was contracted out (if the work had previously been
performed by Federal employees).
(F) The cost of Federal employee performance under a Most
Efficient Organization plan (if the work was contracted out
through OMB Circular A-76).
(G) The anticipated cost of contractor performance, based
on the award.
(H) The current cost of contractor performance.
(I) The actual savings, expressed both as a dollar amount
and as a percentage of the cost of performance by Federal
employees, based on the current cost, and an explanation of
the difference, if any.
(J) A description of the quality control process used by
the agency in connection with monitoring the contracting
effort, identification of the applicable quality control
standards, the frequency of the preparation of quality
control reports, and an assessment of whether the contractor
met, exceeded, or failed to achieve the quality control
standards.
(K) The number of employees performing the contracting
effort under the contract and any related subcontracts.
(c) Report on Contracting Efforts.--(1) For the current
fiscal year and every fiscal year thereafter, every agency
shall complete and submit to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget a report on the contracting efforts
undertaken by the agency during the current fiscal year. Such
reports shall comply with the requirements in paragraph (2),
and shall be completed and submitted not later than the end
of the first fiscal quarter of the subsequent fiscal year.
(2) The reports referred to in paragraph (1) shall include
the following information for each contracting in effort
undertaken by the agency:
(A) A description of the type of work involved.
(B) A statement of why the contracting in effort was
undertaken.
(C) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the
officials who supervised the contracting in effort.
(D) The cost of performance at the time the work was
contracted in.
(E) The current cost of performance by Federal employees or
military personnel.
(d) Report on Employee Positions.--Not later than 30 days
after the end of the current fiscal year and every fiscal
year thereafter, every agency shall report on the number of
Federal employee positions and positions held by non-Federal
employees under a contract between the agency and an
individual or entity that has been subject to public-private
competition.
(e) Committees to Which Reports Must Be Submitted.--The
reports referred to in this section shall be submitted to the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Governmental Affairs
of the Senate.
(f) Publication.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall promptly publish in the Federal Register
notices including a description of when the reports referred
to in this section are available to the public and the names,
addresses, and telephone numbers of the officials from whom
the reports may be obtained.
(g) Availability on Internet.--After the excision of
proprietary information, the reports referred to in this
section shall be made available through the Internet.
(h) Review.--The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall review the reports referred to in this section
and consult with the head of the agency regarding the content
of such reports.
(i) Definitions..--As used in this section:
(1) The term ``employee'' means any individual employed--
(A) as a civilian in a military department (as defined in
section 102 of title 5, United States Code);
(B) in an executive agency (as defined in section 105 of
title 5, United States Code), including an employee who is
paid from nonappropriated funds;
(C) in those units of the legislative and judicial branches
of the Federal Government having positions in the competitive
service;
[[Page H5345]]
(D) in the Library of Congress;
(E) in the Government Printing Office; or
(F) by the Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
(2) The term ``agency'' means any department, agency,
bureau, commission, activity, or organization of the United
States, that employs an employee (as defined in paragraph
(1)).
(3) The term ``non-Federal personnel'' means employed
individuals who are not employees, as defined in paragraph
(1).
(4) The term ``contractor'' means an individual or entity
that performs a function for an agency under a contract with
non-Federal personnel.
(5) The term ``privatization'' means the end result of the
decision of an agency to exit a business line, terminate an
activity, or sell Government owned assets or operational
capabilities to the non-Federal sector.
(6) The term ``outsourcing'' means the end result of the
decision of an agency to acquire services from external
sources, either from a non-Federal source or through
interservice support agreements, through a contract.
(7) The term ``contracting out'' means the conversion by an
agency of the performance of a function to the performance by
a non-Federal employee under a contract between an agency and
an individual or other entity.
(8) The term ``contracting in'' is the conversion of the
performance of a function by non-Federal employees under a
contract between an agency and an individual or other entity
to the performance by employees.
(9) The term ``contracting'' means the performance of a
function by non-Federal employees under a contract between an
agency and an individual or other entity. The term
``contracting'', as used throughout this Act, includes
privatization, outsourcing, contracting out, and contracting,
unless otherwise specifically provided.
(10)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term ``critical
for the provision of patient care'' means direct patient
medical and hospital care that the Department of Veterans
Affairs or other Federal hospitals or clinics are not capable
of furnishing because of geographical inaccessibility,
medical emergency, or the particularly unique type of care or
service required.
(B) The term does not include support and administrative
services for hospital and clinic operations, including food
service, laundry services, grounds maintenance,
transportation services, office operations, and supply
processing and distribution services.
(j) Appropriation.--There is appropriated $2,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003 to carry out this section, to be derived by
transfer from the amount appropriated in title I of this Act
for ``Internal Revenue Service--Tax Law Enforcement''. The
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
allocate such amount among the appropriate accounts, and
shall submit to the Congress a report setting forth such
allocation.
(k) Applicability.--(1) The provisions of this section
shall apply to fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year
thereafter.
(2) This section--
(A) does not apply with respect to the General Accounting
Office;
(B) does not apply with respect to depot-level maintenance
and repair of the Department of Defense (as defined in
section 2460 of title 10, United States Code); and
(C) does not apply with respect to contracts for the
construction of new structures or the remodeling of or
additions to existing structures, but shall apply to all
contracts for the repair and maintenance of any structures.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
2002, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and a Member opposed each
will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do intend to withdraw this amendment, but I want to bring to the
attention of the House, and more importantly, the American people a
very important issue, and that is, contracting out and whether the
American taxpayer is receiving best value. Some people have
characterized this issue as private contractors versus Federal
employees. It is not. The issue before us today is whether the American
taxpayer is getting best value for the services we contract out.
The essence of this amendment is to ensure that there is transparency
and scrutiny of government contractors to determine whether the
American public is receiving best value, both quantitatively and
qualitatively, by establishing a centralized reporting by each agency
of its contracting efforts.
In recent years, the notion that outsourcing is the most cost-
efficient approach to providing government services has gained
considerable momentum. However, when we asked the Government Accounting
Office to tell us how many contracts were being let by the Federal
Government, who was involved and how much the savings were, they could
not tell us, and they said they could not tell us because there was no
centralized accounting so that they could identify how much each agency
was doing.
In the absence of accountability and congressional oversight,
indiscriminate outsourcing and privatization of government services
will grow with no guarantee of actual cost savings.
My amendment is very simple. It will require that each agency
establish a centralized reporting system on its contracting practices.
The reports submitted to the director of the Office of Management and
Budget would include the contract number and the Federal supply class
of service code; a statement of why the contracting effort was
undertaken; the name of the supervisors and officials involved; the
cost of Federal employee performance at the time the work was
contracted out, if the work had been previously performed by Federal
employees.
It would also report the anticipated cost of contractor performance
and the cost of, the anticipated cost and the actual cost of contract
performance, and most importantly, the reports would include the actual
savings, if any, compared with performance by Federal employees. The
number of contract employees would also be listed.
This oversight responsibility would be accomplished by submitting
these reports to the Committee on Government Reform in the House and
the Committee on Government Affairs in the Senate.
The director of the Office of Management and Budget would publish in
the Federal Register notices of when the reports would be available to
the public so that the public could determine if they are getting best
value.
Currently, agencies do not closely monitor the cost efficiency of the
billions of dollars in contracting out and privatization. There is no
oversight of contracts after they have been awarded to compare past
costs with current costs or to consider the potential effects of cost
overruns.
If outsourcing and privatization are to work, it must be transparent.
It must be truthful. All the parties must be disclosed, identified and
held responsible and accountable for their actions.
My amendment very simply would add basic safeguards such as reporting
and oversight, two that are currently missing from the process. I
believe this is a good amendment and an important issue for this
Congress.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer:
In the appropriate place at the end of the bill (before the
short title), include the following:
Sec. . None of the funds provided to the Customs Service
under this Act shall be used to require reports on repairs to
U.S. flag vessels on the high seas.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House Tuesday,
July 23, 2002, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for
reserving and giving me the opportunity to explain this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment frankly was brought to me just within
the last 48 hours. It does, however, seem to raise an issue of
significant importance and difficulty for a number of those in the
shipping business.
The problem apparently is that if a person has a ship repaired while
on the high seas, that is not within the territorial waters of any
nation, and those repairs are effected using non-U.S.
[[Page H5346]]
parts, then they must fill out very substantial paperwork, and very
substantial reporting requirements are implicated in that instance, so
that we are causing a great burden to shipping companies that are U.S.-
flagged. Obviously, we want shipping to be U.S.-flagged. We know that
that is a difficulty.
I have introduced this amendment to try to address that issue.
Because I introduced the amendment as a ``none of the funds'' and it
is, therefore, a very blunt instrument, I agree with the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) that this amendment should not pass in its present
form. Even if it were added to the bill, I would be in favor of
dropping it in conference. Its purpose was solely to protect our
ability to address this issue.
It is, however, my understanding from the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Crane) and his staff that they share the view that this is a
problem and that they are going to look at that and look at it closely.
I do want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for his
attention to this matter and for his staff working with us to see if we
can come to a resolution of this matter.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want
to reassure him that his concerns are valid, legitimate concerns, and
that we on the committee will look into this issue because it is
something that needs to be resolved.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
If not, the Clerk will read the last two lines.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2003''.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for the fiscal year 2003
Appropriations Bill for Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government. This bill contains key provisions that I have supported in
Congress.
The appropriations bill before us contains a measure that prohibits
the use of funds in the bill to finalize, implement, administer or
enforce the proposed Treasury Department rule declaring that real
estate brokerage is ``an activity that is financial in nature or
incidental to a financial activity.'' I agree with this prohibition and
am a cosponsor of H.R. 3424, which would accomplish the same objective.
The banking industry provides an invaluable function in our economy and
the integrity of its operations and security of deposits is critical.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is speeding ongoing changes in the United
States financial services industry and allows banks flexibility in
responding to economic trends. However, I do not believe the benefits
of allowing banks to engage in real estate brokerage and property
management activities outweigh the risks.
Regarding the Postal Service, the bill specifically requires that
six-day delivery of mail be continued. It also requires that mail for
overseas voting and for the blind continue to be free. I have always
believed post offices play an integral role in the livability of our
communities. They serve as business, social and often historical
centers in our neighborhoods. It's for these reasons that I am a
sponsor of legislation, H.R. 1861, which requires the Postal Service to
engage local officials and the public it serves when opening, closing,
relocating, or renovating facilities. I hope we continue to work to
ensure the Postal Service is a good partner with our communities and
follows local laws and regulations.
I am pleased that the final bill, for the second year in a row, ends
the travel ban to Cuba and allows for private financing of agricultural
sales to Cuba by U.S. farmers. In addition, the House approved an
amendment to allow Cuban-Americans to send money to their relatives in
Cuba without restrictions. Food and medicine should not be used as
weapons. The Cuban people should not have to suffer because the United
States does not agree with the Cuban government. These provisions show
that there is growing momentum in favor of getting rid of the embargo
against Cuba altogether. Only through engagement will we be able to
effectively promote the ideals of human rights and democracy.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, 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.
5120) 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,
2003, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 488, he
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1430
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on passage of
the bill.
Under 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.
____________________