[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14244-14270]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        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

[[Page 14245]]

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,

[[Page 14246]]

what is called the FAIR Act, what is 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

[[Page 14247]]

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 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

[[Page 14248]]

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 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

[[Page 14249]]

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 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. 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. 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

[[Page 14250]]

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 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. 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.

[[Page 14251]]

  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 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 systematically 
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.

[[Page 14252]]

  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 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

[[Page 14253]]

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.
  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. 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

[[Page 14254]]

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 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.

[[Page 14255]]

  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 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.
  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.

[[Page 14256]]

  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 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

[[Page 14257]]

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 
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

[[Page 14258]]

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 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

[[Page 14259]]

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 
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.

[[Page 14260]]

  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.
  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, noncorruptible 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

[[Page 14261]]

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 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

[[Page 14262]]

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. 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.
  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

[[Page 14263]]

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 our 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.
       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.

[[Page 14264]]

     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 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

[[Page 14265]]

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
     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

[[Page 14266]]


     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
     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

[[Page 14267]]


     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
     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

[[Page 14268]]


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
Wam
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;
       (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.

[[Page 14269]]

       (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. 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.

[[Page 14270]]

  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.

                          ____________________