[House Report 105-597]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-597
_______________________________________________________________________


 
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4104, THE TREASURY POSTAL 
                APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                _______
                                

   June 23, 1998.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. McInnis, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 485]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 485, by a non-record vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4104, 
``The Treasury Postal Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 
1999,'' under an open rule.
    The rule waives points of order against consideration of 
the bill for failing to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI 
(requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report), or clause 
7 of rule XXI (requiring printed hearings and reports to be 
available for 3 days prior to consideration of general 
appropriations bills). The rule provides for one hour of 
general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Appropriations Committee.
    The rule also provides that the amendments printed in part 
1 of this report be considered as adopted in the House and in 
the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives points of order 
against provisions in the bill, as amended, which do not comply 
with clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized or 
legislative appropriations in a general appropriations bill) 
and clause 6 of rule XXI (prohibiting reappropriations in a 
general appropriations bill), except as specified in the rule.
    The rule further waives all points of order against the 
amendments printed in part 2 of this report and provides that 
such amendments may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report 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.
    The rule provides for priority in recognition for those 
amendments that are pre-printed in the Congressional Record. 
The rule provides that the chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the 
chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 
minutes, provided that the voting time on the first in a series 
of questions is not less than 15 minutes.
    Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.

                                 PART I

 Summary of Amendments Considered as Adopted by the Rule to H.R. 4104-
  Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations FY99

    Strikes emergency funding related to the Year 2000 
conversion of Federal information technology systems. ($2.25 
billion)
    In error the amendment adopted by the Appropriations 
Committee eliminated a provision of current law. Therefore, the 
amendment with the correction grants the authority of 
negotiating international postal agreements to the U.S. Trade 
Representative, rather than the U.S. Postal Service.
    Amendments considered as adopted by the rule:
    On page 37, strike line 10 and all that follows through 
page 38, line 14.
    Strike subsection (c) of section 407 of title 39, United 
States Code, as proposed to be amended by section ____ (a) 
(relating to international postal arrangements), and insert the 
following:
    ``(c) The Postal Service may--
          ``(1) enter into such commercial and operational 
        contracts relating to international postal services as 
        it considers necessary, except that the Postal Service 
        may not enter into any contract with an agency of a 
        foreign government (whether under authority of this 
        paragraph or otherwise) if it would grant an undue or 
        unreasonable preference to the Postal Service with 
        respect to any class of mail or type of mail service; 
        and
          ``(2) with the consent of the President, establish 
        the rates of postage or other charges on mail matter 
        conveyed between the United States and other 
        countries.''.

                                PART II

Summary of Amendments Made in Order by the Rule on H.R. 4104--Treasury, 
       Postal Service and General Government Appropriations FY99

    DeLay (30 min.): Finds that there is no Constitutional 
basis and no Federal common law or statutory law precedent to 
justify the establishment of a protective function privilege. 
Expresses the sense of the Congress that if the President 
believes that the protective function privilege has merit, he 
should submit legislation to that effect to the Congress or 
otherwise withdraw his appeal of the recent district court 
decision denying the existence of such a privilege.
    Coburn (30 min.): Clarifies that ``contraceptive drug or 
device'' does not apply to drugs or devices which result in an 
abortion.
    Obey (30 min.): Exempts religiously sponsored, officiated 
or controlled plans from the requirement that all FEHBP plans 
cover the full range of prescription contraceptives as part of 
the benefits package. Allows the Catholic health plans 
currently participating in the FEHBP program to continue to 
participate without violating the tenets of their religious 
beliefs.
    Amendments made in order by the rule:

 1. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative DeLay of Texas, or a 
                   Designee, Debatable for 30 Minutes

    Add at the end of title VI, but before the short title, the 
following:
    Sec.     . (a) Congress finds that--
          (1) the Office of the Independent Counsel and a 
        Federal grand jury are investigating allegations of 
        personal wrongdoing and possible crimes in the White 
        House;
          (2) certain Secret Service agents asserted a 
        ``protective function privilege'' and refused to answer 
        questions before a Federal grand jury (In Re Grand Jury 
        Proceedings, Misc. No. 91-148 (NHJ), redacted version 
        at 1, (D.D.C. May 22, 1998) (hereinafter referred to as 
        ``Grand Jury Proceedings''));
          (3) ``[n]one of the questions at issue relate to the 
        protective techniques or procedures of the Secret 
        Service'' (Grand Jury Proceedings at 1);
          (4) Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that 
        evidentiary privileges ``shall be governed by the 
        principles of the common law as they may be interpreted 
        by the Courts of the United States in the light of 
        reason and experience'';
          (5) the Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 501 to 
        require courts to consider whether the asserted 
        privilege is historically rooted in Federal law, 
        whether any States have recognized the privilege, and 
        public policy interests (Grand Jury Proceedings at 2, 
        citing Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 12-15 (1996));
          (6) the Supreme Court has emphasized that it is 
        ``disinclined to exercise [its] authority [under Rule 
        501] expansively'' (University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 
        493 U.S. 182, 189 (1990)) and has cautioned that 
        privileges ``are not lightly created nor expansively 
        construed, for they are in derogation of the search for 
        truth'' (U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974));
          (7) the district court found ``no constitutional 
        basis for recognizing a protective function 
        privilege,'' ``no history of the privilege in Federal 
        common or statutory law,'' ``[n]o State [recognition 
        of] a protective function privilege or its 
        equivalent,'' and ``the policy arguments advanced by 
        the Secret Service are not strong enough to overcome 
        the grand jury's substantial interest in obtaining 
        evidence of crimes or to cause this Court to create a 
        new testimonial privilege'' (Grand Jury Proceedings at 
        3, 6-9);
          (8) no administration has ever sought congressional 
        enactment of a protective function privilege;
          (9) Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson refused to 
        establish a protective function privilege (Grand Jury 
        Proceedings at 9) and correctly noted such claims 
        should be made to Congress, not to the courts (Grand 
        Jury Proceedings at 4);
          (10) the Attorney General, who is the Nation's chief 
        law enforcement official, should not assert claims of 
        privilege, such as the protective function privilege, 
        that have no basis in law and the assertion of which 
        substantially delays the work of the grand jury;
          (11) former Attorneys General Barr, Thornburgh, 
        Meese, and Bell encouraged Attorney General Reno to 
        forego appealing the district court's decision because 
        they believe the decision was ``legally and 
        historically well-founded,'' and ``any appeal would 
        likely result in an opinion that would only magnify the 
        precedential damage to the Executive Branch'' (Letter 
        from Professor Jonathan Turley to Attorney General 
        Reno, May 25, 1998); and
          (12) the Attorney General has appealed the district 
        court's decision.
    (b) It is the sense of the Congress that the President of 
the United States, if he believes such a policy is warranted, 
should submit to the Congress proposed legislation which would 
establish a protective function privilege and also direct the 
Attorney General to immediately withdraw the appeal of the 
district court's decision in the matter styled In Re Grand Jury 
Proceedings, Misc. No. 91-148 (NHJ), redacted version, (D.D.C. 
May 22, 1998).
                              ----------                              


2. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Coburn of Oklahoma, or 
                  a Designee, Debatable for 30 Minutes

    Page 71, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 
72, line 2, and insert the following:
    ``(b) For purposes of this section--
          ``(1) the term `contraceptive drug or device' means a 
        drug or device intended for preventing pregnancy, but 
        does not include any drug, device, or procedure which 
        has as one of its known effects the interference with 
        the implantation of a fertilized human ovum or embryo 
        in the uterus or the termination of pregnancy after 
        implantation in the uterus; and
          ``(2) the term `outpatient contraceptive services' 
        means consultations, examinations, procedures, and 
        medical services, provided on an outpatient basis and 
        related to the use of contraceptive methods (including 
        natural family planning) to prevent pregnancy, not 
        including the provision of any service relating to a 
        drug, device, or procedure which has as one of its 
        known effects the interference with the implantation of 
        a fertilized human ovum or embryo in the uterus or the 
        termination of pregnancy after implantation in the 
        uterus.''
                              ----------                              


3. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Obey of Wisconsin, or a 
                   Designee, Debatable for 30 Minutes

    At the end of section 516 (page 72, after line 2), insert 
the following:
    (c) An organization that is religiously controlled, 
sponsored, or affiliated shall be exempted from the application 
of this section if, or to the extent that, the providing of any 
coverage or benefits referred to in subsection (a) would 
violate the bona fide tenets of the religion involved.

                                
