[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21713-21727]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2490, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up 
the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2490) 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, 2000, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 291, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 14, 1999, at page H8201.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.

[[Page 21714]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, along with the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to present to the House the conference report on 
the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
bill. This is a bill that not only meets the commitment we have made to 
the American people to reform modernize the Internal Revenue Service, 
but one that continues to strengthen our support for Federal law 
enforcement, to protect our borders against drugs, and to prosecute 
violations of our gun laws.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to say that I think 
that the staff always plays an essential role in preparing and 
supporting the committee at all stages of its annual appropriations 
bills, and I am surrounded today by the very valuable staff that has 
made this work very possible, and it is true also of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) whose staff is on the way.
  I want to pay special tribute if I might to one individual, our 
congressional fellow, Clif Morehead, who leaves us at year end, having 
performed exemplary service for the House of Representatives. Clif has 
worked for this subcommittee for the past year, and after serving a 
year in the personal office of my distinguished ranking member, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Clif will be leaving the committee 
to return to his work as a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service.
  Clif has been a terrific asset to this subcommittee, bringing not 
only his experience and insight into Federal law enforcement from his 
Secret Service career, but also his understanding of how Congress and 
the Federal agencies operate from his previous work on defense issues, 
and as a Marine Corps officer.

                              {time}  1500

  Whether it has been preparing for the hearings, doing the in-depth 
research, briefings, planning and organizing committee travel, 
including a very informative trip that we participated in to review 
counterdrug efforts in the Andes earlier this year, to the drafting and 
negotiations of the bill and its report, Cliff has been an invaluable 
staff member. I am grateful for his hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid 
farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Clifton, D. Morehead, as he 
begins his next assignment as Special Agent for the U.S. Secret 
Service. Special Agent Morehead has proven himself to be tremendous 
asset to the work of this Subcommittee, bringing with him the 
experience he has gained with the Secret Service, as a business manager 
for Procter and Gamble, and as a Marine Corps officer. Clif began his 
fellowship in 1998 in the office of the distinguished ranking member of 
this subcommittee, Steny Hoyer, where he served as his legislative 
assistant for defense policy and appropriations issues. Clif therefore 
arrived in this subcommittee with a strong background in the technical 
issues and folkways of the appropriations process.
  Serving as a member of my subcommittee staff, Clif has brought a 
unique perspective to bear on many of the lively debates and sometimes 
convoluted issues we face as we craft this appropriation bill, and in 
overseeing the agencies and programs in our jurisdiction. In 
particular, Clif's insight and contribution has been invaluable on 
matters affecting law enforcement, national security, and management 
issues. Throughout his service here, Clif's unqualified 
professionalism, perceptiveness, great sense of humor and cool head 
have helped this Subcommittee and the Congress move forward on a wide 
range of policy and budgetary issues. His assistance in planning for 
and coordinating a complicated trip to the Andean countries to review 
the U.S. counternarcotics assistance programs there was of particular 
benefit to us.
  Special Agent Morehead has served me, this subcommittee, and the 
House well: we are sorry to see him leave, and will miss him as a 
colleague and as a friend. Each of us on the Treasury Appropriations 
Subcommittee wish Clif all the best as he resumes his Secret Service 
career, and expect to see great things there.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
like to join the chairman of the committee in commending the work of 
Clif Morehead. This is an extraordinarily valuable program for the 
Federal Government, these exchange programs. They give the Members of 
various different agencies a perspective on how the Congress operates, 
and other agencies, but how this process works.
  Clif Morehead is an extraordinary young man who has contributed a 
great deal to the quality of our work during the past frankly 24 
months, first working in my office, where he was an invaluable asset, 
and then in the committee office, as well.
  I want to join the chairman in commending Clif Morehead. He is an 
extraordinary asset of the Secret Service, and has been an outstanding 
asset of ours. I join with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) 
in wishing him the very best as he returns to his position as an agent 
in the United States Secret Service, where I know he will continue to 
prove to be a valuable asset to our country.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for his kind remarks about Clif. Clif is on the floor with us 
today, and Clif, it is not our eulogy to you but rather a tribute to 
you, and we look forward to continuing to work with you.
  Mr. Speaker, let me return to the conference report, if I might, and 
discuss for a moment some of the key parts about it.
  This conference agreement provides $13.7 billion for agencies which 
come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That is $240 million 
above the current fiscal year, an increase of less than 2 percent, but 
it is $220 million below what the President requested.
  I am concerned to learn there are some Members who believe that this 
level of funding is both excessive and unnecessary. In fact, it is 
neither. Just to keep pace with inflation, the administration requested 
an increase of $600 million. That was before any of the initiatives, 
and before the mandatory requirements, such as Y2K readiness for the 
IRS, or workloads associated with the upcoming Presidential elections, 
the workload increase that will be caused during the upcoming 
Presidential election for the Secret Service, or for increases in the 
critical drug programs, such as the high-intensity drug trafficking 
areas or the Drug-Free Communities Act.
  Mr. Speaker, a $240 million increase barely makes a dent towards 
putting together a bill that meets all of our current law enforcement 
responsibilities.
  Clearly, this subcommittee was faced with a daunting task. I can tell 
the Members that without this funding level, the conference report 
before us now would not be pretty from anyone's perspective. The fact 
is, anything less than what is provided in the conference report would 
have fallen far short of our shared goals.
  Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, I know my colleagues have concerns over 
these funding levels. On the other hand, I know that we all support the 
same things. We all support IRS restructuring and reform and improving 
customer service for our constituents. We all support hardening the 
borders against drugs and illegal contraband while improving the flow 
of legitimate commerce. We all support keeping our children off drugs 
and strengthening our communities and families. Finally, we all support 
keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, adult and juvenile 
criminals, and giving State and local law enforcement officers the 
tools they need to enforce the firearms laws that we have adopted.
  These are items which certainly ought not to be controversial. These 
are items that are funded within our conference allocation, and I think 
we can all agree they are not excessive, they are not unnecessary.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of legislative items 
and the suggestion that somehow the conference agreement has put one 
over on some Members, including items which, for a variety of reasons, 
should not be

[[Page 21715]]

included, or should not be in there in their present form.
  Each year, this subcommittee is burdened with controversial 
legislative provisions that ultimately have to be negotiated in 
conference with the Senate. The fact is, once they are attached to the 
bill, we are responsible for negotiating differences with the Senate on 
behalf of the sponsors. So we did not put anything over on anybody in 
this conference report. The conferees negotiated to the best of their 
ability, and with nothing but the best of intentions. The conferees 
made every effort possible to accommodate the views of all Members, 
House and Senate, both sides of the aisle, on these different issues.
  The agreement before us now reflects the very best intentions and the 
very best judgment of the conferees. I might add, it has received the 
unanimous and unqualified support of the House and Senate conferees. We 
have a bill that I believe can receive a majority of votes in both 
sides of the aisle, in both chambers, and one that I believe can and 
will be signed by the President of the United States.
  I hope that, when some of my colleagues say they are threatening to 
vote against this measure because they disagree with the specifics of 
it or some of the controversial provisions, that they will reconsider 
that position. That would be a very shortsighted approach, and I urge 
Members to look at this conference report in its entirety.
  This is an excellent conference agreement. It is strong on law 
enforcement, it is tough on drugs, and it continues our commitment to 
restructure and reform the IRS. I urge my colleagues to support this 
conference agreement.

[[Page 21716]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.001



[[Page 21717]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.002



[[Page 21718]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.003



[[Page 21719]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.004



[[Page 21720]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the the gentleman from Arizona 
(Chairman Kolbe) and his staff for their leadership and work on this 
bill. This has been in some respects a difficult bill, and in other 
respects a relatively easy bill. Within the 302(b) allocation level 
that had been provided to this subcommittee, this is a very good 
conference report. Even though we were not able to fund the courthouse 
construction within the constraints of this allocation, this report 
deserves bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, I was one, and I know the Chair shares my view, that 
believes we should be moving forward on courthouse construction. There 
is a backlog in the criminal justice system which certainly requires 
this, as does the civil side of the court dockets. Notwithstanding the 
fact that we have not been able to do that, the balance of the bill 
warrants the support of both sides of the aisle.
  This conference report funds the Treasury Department at $12.355 
billion, which is $21 million below the President's request. However, 
it is certainly sufficient to give to the Treasury the ability to do 
the job that we expect of them.
  Included within this amount is $3.3, almost $3.4 billion for the 
Treasury's five important law enforcement agencies. Those agencies 
comprise, Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of law enforcement at the Federal 
level. In addition, I am happy to note that this bill fully funds the 
IRS at the requested level, providing for enhanced customer service and 
the restructuring of the IRS recently mandated by this Congress.
  As my colleagues know, this is one of the major problems I raised 
with respect to the bill as it passed the House. I was very concerned 
that we were not providing the resources necessary to implement the 
reform program that we had adopted just a short time ago.
  Happily, in conference, we have now provided the resources so that 
that reform can be fully implemented. I have talked personally, as I 
know the chairman has, to Mr. Rissotti, and he believes that, given the 
resources in this bill, that he will be able to meet the expectations 
that the Congress has to ensure that citizens are treated well and 
served effectively and efficiently by the Internal Revenue Service.
  This bill also funds many drug activities, including $460 million for 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This important, yes, even 
critical office has the lead role in coordinating all of this 
government's efforts in the war against drugs.
  Within this $460 million, $192 million is for the very successful 
high-intensity drug trafficking program, $185 million for the ONCDP, 
National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign, and $30 million for the third 
year of the Drug-Free Communities Act. I think the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) received a request from almost every Member of 
the Congress, it seemed, to fully fund this drug-free communities 
effort.
  While we could not fully fund the General Services Administration 
within the 302(b) allocation, GSA is funded near the requested level, 
including funding for needed border stations in several States, and the 
first stage of the project to consolidate the Food and Drug 
Administration at White Oak, in Maryland.
  This bill addresses the rate of increase also for Federal employees' 
compensation. Just a few minutes ago, maybe an hour ago or so, we 
passed the defense authorization bill, which authorizes a 4.8 percent 
level for the military. Happily, this bill, pursuant to the parity 
language adopted by this House on two different occasions this year, 
funds Federal employees at the same rate.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership and assistance in 
accomplishing that objective. Both he, Senator Campbell, and Senator 
Stevens were very supportive of this objective, and I thank them for 
their efforts in that regard.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have extended the authority for 
voluntary early retirement for Federal employees in this bill, critical 
as we downsize in a smart way. Clearly an across-the-board RIF is very 
inefficient. It does not necessarily remove those employees who are no 
longer needed, and is, both from an efficiency standpoint and from an 
economic standpoint, a very poor way to manage our service.
  This language, which gives permanent authority to OPM to authorize 
early outs, will be extraordinarily helpful, I think, in managing well 
the Federal Government.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides government 
agencies with the authority to use appropriated dollars to provide 
child care for low-income Federal employees. I know this has some 
controversy to it and I know that the chairman has indicated that he 
intends to have our committee very closely monitor this initiative, and 
I look forward to working with him on this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. It deserves bipartisan 
support. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I would hope that every Member of the 
House, on both sides of the aisle, could support this report. I thank 
the chairman for his leadership and his work, and join him in his words 
of praise, again, for the competency and commitment of our staff in 
reaching this result.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, 
for his kind comments, and I would say that it has also been a great 
pleasure for me and my staff to work with him. We do not always agree 
on everything, and we will not, that is the nature of this body, that 
is the nature of the legislative process. But it also is the nature of 
the legislative process experience on appropriations that we work 
together to solve problems, and work together to make sure that we have 
a government that functions for the best interests of all of our 
citizens.
  I think that this bill reflects the very best of that process, and 
certainly both with his staff and with the ranking minority member and 
the other members of the subcommittee, I think we have achieved a 
result that we can all be quite proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who has been very 
instrumental in working for child care provisions in legislation.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this conference report. 
I want to very much thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) 
for his leadership and hard work on this important bill. It has been 
inch by inch hard work, diligent work, every step of the way.
  I also want to commend the ranking member, my colleague, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the work that he has done. He 
has done a yeoman's job, and it is a great product that has come about. 
I also want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for 
working with me to ensure that the legislation incorporates the 
provisions of my bill, H.R. 206, the Federal Employee Child Care 
Affordability Act.
  This important and yet simple legislation would allow Federal 
agencies to use funds from their salary and expense accounts to help 
low-income Federal employees pay for child care. The legislation does 
not require any additional appropriations. It would be up to individual 
agencies to determine whether or not to use funds from their salary 
accounts to help provide child care. Agencies, not employees, would 
make payments to child care providers to help lower-income Federal 
employees pay for their child care.
  One of the greatest challenges that families face is finding safe, 
affordable day care. America's lack of safe, affordable day care is not 
a new problem, but its consequences are becoming more dire. It does 
require new, innovative solutions.
  In 1995, 62 percent of women with children younger than 6 and 77 
percent

[[Page 21721]]

of women with children between the ages of 6 and 17 were in the labor 
force. Federal employees working, for example, at the National 
Institutes of Health in my district face significant financial choices 
in paying for child care.

                              {time}  1515

  A GS-6 secretary earning $26,000 per year as a single parent of a 1-
year-old child would have to pay $11,440, more than half of her after-
tax salary, on child care alone. This is a personal example. Put 
simply, without help from her employer, she would not be able to afford 
to work and raise her child.
  This legislation gives federal agencies the flexibility similar to 
that enjoyed by the Department of Defense to tailor their child care 
programs to meet the particular needs of their employees. The 
Department of Defense, writing in support of my legislation, stated 
that these provisions will help remedy the current situation creating 
``the `have's and the have not's' between the Department of Defense and 
other federal agencies because other agencies lack the authority to 
subsidize personnel costs.'' That is a quote.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that these child care provisions do 
not grant regulatory authority to the Office of Personnel Management 
that could lead the way to federalized child care. Mr. Speaker, I am 
dismayed at the level of misinformation that is being spread against 
these common sense provisions. The conferees explicitly stated that any 
regulations promulgated by OPM pursuant to this authority ``shall only 
address the use of appropriated funds to provide child care services 
and improve the affordability of child care for lower income 
employees.''
  Mr. Speaker, by empowering agencies to work as partners with 
employees to meet their child care needs, Congress truly will be 
encouraging family-friendly federal workplaces in higher productivity. 
Retaining our good civil servants is essential to the well-being of our 
democracy.
  In addition to empowering our agencies to create family-friendly 
workplaces, I am pleased that the conference report provides a 4.8 
percent pay increase for our federal civilian employees, equaling the 
pay increase provided for uniformed military personnel and other 
legislation.
  I am encouraged that this legislation includes the victory that we 
won during the debate on the fiscal year 1999 Treasury, Postal bill 
providing for contraceptive coverage in the Federal Employee Health 
Benefits Program. Contraceptives help couples plan wanted pregnancies 
and reduce the need for abortions. This conference report ensures that 
we will continue treating prescription contraceptives the same as all 
other covered drugs in order to achieve parity between the benefits 
offered to male participants in FEHB plans and those offered to female 
ones.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased about the inclusion of language that 
would require federal agencies to have a policy in place to address sex 
discrimination and harassment. It is a provision that steps in the 
right direction to counter the roadblocks for women in federal 
employment and can only bring us closer to creating a highly effective 
work force as we face the challenges of the new millennium.
  I think this conference report is important. I think it reflects a 
sensible compromise between multiple interests.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and 
thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, for 
the very good work. I encourage all of my colleagues to support these 
important provisions to help federal employees and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter from the 
General Counsel of the Department of Defense:

                                            General Counsel of the


                                        Department of Defense,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1999.
     Hon. Constance A. Morella,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Morella: This is in response to your 
     request for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 
     206, the Federal Employee Child Care Affordability Act, and 
     how it would benefit the Department of Defense.
       The Department of Defense has no objections to the proposed 
     legislation and in fact will benefit from H.R. 206.
       The Department of Defense is committed to providing quality 
     affordable child care for both military and civilian 
     employees of the Department. We also are active partners with 
     both the Office of Personnel Management and the General 
     Services Administration in trying to share ``lessons 
     learned'' from the military child care experiences with the 
     rest of the Federal government. One of the lessons we have 
     learned is that quality child care costs more than most lower 
     income and lower ranking members of our community, both 
     military and civilian, can afford. Because of this, we 
     established a policy where families pay child care fees based 
     on their total family income. We pay the balance from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for its operations 
     and maintenance.
       H.R. 206 would provide other Federal agencies the authority 
     to lower the cost of child care for lower income families in 
     a similar manner to how the Department of Defense has done 
     this. The bill, if enacted, would make it easier for us to 
     become partners with other Federal agencies when we are co-
     located in Federal buildings or leased facilities. For 
     example, many of our military recruiting offices are located 
     with other Federal agencies in buildings conveniently located 
     for the communities they serve. Your legislation, if enacted, 
     would permit us to offer more affordable care to these very 
     critical personnel.
       The current Federal child care policies create the ``have's 
     and the have not's'' between the Department of Defense and 
     all other Federal agencies because other agencies lack the 
     authority to subsidize personnel costs. H.R. 206 would assist 
     other Federal agencies in moving closer to the military in 
     quality, cost and availability of child care by decreasing 
     the gap in funding. Requiring any appropriated funds to be 
     used to improve the affordability of child care for lower 
     income employees would move other Federal child care programs 
     closer to the military model which subsidizes child care for 
     lower income employees. This sets the stage to make the 
     entire Federal Government a model for the country in the 
     provision of affordable child care.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this report for the 
     consideration of the Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Judith A. Miller.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment on language that is in the 
statement of managers for the conference report on the Treasury and 
General Government's appropriations bills. This deals with the issue of 
a report that is to be submitted to Congress on personal search 
inspections policies and practices of the U.S. Customs Service.
  Because of the implications the personal search policy has for 
individual rights, Congress clearly needs to monitor proposed policies 
and their implementation. We have anticipated and we expect that 
Customs Service will prepare this report, a report that will cover 
changes being implemented, together with an action plan for further 
improvement in its personal search policies, and that they would submit 
this to the Secretary of the Treasury for approval and transmittal to 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Let me make note of the fact that Commissioner Kelly has taken steps 
that demonstrate his commitment to improving Customs' policy on 
personal search of international passengers at our airports. The search 
process has been made less invasive. Supervisors are being made more 
accountable by being more closely involved in decisions to conduct a 
personal search.
  I think it is clear that the commissioner is committed to fairness in 
the processing of international passengers and making sure that there 
is no racial bias in selecting who is searched. But this does not 
diminish our responsibility as a Congress to oversee this issue and to 
make sure that individual rights are being protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) if he would like to add any 
comments to this.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), and I agree with him. Allegations of unfair treatment by 
Customs

[[Page 21722]]

personnel toward minorities at international airports is certainly 
taken seriously by this committee. This is an area where we need to 
exercise our oversight responsibilities.
  The United States Customs Service has taken these allegations 
seriously as well and has undertaken a thorough review of its policies. 
More importantly, an independent panel has been appointed to review the 
practices of personal searches at the Customs Service and by the 
Customs Service.
  The Personal Search Review Commission is chaired by a widely 
respected individual, Ms. Constance Newman, and includes three esteemed 
officials from other agencies. As someone who has had the opportunity 
of working with Connie Newman over the years, I have full confidence in 
her fairness, in her thoroughness, and in her impartiality.
  The collective experience, knowledge, and insight of the commission 
will provide a firm basis for an objective analysis of the Customs 
Service's methods for carrying out this aspect of their mission.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sanford Cloud, the President of the 
National Conference for Community and Justice, has been selected to be 
an independent advisor to the Commission of the Customs Service on 
personal search matters.
  In this time of change at Customs, it is imperative that Congress be 
provided with the information to evaluate the modifications in personal 
search policy. That is why we intend for this report to be prepared by 
the Customs Service with the approval of the Secretary of Treasury and 
Under Secretary for Enforcement on the changes and its implementation.
  I thank the chairman for allowing us to clarify this matter so that 
we fully understand the import of the language that is included in our 
bill.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman 
Kolbe) for yielding me the time, and I do want to express my 
appreciation to him and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). They 
had a difficult job this year within the parameters that were given to 
them. In the Treasury, Postal, there is no question of very key 
important facets to our Government agencies. I, however, wanted to 
speak, because I am adamantly opposed to this bill as it is written, 
and I wanted to spend a minute so that my colleagues can know why.
  In this bill, we have a 4.8 percent increase for federal workers. A 
third of them will receive another 3 percent increase. That is a 7.8 
percent increase. Now, as we look at what the average federal worker, 
and this comes from the Federal Government statistics, not my 
statistics, the average Federal Government worker who works in the D.C. 
area, Maryland, Virginia and the D.C. area, their present average 
salary is $57,371.
  With this increase, which is four-tenths of a percent above what the 
President asked for, they will receive on average a $2,754 a year 
raise. That is $1.40 an hour is what the average federal employee is.
  Now, I want to contrast with, we are going to give our seniors in 
Social Security a 1.8 percent increase. That is what we are going to 
give the seniors that are out there struggling to make it on their 
Social Security.
  The money that is going to be used to enhance the federal employees 
far above the level of the other people's average salary, and if my 
colleagues look at the whole average federal employee salary in this 
country, $44,886, which is 2\1/2\ times the average family income in 
the State of Oklahoma, that is what the average federal worker's salary 
is, they will receive over $1 an hour increase.
  The four-tenths of a percent increase above what the President 
requested, and do not get me wrong, I think we should increase the pay 
for federal employees, is a $330 million bill. Do my colleagues know 
where that money is going to come from? It is going to come dead out of 
Social Security. So not only are we not supplying our seniors with what 
they should have through an equitable Social Security system, but what 
we are doing is we are taking $330 million that ultimately will come 
from Social Security, because the agreement reached between the 
Congress and the President of the United States will be violated by the 
end of this year as far as the budget caps.
  We just had the President say he is not going to pass the tax cut; 
and, yet, he is going to ask the Congress to spend more money. So if we 
are not going to give a tax cut to the American people and we are going 
to spend more money, then if we are going to do that, let us pony up a 
little bit more for the seniors. If we are going to steal their Social 
Security money anyway, why do we not give them more than a 1.8 percent 
cost of living adjustment that is not even covering their Medicare 
costs or their prescription drug costs.
  There is a second reason that I am against this bill. I am not 
against child care. The Morella idea is a good idea. We should care for 
our children. But the extension of that idea will not work without 
ultimately what her bill, which will eventually be on the floor to 
authorize this, says, that there will be a federal mandated standard 
for federal child care centers.
  The other thing about the Morella language that is in this bill is 
that it is discriminatory. Only can one have the federal benefit if one 
goes to a federally approved day care. If one wants one's neighbor to 
care for one's child, if one wants one's children to care for one's 
child, one does not get the benefit. So only if one comes to Big Daddy, 
Big Brother, will one get that benefit.
  I would hope that the Members of this body will vote against this 
bill and put it back into perspective. We are not in position where we 
can give a $2,000 a year raise to every federal employee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to debate at length the presentation of 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the last speaker, but I 
understand his point. I do not agree with it.
  In fact, I would make the observation that we have a system whereby 
the federal employees are compared with comparable positions in the 
private sector. That report is done pursuant to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. In fact, for comparable work done in the regions of the 
country, it is done regionally so it is not over-inflated for high cost 
areas and low cost areas, but by region, our federal employees for 
comparable work done in the private sector are 20 to 30 percent behind.
  Now, the reason the salaries sound high is because we have NIH 
scientists, we have NASA engineers, we have law enforcement officials 
that are skilled and, for instance, in FBI, college graduates, doing 
some of the most sophisticated criminal investigations possible and DEA 
and ATF and other agencies. We have at the IRS highly skilled and paid 
personnel to carry out very sophisticated financial responsibilities 
and analysis.
  So that, yes, by comparison with the overall, they are high. But just 
as well, Michael Jordan's salary by comparison was high. I tell people 
that Abe Pollin could have gotten 100 people to apply for the Bullets 
at $250,000 a year. There would have been no lack of people applying to 
play.
  Now, the fact of the matter is Abe Pollin would never have won a game 
because, at $250,000, which is a lot of money by our standards, by 
anybody's standards, he would not have gotten competitive ball players.
  That is the nature of some of the things that we do in the federal 
service, very sophisticated, requiring highly skilled people. In the 
competitive market, one pays what the market pays.
  As I pointed out before the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) got 
here, we just passed the defense authorization bill, I obviously do not 
know whether he voted for or against it, in which we included 4.8 
percent adjustment for military pay because we want to keep them and we 
want to be able to recruit. The law calls for parity, and that is what 
we are providing for in this bill.

[[Page 21723]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small 
Business.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland from 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the conferees for including in 
this conference report my amendment which provides funding for grants 
to local and State programs to combat money laundering. This program is 
the linchpin of the anti-money laundering strategy outlined by my bill, 
the Money Laundering and Financial Strategy Act of 1998.
  We all know how the plague of drugs continue to rock this country. In 
the United States alone, estimates put the amount of drug profits 
moving through the financial system as high as $100 billion. We need to 
be serious about facing down this threat. Indeed, recent revelations 
about Russian organized crime laundering money through the Bank of New 
York shows us that we need to be serious. That means giving our State 
and local officials the tools they need to follow the money.
  This appropriation will be used to stop those who bring drugs into 
our neighborhoods and into our kids' lives. Together with the national 
anti-money laundering strategy, which will soon be released, we are 
sending a strong message that the free ride is over.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I might, respond to a few of the 
comments that were made by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

                              {time}  1530

  Let me say that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). He has been the conscience of this House, he has 
been a fiscal hawk, and he has forced those of us on the appropriations 
committees, and all the committees, to answer questions in a way that I 
think we need to have answers, not only to our colleagues but to the 
American people.
  So I salute him for the work that he has done and I appreciate it. It 
may not have always have made my days easier, but it is okay. I think 
it makes for a better bill in the long-run.
  But if I might, let me just talk about a couple of things that he 
mentioned. He talked about the fact that this is $240 million over last 
year. In my opening remarks, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
was not on the floor at that time, but I noted that that $240 million, 
which is less than a 2 percent increase over the current year, is 
considerably short of what we would need--$600 million--to maintain 
current levels. That is just to keep the current operations going.
  Now, one can argue that we ought to make it more efficient, that we 
ought to be more productive, and that there ought to be ways to make 
Government do better with less. And I do not disagree with that. I 
think through the years, for example in the IRS, we have done that very 
substantially. We have brought the number of employees down in IRS by 
20,000. We have brought the amount of money that we have spent in IRS 
substantially. We do have a much more efficient Internal Revenue 
Service.
  But it, nonetheless, gives us a benchmark I think for where we can 
compare things. And clearly, the amount of money needed to make all the 
services that were in our bill last year stay just the same, keep on 
automatic pilot, would be $600 million. We are only taking $240 million 
over that from last year.
  In just two accounts, IRS tax processing, for example, it would take 
$118 million more to maintain current levels. In tax law enforcement, 
it would take $137 million to maintain current levels. Those two 
accounts alone, and those are just two accounts of IRS, which is just 
one very large part of our entire bill, those two accounts alone 
require more than we are giving this bill just to maintain current 
services.
  So it is clear we are not even maintaining current services with the 
proposed spending increases. We are doing it frankly by cutting out 
spending in other areas, and a lot of that comes in courthouse spending 
that we are not able to do this year.
  So I would just make that note that I believe that we do need to have 
these additional resources if we are to have efficiencies in the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  All of us on this floor, I believe all of us that are here at this 
moment, and I believe my colleague from Oklahoma, voted for the IRS 
modernization legislation, which requires much more consumer friendly, 
much more customer orientation on the part of the Internal Revenue 
Service. That costs money. We have shifted a lot of people over from 
IRS tax law enforcement to customer service. It requires more money and 
more time in order to do that.
  That is one of the things that we did not do when we passed the bill 
on this floor in July. We were not able to give all the money we needed 
for the new initiatives that this body has authorized for the Internal 
Revenue Service. We attempted to do that with the money that has been 
restored in the conference committee. So I think it is reasonable.
  I also think that this subcommittee has been very diligent in going 
after agencies to make sure that we are spending every dollar as wisely 
as possible.
  Does that mean we cannot do more? No. We can do more. Does that mean 
we can do better? Yes, we can do better. The agencies can do better and 
the Office of Management and Budget can help us with that as they 
prepare the request for this next year. But I think this bill will 
stand the test of time.
  Let me also just finally mention the issue of pay increases for 
Federal workers. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said that he 
thought it was not fair that Federal employees were getting more than 
retirees were getting into their annual adjustment. We all know the 
difficulty that that poses for us from a fairness standpoint or from a 
political standpoint. But we also know that those two items are based 
on very different kinds of adjustments.
  One for workers, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
pointed out, is based on an employment index, that has to do with what 
is the comparable pay on the outside for workers.
  We are in a very tight labor market. Labor costs have been going up 
fairly dramatically in the last couple of years. Fortunately, inflation 
has not been going up as rapidly. So we find ourselves with this 
anomaly, and it is an anomaly based on historic conditions, where 
inflation remains very low, but thanks to productivity gains and other 
gains, we have been able to increase real wages more rapidly in the 
last couple of years.
  Now, this was true last year. The difference was not as great, but it 
was true last year as well.
  Many of us can remember going back 15, 16, 17 years ago to the early 
1980s when Social Security recipients and Federal retirees were getting 
12 and 13 percent COLA adjustments, while Federal workers were getting 
3 and 4 percent pay increases. The difference was much more dramatic 
going the other direction.
  So I would just say that these are based on two different indexes and 
we ought not to start to mix apples with oranges on that issue.
  Finally, let me just say on the issue of the pay increase, the fact 
that this legislation mandates a 4.8 instead of the 4.4 percent that 
had been requested by the President.
  The Members will remember that earlier this year we gave that larger 
increase to the military because it was felt that we needed to do that 
in order to try to catch up. There was a sense that the same kind of 
fairness needed to be given to civilian employees. And so, in the bill 
that was adopted here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we 
included a provision, a sense of Congress provision, that Federal 
civilian employees should get the same 4.8 percent increase.
  Subsequently, after the President announced that he was going to 
agree to a 4.8 percent adjustment, we decided to write it into the 
bill. That is why we have a 4.8 percent increase in our legislation.

[[Page 21724]]

  So I would just want to make those points at this time.
  I respect what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has suggested 
to us, but I think this bill does stand any test and I think it can be 
fully justified.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I value the Federal employees that work in my district. 
This is not about any individual employee. But the average Federal 
employee's salary in this country is greater than the average salary in 
this country by $4,000.
  So they may be unlike comparisons, but there is an unfairness 
inherently when the average American makes $4,000 more than the average 
Federal employee. That is number one.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if my friend will yield for a question on 
that point, I ask him, how much does the average doctor make above the 
average salary?
  Mr. COBURN. Probably significant. I do not know what the average 
doctor's salary is. But I also know that the average doctor has 8 years 
additional education and debt that the average Federal employee does 
not have, the average.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not say the average Federal employee.
  The gentleman does want to continue to compare apples to apples. The 
reason I use the NBA analogy is because they make far more than any of 
us contemplate ever making perhaps in our lifetime in a year.
  Why do they do so? Because the marketplace demands that if an owner 
of an NBA team wants to have the opportunity of winning, he must hire 
the skill levels necessary to accomplish that objective. The skill 
level required, and the gentleman knows my point, is such that we need 
to pay more.
  Now, I asked the question for doctors not because I think doctors 
should not be well compensated. They have to go through extraordinary 
difficulty to acquire the skills that I want in my doctor. I want my 
doctor to be highly skilled; and, therefore, I know in the marketplace, 
in a free market, I am going to have to pay that doctor, society is 
going to have to pay that doctor, commensurate with the skills 
required.
  What I suggested during my response to the intervention of the 
gentleman was that we have the requirement for some highly skilled 
people in the Federal service. The Federal Government does some 
extraordinarily difficult, complicated things requiring high skills. 
NIH doctors. That goes into the average my colleague is talking about. 
But I will tell my colleague, the average NIH research doctor at NIH 
makes far less than his private sector counterpart. I think the 
gentleman would probably concede that.
  So when we take the average across the country and compare not just 
average salaries but compare skill levels, the report of every report 
that has come out since I have been in Congress in 1989 when we had 
Ronald Reagan and George Bush and now Bill Clinton in office, it did 
not really vary in terms of administrations, was that there was a 
substantial pay gap between the private sector when we compare 
comparable duties and responsibilities with the public sector. That is 
my point.
  So my colleague continues to say ``average,'' and that is correct, 
but many of our people do not have average skills any more than a 
doctor has average skills.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would make two points.
  I would concede that there is a difference in mix. I do not deny 
that. But I also say that if we look at the attrition from the Federal 
Government, it is one-fifth the rate of private industry today. So 
that, on an economic sense, says that they are not running away and 
that they are not being underpaid.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman make that point again.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I said the attrition rate in the Federal 
Government versus private industry is about one-fifth.
  Number two is, we did need to raise military pay, but we do not pay 
military on average anywhere close to what we are paying Federal 
civilian employees. And to say because we are trying to bring them up 
to retain when we do not have the retention problem in the rest of the 
government I think is not an accurate argument.
  The final point I would make: In last year's appropriation there was 
over $400 million for buildings in this bill that are not in there this 
year. So the real expenditure that the American people needs to know is 
this bill has gone up $640 million. Because we are not buying $400-plus 
million worth of buildings this year. We are applying that to run the 
IRS and some of the other agencies that we run.
  So even though the net is only up this additional $240 million, I 
think it is accurate to say that. And I am not saying we do not 
necessarily need to do that. My complaint was on the $330 million, Mr. 
Chairman, not the $240 million.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report for H.R. 2490, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000.
  The bill reported out of conference is a sound bill and a significant 
improvement over the House-passed version. Specifically, the $240 
million that irresponsibly was cut from the House bill at the direction 
of the Republican leadership, was restored in the conference on the 
bill. As a result, this conference report is unanimously supported by 
the both the House and Senate conferees.
  The conference report provides $13.7 billion dollars in funding for 
the important agencies and programs within the bill. The conference 
report includes increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms to enforce our gun and tobacco laws and provides increases 
in funding for key drug control programs, such as a $10 million 
increase for the Drug Free Communities Act, a $5.5 million increase for 
the High intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, and a small increase 
for the drug technology transfer program. Additionally, the conferees 
approved funding for a much-deserved 4.8% raise for our hard-working 
federal employees.
  I am particularly pleased that the conference report contains two 
important measures for American families. The first is a provision that 
would ensure that mothers have the right to breastfeed their babies 
anywhere on federal property that they have a right to be. It may seem 
shocking that this legislation is actually needed. However, this 
provision was attached by Representative Carolyn Maloney in response to 
several instances in which women were asked to stop breastfeeding their 
babies or leave federal museums, parks, and galleries. preventing or 
discouraging mothers from nursing their babies is simply not 
acceptable. I am pleased that the federal government will now set an 
example for the country by encouraging the healthy and natural act of 
breastfeeding.
  I am also pleased that Congresswoman Morella's provision that allows 
federal agencies to use their own funds to help low-income federal 
employees pay for child care was included in the conference report. 
With the severe shortage of affordable, high-quality child care in our 
country, this provision is critically needed.
  While this is a good bill overall, the strict funding limitations our 
committee was forced to adhere to means it is certainly not a perfect 
bill. There are several agencies and programs in this bill that 
deserved and truly needed additional funding. Specifically, I am very 
concerned that new federal courthouse construction projects will 
receive no funding in this bill.
  The federal war on crime and drugs has greatly increased the workload 
of the federal courts. Accordingly, the number of judges and court 
employees has grown. However, our court facilities have not even come 
close to keeping pace with this growth. I am particularly aware of this 
need for new courthouses because the proposed federal courthouse 
project in my district in Los Angeles is first on the General Services 
Administration's priority list for fiscal year 2000.
  The Central District Court in Los Angeles is the largest district 
court in the nation, covering seven counties and over 17 million 
people. The court still operates out of the original courthouse, built 
over 60 years ago, in 1938. The existing facility lacks the adequate 
space to house the current court operations. In fact, according to the 
Judicial Conference, these facilities were officially ``out of space'' 
in 1995.

[[Page 21725]]

This lack of space has created delays, inefficiencies, and large 
backlogs of cases.
  Moreover, security is insufficient to protect those who work in and 
utilize the court facilities. Among other problems, the Judicial 
Conference found that the current facilities in Los Angeles have 
``critical security concerns,'' including ``life-threatening'' security 
deficiencies documented by the U.S. Marshals service. These conditions 
are simply unacceptable.
  In addition, not providing the funding needed to modernize our court 
facilities will only cost us more money in the long run. According to 
GSA delaying funding of new courthouse projects increases costs by an 
average of 3 to 4% annually, meaning that the 16 courthouses on GSA's 
priority list, which would cost $532 million in FY 2000, will cost the 
taxpayers significantly more in years to come. I sincerely hope that 
the Administration and my colleagues in Congress will not allow this 
short-sighted strategy regarding out nation's courts to continue.
  In closing, given the current budgetary constraints, the conference 
report on the Treasury, Postal and General Government Appropriations 
bill is a fair bill. Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Hoyer deserve to 
be commended for crafting a sound bill under these adverse 
circumstances. As a new member of the Appropriations Committee, I am 
pleased to support this conference report and I urge my colleagues to 
do so as well.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of bipartisan leadership at its 
best. And I want to commend Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Hoyer for 
their tireless work on this bill.
  I am particularly pleased that this bill includes strong language 
dealing with the Federal Election Commission.
  Not only does this bill give the FEC its full funding request, but it 
also includes three sensible provisions that will help the FEC operate 
more efficiently.
  Last night, I was proud to stand with my good friend and colleague 
from Maryland in supporting the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform 
bill.
  By passing this bill today, we will help the FEC--the agency that is 
charged with enforcing our campaign finance laws--operate in a more 
efficient manner and better enforce the law.
  It is also worth noting that the FEC provisions in this bill are very 
similar to language that was included in the Thomas substitute debated 
last night.
  At that time, the gentleman from Maryland very wisely suggested that 
we should pass the Thomas substitute tomorrow.
  In this bill, he seems to be getting at least part of his wish.
  So I applaud the gentleman from Maryland, and the gentleman from 
Arizona for their bipartisan leadership on this issue.
  I am also happy to note that an expanded version of my Right to 
Breastfeed amendment was accepted by the Conference Committee.
  This landmark bill will ensure a woman's right to breastfeed her 
child on any federal property. For too long, new mothers have been 
shooed away from federal buildings, national parks, national museums, 
and federal agencies simply because they were feeding a child.
  Until now, they have had little recourse. Now, the law of the land 
will be clear: The federal government supports a woman's decision to 
breastfeed her child.
  I want to thank my colleagues Lucille Roybal-Allard, Christopher 
Shays, and Connie Morella, who worked closely with me on this bill.
  I am pleased to see that the conference committee retained 
contraceptive coverage for federal employees provision from last year. 
This is a victory for women of reproductive age, who routinely pay 68% 
more than men in out of pocket health care costs. This will also go a 
long way toward reducing unwanted pregnancies and therefore reduce 
abortions.
  I would also like to commend my good friend and colleague Connie 
Morella of Maryland, who has been a leader on child care issues, got a 
version of her bill, H.R. 206, included in this conference report.
  I was very pleased to support this provision allowing executive 
branch agencies to use their existing funds to help provide child care 
service for their employees.
  I congratulate her for that, and I applaud the conference committee 
for treating child care issues with such importance.
  This bill shows how much we can accomplish for the American people 
when we work together on a bipartisan basis. I congratulate my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, there is much in this bill that I find to 
be particularly worthy. Unlike last year, when the Members of this 
House fought for months over the details of this legislation, the 
conferees were able to return a final product to this House that a 
majority of people on both sides of the aisle could support. In 
particular, I am pleased that this Congress has finally provided our 
hard working federal employees a 4.8% pay raise. The pay gap between 
government workers that make this country function and white collar 
workers in the private sector grows every year. This situation, which 
failed to be redressed until this year, has negatively impacted the 
hundreds of thousands of households that are headed by government 
employees. As a result of the bipartisan agreement embodied by this 
conference report, thousands of government workers will have an easier 
time making ends meet.
  The Conference Report on H.R. 2490 also contains several other 
important provisions. First, it makes good on the promise that this 
Congress made to the American people in the last Congress when we tried 
to make the Internal Revenue Service more consumer friendly. We do this 
by fully funding the I.R.S., which will use the funds to continue the 
administrative reforms necessary to fulfill the intent of H.R. 2676 
(P.L. 105-206). It also continues to require health plans that cover 
federal employees to make contraceptives available as part of their 
prescription drug coverage. This will assist family planning and reduce 
abortions. I further applaud the provision in the section funding the 
United States Customs Service that requires our customs officers to 
curb the discriminatory treatment of minorities at agency check points, 
as well as the funding for the crucial fight against drug trafficking.
  I could detail more provisions in this conference report that I 
support, but suffice it to say that I would have voted for this bill 
had it not been for one provision, the cost of living increase for 
Members of Congress. For that reason alone, I cast my vote against H.R. 
2490.
  When I was elected to Congress in 1996, I was, in essence, hired by 
the people of the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey. Prior to 
Election Day 1996, I made an agreement with these people to take the 
salary of the job that they hired me to do. Implicit in this 
arrangement was my promise to neither vote for nor accept any pay raise 
prior to another election. When the Members of this House voted to 
increase our own salaries in 1997, I voted against it. When my paycheck 
demonstrated the effect of this pay raise, I returned it to the United 
States Treasury. My stance on this issue is intensely personal, and I 
have no expectation that others should follow my lead. It is simply a 
matter of keeping my word to those I represent.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues in the 106th Congress have again deemed 
it necessary to raise their own pay. This deed was accomplished via the 
same tactic that was used last year, a procedural vote that I would 
contend that less than half of the people inside the Beltway 
understand, much less the American people. This is regrettable. If we 
are going to raise our own pay, it should be done via a straight up or 
down vote in circumstances that we can all understand. A pay raise 
should not be tucked in an appropriations bill that almost all of us 
could support without its presence. There is much here that I want to 
support. However, to do so would be to break the agreement that I made 
with the people of the Eighth Congressional District over two years 
ago. Many say that your word is your bond and I couldn't agree more. I 
am not willing to sacrifice mine to make a politically popular vote.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report 
on the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill.
  I do so particularly because of two areas of funding in the bill--the 
first being the important anti-drug efforts of the National Youth Anti-
drug Media Campaign and the Drug Free Communities Act. These are both 
measures that I strongly believe will make a difference in our fight 
against substance abuse by reducing demand for illegal drugs. These 
measures are the key to winning the so-called war on drugs.
  I am also pleased that this conference report restores funding to 
reform the IRS. Last year, we passed this historic IRS Restructuring 
and Reform Act, the most dramatic reform in over 45 years. The Clinton 
Administration initially opposed the effort but ultimately agreed with 
a strong, bipartisan majority in this House that reform was needed.
  Mr. Speaker, this appropriations bill honors the commitment to 
reforming the IRS that we made last year. It funds the very important 
customer service improvements that were mandated by the legislation we 
passed last year, including a dramatic taxpayer-friendly reorganization 
of the whole IRS that will improve customer service for every 
taxpayer--and including the very popular Tele-File program that lets 
taxpayers file their tax returns much more easily through the 
telephone.

[[Page 21726]]

  Second, it funds the desperately needed computer modernization 
effort. Every Member of this House has heard horror stories, I know I 
have, from our constituents who have received erroneous computer 
notices where the left hand of the IRS does not know what the right 
hand is doing. I have been very critical of the IRS as have other 
Members. By investing in improved IRS technology, we will be protecting 
our constituents from the kind of computer problems we have all seen.
  We also need to expand access to taxpayer-friendly electronic 
filing--and this funding will enable us to move forward on that front. 
Right now there is a 22 percent error rate on paper filing, compared to 
less than a 1 percent error rate on electronic filing. That is why we 
mandated that the IRS work hard on electronic filing and in fact we set 
a goal of 80 percent electronic filing for the IRS by 2007.
  Finally, this funding will enable the IRS to complete its Y2K 
preparations during this calendar year. While the thought of IRS 
computers crashing may bring glee to the hearts of many, think about 
the consequences. Think about no refund checks. Think about erroneous 
IRS notices sent to innocent taxpayers who think they have paid their 
taxes in a timely way and in an appropriate way. Think about the 
unnecessary audits that might result. This appropriations bill gives 
the IRS the tools it needs to complete its Y2K preparations.
  I believe we are making progress in reforming the IRS, and this 
appropriations bill gives Commissioner Rossotti the resources to 
continue these efforts. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. The 
Clinton Administration's continued failure to send a full slate of 
nominees for the new IRS Oversight Board to the Senate is a cause for 
very deep concern. I am deeply troubled by this continued failure--now 
eight months past the statutory deadline--and I believe it raises 
serious questions about this Administration's commitment to reforming 
this troubled agency. I strongly urge the Administration to stop 
delaying and send the IRS Oversight Board nominations to the Senate.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote in favor of this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Murtha

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Murtha moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill, H.R. 2490, to the Committee of Conference.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 61, 
nays 359, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 425]

                                YEAS--61

     Bartlett
     Berkley
     Boswell
     Cannon
     Carson
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     Deal
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Fletcher
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McIntosh
     Miller (FL)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Shadegg
     Shows
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (NM)

                               NAYS--359

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clay
     Etheridge
     Hastings (FL)
     Houghton
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Kingston
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanford

                              {time}  1612

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, PAUL, WALSH, Ms. GRANGER, Mrs. CLAYTON, 
Mr. MARTINEZ, Ms. WOOLSEY

[[Page 21727]]

and Mr. DELAHUNT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. TIERNEY, DUNCAN, EDWARDS, Ms. BERKLEY, and Messrs. MANZULLO, 
GUTKNECHT, GOODE, TURNER, FLETCHER, DEUTSCH, SHOWS, SMITH of Michigan, 
CONDIT, HOSTETTLER, COSTELLO and BOSWELL changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make an important announcement 
regarding the floor schedule for the rest of today and the balance of 
the week.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that Members are concerned about the 
safety regarding making flights home before the arrival of the 
approaching storm. My office has been in contact with the major 
airlines flying out of both Reagan and Dulles airports, and they are 
warning us to expect delays and many cancellations beginning this 
evening and into tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to give the Membership the greatest window of 
opportunity to make flights back to their districts, we are concluding 
legislative business on the House floor after this next vote.
  Mr. Speaker, we are further meeting with key appropriators who will 
be contacted by the Speaker's office in order for them to use this time 
to continue their work on the appropriations conference reports.
  A notice with next week's legislative agenda will be delivered to all 
Members' offices later this week, and I wish all my colleagues safe 
travel home, and of course our prayers will be with all those affected 
by this hurricane.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 292, 
nays 126, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 426]

                               YEAS--292

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--126

     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berkley
     Berry
     Boswell
     Canady
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Franks (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Largent
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shows
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brady (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Etheridge
     Hastings (FL)
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Kingston
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanford
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________