TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
(House of Representatives - July 15, 1999)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H5612-H5677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 246 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2490.

                              {time}  1528


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2490) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the 
United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, 
and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.

                              {time}  1530

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be on the floor this afternoon to 
present to my colleagues H.R. 2490, the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
  As this bill has been reported by the full committee, it provides 
$13.5 billion in discretionary budget authority for the agencies that 
come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. The level of funding 
is the same, I want to repeat that, this is the same level of funding 
as the amount appropriated in FY 1999.
  The bill presented here today is strong on law enforcement, tough on 
drugs, supportive of efforts to restructure and reform the way IRS does 
business, and increases Federal resources to enforce our current gun 
laws.
  All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. That 
has been a tall order for our subcommittee to fill. With the help of my 
colleagues on the subcommittee and the committee, we have accomplished 
what I think is a very daunting task.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank everybody for their help on 
this bill, all the Members, particularly my ranking member the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and his staff, Scott Nance and Pat 
Scheulter, who have done an outstanding job to help us get to where we 
are today.
  I might add, I think this bill comes to the floor in a very 
bipartisan fashion. We have differences, as the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) will explain, but we come to the floor in a very bipartisan 
fashion because we have worked well together on this. I salute my 
colleague the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, 
for the work that he has done and his assistance in getting us to this 
point.
  I believe that, in its current form, this is an excellent bill and, 
remarkably, it is a clean bill. There are not controversial legislative 
riders on this bill. Believe it or not, this bill is an appropriations 
bill, pure and simple. It is my hope that it will remain that way not 
only on the floor here today but also as we move through conference 
with the Senate.
  My colleagues know that the allocation required us to make some tough 
choices to put this bill together. This allocation is based on budget 
caps, which, may I remind everybody, both parties in both chambers and 
the President of the United States support.
  In order to keep pace with inflation, the subcommittee needed nearly 
$600 million in new money. But clearly the allocation we received did 
not give us that. So in order to support the base operations of the 
agencies which we fund, we were required to look elsewhere for our 
savings.
  We found these savings. We found these savings by postponing 
construction of new courthouses, by extending the time that was needed 
to complete some of our projects.
  However, let me make it clear that the funding levels that are 
contained in this bill will adversely affect no programs. In fact, we 
were able to increase critical efforts to keep guns out of the hands of 
children, to make sure that the IRS treats taxpayers fairly.
  In addition, I want to remind my colleagues that this bill supports 
approximately 30 percent of all the Federal law enforcement operations, 
the personnel that are in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 
those in the Customs Service, the Secret Service, and the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy.
  In total, the bill before us provides $4.4 billion for these efforts, 
the same as the President's request, and about $185 million above the 
current year. We target all of these resources to supporting efforts 
that enforce and implement laws currently on our books, laws that seek 
to prevent guns from getting in the hands of criminals and youths, laws 
that seek to prevent illegal drugs from coming across our borders, and 
laws that seek to protect our Nation's leaders and the financial 
systems of this country.
  I know that many Members in this body feel that the Federal 
Government is too big, that it is bloated and it is inefficient. I, for 
one, agree completely that we need to be able to transfer more power 
and more money out of Washington and back to our States and our local 
communities. But we should not do this in a haphazard and irresponsible 
fashion.
  I cannot support amendments which make additional funding reductions 
to this bill. We are already $840 million below what the status quo 
would be with inflation alone. Further reductions would allow our 
infrastructure to deteriorate. It would cause us to delay the IRS 
reforms that we all voted for so willingly last year. It would rob our 
law enforcement agencies of the resources they desperately need. It 
would negatively impact our ability to protect our borders.
  I have had the privilege of chairing this subcommittee for 3 years. I 
believe that we have applied a fiscally conservative philosophy to this 
bill, one which I certainly share. I think we have steadily chipped 
away at inefficiencies that we find in Government, at least in the 
agencies that are included within the jurisdiction of this bill.
  The bill that is before us today continues to do this, but I think it 
does so in a responsible and a well thought out way. We have spent the 
past 6 months carefully scrubbing the appropriations requests we 
received from the administration, from OMB, and from each of these 
agencies that come under our jurisdiction.
  The funding levels that are recommended in this bill reflect what I 
believe is the best judgment of the Subcommittee and the Full Committee 
on Appropriations, their judgment about the funding levels that are 
necessary to sustain the operations of agencies that are under our 
jurisdiction.
  So I urge, no, in fact I would implore my colleagues not to make 
other radical cuts to the beneficial programs that this bill supports.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to withhold 
amendments that would ultimately jeopardize our sending this bill to 
the President in a timely manner. Let us get on with the business of 
appropriating. Let us get on with moving this bill forward.

[[Page H5613]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY99.000


[[Page H5614]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY99.001


[[Page H5615]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY99.002


[[Page H5616]]


  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting once again the 
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for the excellent job he and 
his staff have done with the bill this year. I thank them for their 
diligent work on this bill and for their spirit of bipartisan 
cooperation.
  Within the 302(b) allocation level that had been provided for this 
subcommittee, $13.6 billion in discretionary budget authority, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) produced a very good bill that 
he presented to the subcommittee.
  Even though we were not able to fund courthouse construction within 
the constraints of this allocation, which I think is a significant and 
important shortcoming of this bill, this bill deserved bipartisan 
support as it came out of subcommittee. And indeed it came out of 
subcommittee, I would remind my colleagues, unanimously.
  This bill, as the chairman has said, funds the Department of the 
Treasury at $12.19 billion, $18.6 million below the request of the 
President. Included within this amount is $3.433 billion for the 
Treasury. Five important law enforcement agencies, as the chairman has 
pointed out, over 40 percent of law enforcement in the Federal 
Government falls within this bill.
  This bill also funds antidrug activities, including $46.9 million for 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This important office has 
the lead role in coordinating all of this Government's efforts in the 
war against drugs. Within this money, $192 million is for the very 
successful high intensity drug trafficking areas; $19.5 million is for 
ONDCP's national youth and antidrug media campaign; and $30 million is 
for the third year of the very popular and widely supported Drug-Free 
Communities Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I remain disappointed that this bill contains almost no 
construction funds. We have the responsibility in this appropriations 
bill to fund most of the construction of Federal buildings for the 
entire Government. But this year there is no attempt to fund any of the 
Federal courthouses on the Judiciary's 5-year plan.
  Let me make it clear to the Members. The chairman, with the 
committee's support, last year funded courthouses but not those that 
were requested by Members but those that were agreed to by the 
Judiciary as the most critically needed in this Nation to assure the 
timely administration of justice.
  This bill eliminates requested construction funds furthermore of $32 
million to buy five border stations. They are needed, as the chairman 
knows. $4.3 million is eliminated for the project to replace the U.S. 
Mission to the United Nations in New York City, badly in need of 
replacement. $55.9 million was deleted from the President's budget to 
fund the long overdue consolidation of the FDA, and $15 million for a 
secure location for the currently vulnerable ATF Headquarters building.
  Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, these deletions are very unfortunate and, 
in my opinion, penny wise and pound foolish.
  I understand, however, why this bill does not include funding for 
these important construction projects. It is because this is the third 
year of the Balanced Budget Agreement and the very stringent budget 
caps have not been raised.
  The 302(b) allocation is only 1.8 percent over the 1999 level. I want 
to repeat that, Mr. Chairman, for Members of the House and, very 
frankly, for all those listening. This bill represents only a 1.8-
percent increase over last year's funding. That is for all salary 
increases and expenses of utilities and other related expenses that are 
required both of families and of the Government. This is clearly not 
enough to cover basic pay and inflationary increases.
  So, in fact, we have an effective cut. So by eliminating requested 
construction projects and not adding back courthouse construction, 
which this committee did in the 1999 budget, the chairman has managed 
to almost fully fund the remainder of the requested amount in this 
bill.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe the chairman did an outstanding 
job within an allocation that was simply too low because it was based 
on unrealistic budget caps.
  Mr. Chairman, I very sincerely regret that the bill before this House 
today is a bill I cannot support. Why? I have said that the bill that 
came out of subcommittee was unanimously supported, strongly supported 
by me, again, realizing that it was deficient in the areas that I have 
talked about but realizing, as well, that the chairman and the 
committee had done the best it could given the fiscal constraints with 
which it was confronted.
  However, not because the Committee on Appropriations thought it 
fiscally appropriate to do so, not because the Committee on 
Appropriations believed that there was waste within any of the numbers 
provided in the subcommittee's reported bill, not because the majority 
of the Committee on Appropriations members felt that we ought to cut 
this bill, but because, very frankly, Mr. Chairman, a relatively small 
group in this House has decided that we are going to make cuts 
notwithstanding the needs of this Nation.

                              {time}  1545

  The unilateral actions of the House majority leadership in cutting 
the funding of this bill by $240 million below the 302(b) allocation 
has hindered this bill.
  Let me make an aside, Mr. Chairman. The 302(b) allocation comes about 
as a result of the budget resolution passed by this House and the 
Senate. Let me repeat that. The 302(b) allocation that this bill was 
reported on out of the subcommittee was consistent with the allocations 
made pursuant to the budget passed by this House and the United States 
Senate. It was not overbudget. It was not over the 302(b) allocation.
  I believe that the almost quarter of a billion dollar cut in this 
bill has rendered it unsupportable. This reduction passed the Committee 
on Appropriations on a straight party-line vote, 33-26.
  Mr. Chairman, you chaired a retreat. It was a retreat on civility. It 
was a retreat with the objective of trying to bring us together and 
make us a more unified, cooperative body, looking at things that were 
in the best interest of this Nation, not what was in the best interest 
of party. Very frankly, the subcommittee did this. Very frankly, the 
Committee on Appropriations would have supported that. But there 
continues to be a group who does not want to work in a bipartisan 
fashion, who does not want to bring us together but wants to drive us 
apart, who wants to, in my opinion, for either political or 
philosophical reasons, create differences where they ought not to be.
  I regret that I rise in opposition to the bill as it stands now. We 
were told that this reduction is necessary to relieve pressure on other 
appropriations bills that follow. However, this $240 million will not 
begin to solve the more than $30 billion shortfall in the 302(b) 
allocation of other appropriations bills.
  What really is happening here is that the leadership is undercutting 
the committee process to satisfy a few of the members of their 
conference. This is the fourth appropriations bill to be cut based not 
on the judgment of the Committee on Appropriations but on the judgment 
of the leadership.
  The worst part of this reduction is the damage it does to core 
government functions. Funding for the IRS is reduced by $135 million. 
The General Services Administration repairs and alterations is reduced 
by $100 million, and the Treasury Department's efforts to automate 
human resources management are cut by $5  million. These cuts are 
troubling and extremely ill-advised.

  After scores of hearings, days and days of deliberation, the 
subcommittee made a judgment that the appropriate numbers were $135 
million more in IRS, $100 million more in GSA and $5 million more in 
the human resources management of the Treasury Department.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that you voted for the legislation that resulted 
from the ``Vision for a New IRS.'' Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, you will 
remember, perhaps, that I was one of four people when the IRS reform 
bill was considered on the floor to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I do not 
expect you to remember what I had to say, as compelling as it was, in 
the debate that day, but I got up on the floor and I

[[Page H5617]]

said, ``I am voting no, and very frankly, if you're going to be for IRS 
reform, you've got to be for IRS reform at appropriations time and at 
tax-writing time.'' What I meant by that is that we needed to give it 
the appropriate resources.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) of this body and Bob Kerrey of 
the other body were critically important in passing this legislation. 
In the report that they issued, they said this:
  ``The Commission recommends that Congress provide the IRS certainty 
in its operational budget in the near future. We recommend that the IRS 
budget for tax law enforcement and processing, assistance, and 
management be maintained at current levels of funding for the next 3 
years.''
  Why did they say that? They said it because if we are going to have 
reform in IRS, we need to fund the resources to provide the taxpayer 
services that that bill contemplated. In the cuts that confront us 
today, we are not doing that.
  Last year, the House voted overwhelmingly for that reform bill. That 
act followed recommendations of the commission that studied the IRS 
which stated concerning budgets that, and I quote, the IRS should 
receive stable funding for the 3 years. Furthermore, they said a stable 
budget will allow the IRS leadership to plan and implement operations 
which will improve taxpayer service and compliance.
  Mr. Chairman, in a recent letter, IRS Commissioner Rossotti stated 
the following concerning the fiscal year 2000 requested level:
  ``This level is the absolute bare minimum necessary to meet the 
congressional demand to reform IRS.''
  Mr. Chairman, as you may know, Mr. Rossotti is a Republican. I do not 
mean he is a partisan. He is a registered Republican and he is a 
businessman who ran an 8,000-person firm in the private sector, had 
offices worldwide, and was asked by Secretary Rubin to come in to 
manage this department. He is not a tax lawyer as most of his 
predecessors were, he is a manager, a business manager, asked to make 
this agency run efficiently, effectively and cognizant of the needs of 
its customers, the taxpayers of this country. He is doing so.
  He says further, ``Without these funds, the reform effort mandated by 
the restructuring act will be in jeopardy and could in fact fail.''
  It is not enough to pass legislation which says we are going to 
reform the IRS. It is, as this report indicated, necessary to fund it 
at stable levels. We have not done so.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Coyne) and in doing so I would like to observe that he is one of 
the senior members, as the chairman knows, of the Committee on Ways and 
Means but more importantly for the purposes of this bill was a member 
of the IRS reform task force and was intimately involved in the 
recommendations that that task force made.
  (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to object to the cut which the 
Committee on Appropriations has made in funding for the Internal 
Revenue Service.
  While it may be politically popular to cut funding for the IRS, the 
consequences of this action would be profoundly counterproductive and 
irresponsible. Do we really want to delay IRS reform or implementation 
of the new taxpayer protections that were enacted just last year? I do 
not think so. But that is the effect of this misguided cut that we are 
contemplating here today.
  Do we really want to deny the IRS the resources it needs to modernize 
its equipment and prepare for the year 2000 bug that we hear so much 
about? I really do not think so, but this is what might happen if we 
deny the IRS the resources it needs to make the Y2K conversion in a 
timely fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, this feel-good IRS cut may not feel so good next year. 
I urge Members to vote against this inadequate bill and send it back to 
the Committee on Appropriations to be fixed.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to object to the last-minute $135 million 
cut which the Appropriations Committee has made in funding for the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  While it may be a politically popular move for some to cut funding 
for the IRS next year, the consequences of this action would be 
profoundly counterproductive, unwise, and irresponsible. My Republican 
colleagues know this and are trying to figure out, behind the scenes, 
how to undo the damage this bill would do to millions of taxpayers.
  Why was the IRS originally given a slight increase in funding for the 
next year? $75 million dollars was to be used for implementing the IRS 
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which was passed by the Congress 
less than a year ago. The remaining $50 million was to be used for 
modernizing IRS equipment and completing the agency's Y2K conversion.
  The IRS reform bill that Congress passed last year was intended to 
make the IRS more taxpayer-friendly, allow the IRS to hire experts and 
top managers, reorganize the agency, and provide taxpayers with more 
than 70 new taxpayers rights in dealing with the agency.
  The IRS is currently in the midst of its hiring and reorganization 
efforts. A significant number of the taxpayer rights provisions have 
not yet been fully implemented. For example, IRS action to provide 
innocent spouse relief, allow taxpayers installment agreements, and 
process claims for abatement of penalty and interest all require 
employee training, new forms and guidance, and IRS employee interaction 
with taxpayers. Do we really want to delay IRS action on these 
statutory mandates--and on implementation of these taxpayer 
protections? I don't think so, but that is the effect that this 
misguided cut would have.
  Similarly, do we really want to deny the IRS the resources it needs 
to modernize its equipment and prepare for the year 2000 bug? Are 
taxpayers really better off if an IRS computer malfunctions? Do we want 
to risk the possibility that millions of Americans would have to spend 
hours or days straightening out their tax records? I really don't think 
so, but that is what might happen if we deny the IRS the resources it 
needs to make the Y2K conversion in a timely fashion.
  IRS Commissioner Rossotti stated the urgency of the situation quite 
clearly in a letter to Representative Steny Hoyer, Ranking Member of 
the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Subcommittee, earlier this month. 
Commissioner Rossotti wrote, ``I want to reemphasize how critical this 
[IRS] budget is to the success of the restructuring and reform act of 
1998, passed almost unanimously a year ago. This landmark, bipartisan 
legislation established 71 new taxpayer rights provisions and mandated 
an entirely new direction for the IRS. Implementing these provisions is 
a huge job that requires a great deal of additional staff time and 
technology change . . . the Administration's IRS budget request for FY 
2000 is essentially level with last year's. This level is the absolute 
bare minimum necessary to meet the congressional demand to reform the 
IRS. Without these funds, the reform effort mandated by the 
restructuring act will be in jeopardy, and could, in fact, fail due to 
financial constraints.''
  Treasury Secretary Summers added that implementing the improvements 
of the 1998 IRS reform act ``. . . is of the highest priority in the 
department. The budget follows through on commitments made to the 
American people to reform the IRS and give the taxpayers the service 
they deserve and expect. We are at an important crossroad on 
implementation and we must ensure that the IRS is provided adequate 
funding to see these changes through to completion . . . I urge the 
Congress . . . to ensure that the final appropriation reflects the same 
commitment to supporting IRS reform that has been shown in the past.''
  Mr. Chairman, this feel-good IRS cut may not feel so good next year. 
I urge Members with any sense of responsibility for IRS reform to vote 
against this inadequate bill and send it back to the Appropriations 
Committee to be fixed. The Treasury-Postal Appropriations Subcommittee, 
as well as the President, recommended $8.2 billion for the IRS next 
year with good reason.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been so 
instrumental in helping bring about the IRS reforms and restructuring 
and is the individual who has worked very hard on this and understands 
what this restructuring is all about.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me this time. I want to start by commending the gentleman from 
Maryland and the gentleman from Arizona for putting together a very 
good bill. Overall, this is legislation that will help move our country 
forward in a number of ways.
  I want to mention particularly the antidrug efforts. The funding of 
the Antidrug Media Campaign and the Drug Free Communities Act are both 
measures that I think will make a tremendous difference in terms of our

[[Page H5618]]

fight against substance abuse by reducing demand in our communities.
  I do, though, need to speak briefly about the IRS provisions in the 
legislation. It was just about a year ago when we passed what was 
historic IRS restructuring and reform legislation, the most dramatic 
reform in fact of the IRS in over 45 years. The Clinton administration 
initially opposed the effort but ultimately they, too, agreed that IRS 
reform was overdue and ultimately the legislation passed with 
overwhelming support in both the House and the Senate. Now with this 1-
year anniversary coming up just a week from today, it is time for us as 
a Congress to put our money where our mouth is.
  The measure before us today, as Members probably know, cuts about 
$135 million of funding for the IRS. The funding level proposed in the 
bill, I think, will jeopardize the implementation of the very law we 
passed with so much bipartisan support and fanfare just last year. It 
sounds good on the surface to cut the IRS but it actually hurts 
taxpayer service.
  Let us take a look at how it would affect taxpayers. First, it 
jeopardizes the implementation of the very important customer service 
improvements which are mandated by the legislation we passed last year, 
including a dramatic taxpayer-friendly reorganization of the whole IRS 
that will improve customer service for every taxpayer, including the 
very popular telefile program that lets taxpayers file their tax 
returns much more easily through the telephone.
  Second, it will endanger the needed computer modernization effort. 
Every Member of this House has heard horror stories, I know I have, 
from our constituents who have received erroneous computer notices 
where the left hand of the IRS does not know what the right hand is 
doing. I have been very critical of the IRS as have other Members. The 
effort here was to come up with computer modernization efforts and 
resources that would help us to deal with these problems. We need to 
invest in improved IRS technology if we are serious about protecting 
our constituents from the kind of computer problems we have all seen.
  We also need to expand access to taxpayer-friendly electronic filing. 
Right now there is a 22 percent error rate on paper filing, compared to 
less than a 1 percent error rate on electronic filing. That is why in 
the legislation we passed, again just last year, we mandated that the 
IRS work hard on electronic filing and in fact we set a goal of 80 
percent electronic filing for the IRS by 2007. That is going to be 
difficult to meet unless they have the resources to do it. Again, it is 
taxpayer-friendly.
  On a similar note, finally, the funding cut will jeopardize, I think, 
the IRS's abilities to complete its Y2K preparations for this year. 
While the thought of IRS computers crashing may bring glee to the 
hearts of many, think about the consequences. Think about no refund 
checks. Think about erroneous IRS notices sent to innocent taxpayers 
who think they have paid their taxes in a timely way and in an 
appropriate way. Think about the unnecessary audits that might result. 
This is no way to bring our tax system, Mr. Chairman, into the 21st 
century.
  I am a strong believer in fiscal discipline. I am proud to cast my 
vote for fiscal responsibility even when it is not popular because I 
think holding the line on Federal spending for the sake of our children 
and grandchildren is the right thing to do. But here, with regard to 
the IRS, I think we need to follow up with our efforts from last year. 
We are making good progress in reforming the IRS. Commissioner 
Rossotti, I believe, is doing a superb job, but we need to give him the 
tools to get that job done.
  Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by again congratulating the gentleman 
from Arizona on the overall legislation. This bill is a very strong 
bill and I would hope with the IRS that in conference we can restore 
some of these reductions.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) leaves the floor, I want 
to again make the comment that he has done some extraordinary work, 
positive work, helpful work on this entire issue. He is of course from 
the authorizing committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, a senior 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I appreciate his remarks. 
Because this is not a partisan issue. The service of our taxpayers is 
not a partisan issue.
  The IRS reform effort, which as I pointed out I voted against the 
first time because I had concerns about it and, as I said, we needed to 
do it at budget time and we needed to do it at tax-writing time or no 
matter how good our people were, they could not implement it. He has 
reiterated and made more strongly, I think, that point, but the purpose 
of my rising is to thank him for the leadership that he has exercised 
on this issue and his continuing shepherding of this effort so that it 
can be successful. I thank him for his efforts.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, let me now reiterate the concerns that we have on this 
IRS cut. As I mentioned, Mr. Rossotti was hired in an unusual way. That 
is to say he was hired as a manager, not as a tax policymaker, to make 
this system run well. He has sent a letter today, and I would like to 
read excerpts of that. I quoted a previous letter, but he says this in 
a letter to me and to the chairman on July 15:
  A funding reduction of $135 million would severely restrict, if not 
completely impair, IRS' ability to deliver on restructuring and reform 
act mandated by Congress in 1998.
  Went on to say that it would undermine customer service.
  Says further that it would undermine the funding of efforts to 
implement congressionally mandated reform requirements.
  Also says that it will jeopardize the congressionally mandated goal 
of 80 percent electronic filing.
  And the last two points he makes is that this cut would impair the 
creation of operating units to help specialized groups of taxpayers, 
including small business and ordinary wage earners.
  Lastly, he says this cut would delay implementation of important 
taxpayer rights initiatives, the point being again that if we ask the 
IRS to accomplish these objectives it is incumbent upon us to fund 
their ability to do so. I regret that that has not happened and, as I 
say, as a result, as strongly as I support the product from the 
subcommittee, I will not be able to support final passage of this 
particular bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who has not only a lot of 
Federal employees in her district but has done yeoman's work on issues 
dealing with Federal employees.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I rise in support of this legislation.
  I want to very deeply thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
for his leadership and his very hard work on this very important bill. 
I also want to extend accolades to my partner from Maryland who is the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and since 
thanks are so important I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Forbes) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for 
ensuring that this legislation contains two particular provisions that 
are of great importance to Federal employees and their families, many 
of whom, as I mentioned, I have the honor of representing.
  The legislation incorporates the provisions of my bill, H.R. 206, the 
Federal Employee Child Care Affordability Act. This important and yet 
simple legislation would allow Federal agencies to use funds from their 
salary and expense accounts to help low income Federal employees pay 
for child care. This legislation gives Federal agencies the same 
flexibility as that enjoyed by the Department of Defense to tailor 
their child care programs to meet the particular needs of their 
employees.
  So by empowering agencies to work as partners with employees to meet 
their child care needs, which are ever so important, Congress truly 
will be encouraging family friendly Federal workplaces and indeed 
higher productivity.
  I am also encouraged that this legislation codifies the victory that 
we won during the debate 1 year ago today on the Fiscal Year 1999 
Treasury, Postal,

[[Page H5619]]

and General Appropriations Act which provided for contraceptive 
coverage in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. 
Contraceptives help couples plan wanted pregnancies and reduce the need 
for abortions.
  During that debate, I spoke in favor of the amendment that was 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to improve 
Federal employees' insurance coverage of basic health care for women 
and their families. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) required all but five religious-based plans participating 
in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan to cover all five methods 
of prescription contraceptives: The pill, diaphragm, IUDs, Norplant and 
Depo-Provera. This bill before us today ensures that we will continue 
treating prescription contraceptives the same as all other covered 
drugs in order to achieve parity between the benefits that are offered 
to male participants in the FEHBP plans and to those that are offered 
to Federal participants.
  And this bill before us, it may not be perfect because it continues 
the ban on abortion coverage under the FEHBP program. Therefore, I am 
going to support an amendment that will be offered later by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) that is gender equitable, to 
allow any health insurance plan participating in FEHPB to offer 
coverage for abortions just as two-thirds of the fee for service plans 
do and 70 percent of HMOs currently provide in the private sector. 
Again, that is equity.
  Despite this concern, I do believe that this legislation before us 
today is very important. I believe that it reflects a sensible 
compromise among multiple interests; and, once again, I want to thank 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his yeomanship on this 
particular bill and thank the ranking member for his work on this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for her 
statement, which was excellent. She is a pleasure to work with on 
issues relating not only to our region but particularly to Federal 
employees. She is always a very strong advocate of our Federal 
employees and treating them with fairness.
  I also want to commend her. She did not mention it, but I wanted to 
call attention to it earlier; I do not think the gentlewoman was on the 
floor. I regretted the fact that we deleted the $55 million for the FDA 
facility which is to be located in Montgomery County. The gentlewoman 
has been a leader on this effort, and I know that she will work with 
me, with the chairman, that it is in the Senate bill, and I am hopeful 
that the chairman and the committee will in conference include that 
language, and the gentlewoman may want to comment on that.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for his laudatory comments. I do want to thank the gentleman 
from Arizona for his comments, and it is true. I know he has been an 
advocate for Federal employees.
  And the gentleman and I and others date way back when it came to 
consolidation of the Food and Drug Administration, which is located in 
probably 24 diverse spots, some of our laboratories that really are in 
terrible need of repair, dilapidated, and yet state-of-the-art work is 
required of them in what they do. And so I recognize the fact that it 
is not in this House bill, but it is in the Senate bill, and that is 
what conferences are for. And so I will join my colleagues in hoping 
that the conferees will see fit to get the construction moving in the 
White Oak area, and I thank you for your comments on that.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I am going 
to be voting for this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who I understand wants to 
enter into a colloquy with the chairman and myself.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding this time to me, and I thank the ranking member for leadership 
on this bill and his assistance to me.
  Mr. Speaker, will the chairman of the committee yield for a colloquy?
  I rise today on an issue of great importance to my district, which is 
a lack of information regarding antique firearms' use in crime. I first 
became aware of this problem after a 48-hour hostage standoff in 
Norristown, Pennsylvania, which is part of my district.
  Mr. Chairman, I am seeking to require the Department of the Treasury 
to collect statistics and conduct a study on the use of antique 
firearms in crime and to report its findings to the Congress within 180 
days. Very few or no statistics exist on the use of antique firearms in 
crime, and no Federal agency is responsible for tracking those 
statistics. This study would begin to fill the information void left by 
this lack of jurisdiction. I wonder if the gentleman could accommodate 
my concern.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for raising this 
issue. I would certainly be happy to work with the gentleman to 
accommodate his concerns by working with him regarding a study of this 
matter and language to be incorporated in the conference report for 
H.R. 2490, and I hope that might satisfy the gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes, it certainly will, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very 
much for your leadership on this and your cooperation and that of your 
staff, and this will certainly help to address a problem of great 
concern in my district.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just add to the response of the Chairman, I 
think the gentleman from Pennsylvania has raised an issue where there 
is a void of information on the use of relic guns and commission of 
crime. I think a study would be very useful. I am pleased that the 
chairman will work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania and myself in 
including such language in the conference report, and I look forward to 
that occurring.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that we have any further speakers on 
my side. I understand a member is coming, a member of the subcommittee 
who would like to speak, so while she is on her way let me make a 
comment, Mr. Chairman.
  The C-SPAN, of course, covers these proceedings, and they see the 
Members, and the Members work hard. My experience as a legislator over 
many years has been that the overwhelming 98 percent of the legislators 
are extraordinarily conscientious and hard-working, but none of us 
could do our job effectively without some extraordinarily able and 
committed staff. The chairman in his opening remarks mentioned the 
staff, and I would like to again thank them for their efforts.
  The chief clerk of our committee, Michele Mrdeza, works 
extraordinarily hard, is very knowledgeable about the bill's provisions 
and works extraordinarily hard during the course of the year to oversee 
the implementation of the provisions in our bill. She is assisted very 
ably by Bob Schmidt, by Jeff Ashford, by Tammy Hughes, by a very close 
friend of mine, Clif Morehead, and by Kevin Messner.
  On our side of the aisle: Pat Schlueter, who works extraordinarily 
hard as well; and Scott Nance, a member of my staff as Kevin is a 
member of Mr. Kolbe's staff; and I want to thank them for their 
efforts. We could not do this job effectively without their help and 
without their caring and without the very long hours that they put in 
day after day, night after night, to make sure this bill comes to the 
floor in a credible fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make perhaps a few other comments while we are 
waiting. The legislation before us does, in fact, provide for Treasury 
law enforcement, critically important, important with respect to 
Customs, to make sure that what is coming into our country comes in 
properly, that the proper duties are paid, that the items that are 
excluded from importation do not come in and that smuggling does not 
occur. They obviously work hand in hand with others, with INS, with 
DEA, with

[[Page H5620]]

Water Patrol in carrying out the efforts to make sure that our borders 
are secure.
  In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms headed by 
John Magaw is an extraordinary agency which has, as I have said in 
times past, dealt with some of the most dangerous and demented 
criminals in America, those who want to use weapons of, if not mass 
destruction, wide destruction such as the bombing of the Oklahoma 
office building that killed so many of our Federal workers and public 
citizens. It is appropriate that we fund ATF at levels that gives them 
the opportunity to do the job that we have given them.
  And then I would, before yielding to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Roybal-Allard), mention the Secret Service, one of the premier law 
enforcement agencies in our Nation. Most of us view the Secret Service 
as a protective agency. They do that function. They protect our 
President, they protect our Vice President, their families, and they 
protect, of course, visitors to our shore, foreign leaders.
  But they also carry out very, very critically important law 
enforcement responsibilities, not the least of which is the protection 
of our currency. The American dollar, as we know, Mr. Chairman, is the 
standard throughout the world for value and for monetary systems. If it 
were not for the Secret Service and their protection of the integrity 
of that currency, the international monetary situation would not be 
nearly as good as it is.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield such time as she may consume 
to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), 
one of the leaders on our subcommittee, and, I might say, for those of 
us who have been here for some time, the distinguished daughter of a 
distinguished member, Ed Roybal, who chaired this subcommittee and who, 
through the years, taught me the ropes.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 2490, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
  This is my first year as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, 
and as a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
General Government, I had high hopes of supporting this bill throughout 
the legislative process. The bill reported out of our subcommittee was 
a sound one, unanimously supported by the subcommittee members. It 
maintained current services for the important agencies within the 
jurisdiction of the bill.
  Unfortunately, during consideration by the full Committee on 
Appropriations, nearly $240 million was cut from the bill at the 
direction of the Republican leadership. Responding to a small minority 
of the Republican party which sought to control the budget process this 
year, this cut was passed by the Committee on Appropriations on a party 
line vote. This cut would prevent us from going forward with reforms of 
the Internal Revenue Service passed just last year.
  By cutting $100 million from GSA's repair account, we adopt a policy 
that will only end up costing the American taxpayer much more in the 
long run for increased repair costs made necessary by deferred 
maintenance. This reduction in GSA's budget is in addition to the fact 
that no funding is provided in the bill this year for new courthouse 
planning and construction.
  This lack of funding affects my district very directly because the 
proposed new Federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles is first on the 
priority list. In fact, the Los Angeles courthouse was officially out 
of space in 1995, and the current facility has life-threatening 
security deficiencies, according to the U.S. Marshall's Service.
  Finally, I was also extremely disappointed that the full committee 
voted to strike a provision that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
and I included at subcommittee giving the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy the authority to address underage drinking in their 
youth antidrug media campaign.
  Research has shown that alcohol is an important gateway drug leading 
to the use of other illegal drugs. Young people who drink are 22 times 
more likely to smoke marijuana and 50 times more likely to use cocaine 
than those who do not drink.
  Conducting an antidrug media campaign that does not address the 
linkage seriously hampers its overall effectiveness, and I will 
continue to work with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and 
others to include this important message in our antidrug strategy.
  In short, this was originally a good bill, but pressure from the 
Republican right wing has turned it into a bad bill. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill, to send the message that we need to 
fund our agencies adequately.
  I sincerely hope that we will come to our senses later in the 
legislative process and make this bill the bipartisan product that it 
once was and still can become.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say once again that I think this is a good 
bill. I hope it will be supported by Members. I would join with the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in my thanks to the staff on both 
sides of the aisle who have done such a good job to get us to this 
point. They are the unsung heroes of this legislation. I thank them, 
those that are around me and those on the other side, for the fine job 
they have done.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address concerns I have with 
H.R. 2490, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
  While I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues on this bill, I 
object to the process that allows for a pay raise without a vote of the 
members. The term cost-of-living adjustment may sound more appealing 
than the term pay raise. Despite the difference of means, the end is 
the same. And I object to the end at issue here, which is an increase 
in congressional pay. I am disappointed that the only opportunity I 
have to oppose the cost-of-living adjustment is on a procedural vote.
  South Dakota farmers and ranchers are experiencing historically low 
commodity prices. Social Security recipients are being asked to live 
with a 2.7 percent cost-of-living adjustment, but Members of Congress 
are prepared to accept a 3.4 percent, $4,600 pay raise.
  Three years ago, I took a pledge not to accept any pay raise Congress 
may vote for itself. I took that pledge because I believed Members of 
Congress were not under-compensated for the work they were doing. I 
believed then and I believe now that a pay raise for Congress is 
inappropriate. I therefore will continue to contribute any raise I 
receive as a Member of this body to a non-profit organization. Any 
adjustments in congressional pay should be based upon merit, reflecting 
the demands of the job as well as contemporary economic conditions.
  Traditionally, this bill has been the vehicle for addressing the 
automatic cost-of-living adjustment for Members. Although I will 
support the Committee's efforts to craft a sound bill, I am 
disappointed the process used today prevented a vote on whether to 
bring this bill to the floor for consideration in its current form. To 
me, it would have been wholly appropriate to have included a provision 
denying Members of Congress an automatic pay increase. For these 
reasons, I voice my disappointment and vote against the previous 
question on the rule.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
COLA increase for Members of Congress permitted by the FY 00 Treasury 
Postal Appropriations bill. On September 30, 1997, I voted against a 
similar bill which contained a $3,100 annual pay raise for Members of 
Congress.
  At that time, I believed that is was wrong for me to accept a pay 
raise until the Congress balanced the federal budget. Two years later 
even though we have now balanced the budget, I still do not believe 
that Members of Congress should have an automatic pay raise. I think 
that we should have an up or down vote on all pay changes.
  Leadership of both parties have sought to avoid such an up or down 
vote. Since I have been blocked from such a vote, I voted against the 
motion for the previous question to permit a rule to be offered 
allowing such an up and down vote.

[[Page H5621]]

  Because that motion passed, I then voted against the rule on a voice 
vote because it did not permit such an up or down vote. Failure to 
allow an up or down vote on this issue only serves to increase cynicism 
towards the political process and confirms the feelings of many voters 
that their representatives are out of touch. This process needs to be 
reformed. Members of Congress should be on record with the citizens of 
their districts as to whether they believe an increase to our salary is 
justified.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
procedural motion which precludes consideration of a cost of living 
increase for Members of Congress. Failure to allow an up or down vote 
on this issue only serves to increase cynicism towards the political 
process and confirms the feelings of many voters that their 
representatives are out of touch. This process needs to be reformed. 
Members of Congress should be on record with the citizens of their 
districts as to whether they believe an increase in their salary is 
justified. Given the opportunity, I would vote ``no.''
  I believe that fiscal discipline must start with elected officials. 
At a time when farmers and ranchers are struggling, our domestic oil 
and gas industry is collapsing and rural hospitals and other health 
care providers are curtailing services, there is no place for a 
Congressional cost of living increase, especially one born in a cloud 
of secrecy.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending motion 
and hope that my colleagues will join me voting down the previous 
question.
  It is my understanding that under current law a Cost-of-Living-
Adjustment (COLA) is enacted annually. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the 
rule crafted for the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill does not allow 
for members to vote up or down on this automatic COLA. This concerns 
me--I had hoped for an opportunity to vote against any sort of 
congressional pay raise for members of Congress. Consequently, Mr. 
Speaker, I can't support this rule and will vote against this motion.
  Over the Independence Day recess, I visited farmers and manufacturers 
across the 8th District of North Carolina. These are hard-working, 
decent people, Mr. Chairman. They expect a fair day's wage for a fair 
day's work. During my stops, I was troubled by numerous stories of 
fleeting jobs and falling wages.
  While our nation's economy continues to grow, many rural Americans 
are struggling in their local economies. In the 8th District alone, 
double-digit unemployment is common. In our smaller, more remote 
communities economic development is virtually stagnant. Mr. Chairman, 
with so many of my constituents and rural Americans across the country 
struggling to make ends meet, it seems to me inappropriate to support a 
congressional pay raise. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against this motion.
  Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 2490, the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000.
  This is my first year as a member of the Appropriations Committee, 
and as a member of the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
Subcommittee, and I have enjoyed working with Chairman Jim Kolbe, 
Ranking Democrat Steny Hoyer and other members of the subcommittee. 
Chairman Kolbe put together a solid schedule of budget hearings, 
including a special hearing on ONDCP's anti-drug media campaign and a 
special hearing on integrity issues affecting the Customs Service. I 
also accompanied Chairman Kolbe on two ``field trips'' to see 
facilities the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms at work, and I came away with a much fuller understanding of 
the vital work these agencies perform on a day-to-day basis.
  I had high hopes of supporting this bill throughout the legislative 
process. Certainly, the bill reported out of our subcommittee had much 
to commend it, including several provisions added at my request. It was 
a sound, bi-partisan bill, unanimously supported by all members of the 
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Subcommittee. Chairman 
Kolbe and Ranking Democrat Hoyer had worked in a bipartisan fashion to 
craft a bill that stayed within a tight 302(b) allocation of 
$13,562,000,000, while essentially maintaining current services for the 
important agencies and functions within the jurisdiction of the bill. 
These vital agencies include the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret 
Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Customs 
Service, as well as the Executive Office of the President and numerous 
executive agencies.
  I would specifically like to thank the Chairman for including report 
language addressing a serious issue regarding the Customs Service. 
During a special committee hearing, I raised questions about a portion 
of a report that had been prepared by the Treasury Department regarding 
the integrity of the Customs Service. I was particularly concerned 
about a portion of the report which said:

       Most serious, however, is the belief that inspectors who 
     are hired locally, particularly along the Southwest border 
     and assigned to the local ports of entry, could be at greater 
     risk of being compromised by family members and friends who 
     may exploit their relationships to facilitate criminal 
     activities. Although they could not offer any solid evidence, 
     Senior Customs officials expressed a real apprehension over 
     the possibility that individuals were attempting to 
     infiltrate Customs by seeking jobs as inspectors for the sole 
     purpose of engaging in corrupt and criminal behavior.

  At my request, the Committee included language taking strong 
exception to any implication that individuals of Hispanic background 
are particularly susceptible to corruption and laying out the 
Committee's expectation that the Customs Service should address 
unsubstantiated bias by senior Customs officials as it implements its 
anti-corruption strategy.

  Additionally, I am grateful that the bill includes report language 
directing the General Services Administration to provide necessary 
funding for the renovation of a federal building located in my district 
in Downtown Los Angeles in its fiscal year 2001 budget submission. this 
project is absolutely critical for the safety of the 2,000 workers and 
4,000 to 5,000 public visitors who occupy this building on an given 
day. The building, which currently houses branches of the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, the Internal Revenue Service and other 
agencies, was originally built in 1963, and is in grave need of safety 
enhancements such as a building-wide fire alarm system, seismic 
strengthening, safety upgrades to the elevators and stairwells, as well 
as modifications to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
  So I believe the bill had considerable merit as reported by the 
subcommittee, and that Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Democrat Hoyer had 
crafted the best bill possible under tight budget constraints.
  Unfortunately, during consideration by the Full Appropriations 
Committee, nearly $240 million was cut from the bill at the direction 
of the Republican leadership. Responding to a small minority of the 
Republication party who have sought to control the budget process this 
year, this cut was passed by the Appropriations Committee on a straight 
party-line vote, 33 to 26. While we were told that this reduction is 
necessary to relieve pressure on other appropriation bills, $240 
million is merely a drop in the bucket of what is actually needed to 
make our other appropriation bills passable. However, $240 million is a 
very severe cut to our bill, which was already stretched to the limit.

  A significant amount of this cut--$135 million--would come from the 
Internal Revenue Service. Just last year Congress passed the IRS Reform 
and Restructuring Act, which required the IRS to reorganize, and make 
significant changes to protect taxpayer rights and improve services. 
The cut of $135 million will completely jeopardize IRS's ability to 
follow through on these important reforms.
  This cut also includes a $50 million reduction in IRS's funding for 
its Year 2000 conversion. If the IRS fails to complete its Y2K 
conversion on time, they will be unable to process returns and provide 
tax refunds to our nation's taxpayers during the 2000 tax season.
  Another $100 million has been cut from the General Services 
Administration's Repair and Alterations account with the Federal 
Buildings Fund. This reduction will severely impair GSA's ability to 
provide adequate physical security and make the many needed repairs at 
over 8,400 federal buildings throughout the country. I think we all 
recognize this as penny-wise and pound-foolish policy. Reducing funding 
now for GSA's Repairs and Alterations will only end up costing the 
American taxpayer much more in the long run for increased repair costs 
made necessary by deferred maintenance.
  This reduction in GSA's budget is in addition to the fact that no 
funding is provided in the bill this year for new courthouse planning 
and construction. The lack of funding for the courthouse construction 
program is particularly distressing given the fact that other federal 
law enforcement spending has increased significantly over recent years, 
putting significant stress on the courts. With no funding for modern 
court facilities, the ability for the Justice Department and our 
federal judges to deal efficiently with their caseloads is made 
increasingly difficult. In addition, according the GSA, delaying 
funding of new courthouse projects increases costs by an average of 3 
to 4% annually--meaning that the federal government will have to pay 
significantly more for the same projects in years to come.
  I am personally very concerned about this lack of funding, as the 
proposed new federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, located in my 
district, is the first on a priority list agreed to by GSA and the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for FY 2000. A new courthouse 
is desperately needed because the existing facility, built over 60 
years ago, lacks

[[Page H5622]]

the necessary courtroom space to accommodate its rapidly increasing 
workload. In fact, the Los Angeles courthouse was officially ``out of 
space'' in 1995. This lack of space has created delays, inefficiencies, 
and a huge backlog of cases. Accordingly to the Judicial Conference of 
the U.S., the current facility has ``critical security concerns,'' 
including ``life-threatening'' security deficiencies, which have been 
documented by the U.S. Marshalls Service. For example, prisoners facing 
trial must be transported to various courtrooms from secure detention 
facilities at remote locations. This process is expensive and difficult 
for the U.S. Marshalls Service, and it is potentially threatening to 
visitors in crowded corridors, including, in some cases, witnesses at 
the same trials. The U.S. Attorneys office must also cope with 
assembling the elements of a successful prosecution with staff and 
resources scattered at locations throughout the Los Angeles area.
  I believe these cuts adopted by the full Appropriations Committee 
place in jeopardy the ability of the important agencies within our bill 
to fulfill their vital missions. For that reason, I must reluctantly 
oppose the bill in its present form.
  Finally, I was also extremely disappointed that the full committee 
voted to strike a provision that Congressman Frank Wolf and I had 
included at subcommittee giving the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy the authority to address underage drinking in their youth Anti-
Drug Media Campaign. This provision was critical because, according to 
General McCaffrey, the Director of ONDCP, he lacks the legal authority 
to address alcohol in the media campaign. Even more important is that 
research has shown that alcohol is an important ``gateway drug,'' 
leading to the use of other, illegal drugs. In fact, General McCaffrey 
has stated that alcohol ``is the biggest drug abuse problem for our 
adolescents and it is linked to the use of other illegal drugs.'' For 
example, more than 67% of kids who start drinking before age 15 end us 
using illicit drugs. Additionally, ONDCP's own data shows that young 
people who drink are 22 times more likely to smoke marijuana and 50 
times more likely to use cocaine than those who don't drink.
  Conducting an anti-drug media campaign that does not address this 
linkage seriously hampers the effectiveness of the $1 billion, taxpayer 
funded effort. Until we incorporate this message into our anti-drug 
campaign, parents and children will be deprived of the basic fact that 
underage drinking, while dangerous in and of itself, may also lead kids 
to a lifetime of illicit drug dependence.
  In short, this was originally a good bill. But pressure from the 
Republican right wing has turned it into a bad bill. The IRS and our 
important law enforcement agencies like the Secret Service and the BATF 
are on the brink of being unable to fulfill the responsibilities we 
have given them. Further, we have adopted a penny-wise, pound-foolish 
policy for the General Services Administration, both in terms of vital 
new construction as well as on-going maintenance and repairs for the 
huge inventory of federal buildings where our constituents do their 
business every day.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill to send the message that we 
need to fund our agencies adequately, and I sincerely hope that we will 
come to our senses later in the legislative process and make this bill 
the bi-partisan product that it once was and still can become.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
  I agree with what many of my colleagues have said about the cuts in 
this bill, and for that reason I cannot support it.
  Still, it is difficult for me to oppose this bill because it was 
essentially a good bill before it reached the full committee. And as a 
strong advocate for cleaner elections and vigorous enforcement of 
election laws, I am particularly pleased by the provisions in this bill 
dealing with the Federal Election Commission.
  The Federal Election Commission, in the words of a former Member of 
this body, is the ``one agency that Congress loves to hate.''
  For too long, Congress has failed to give the FEC the resources and 
tools it needs to do its job.
  So, I am very pleased that the committee has elected this year to 
fund the FEC at a level that is nearly equal to the agency's budget 
request. For the first time in years, the committee has decided to give 
the FEC the money it needs to enforce the law.
  But not only does this bill fully fund the FEC, it also contains 
several provisions that will help the agency operate more efficiently.
  This bill will mandate electronic filing by campaign committees that 
reach a certain threshold set by the agency. In addition, it creates a 
system of ``administrative fines''--much like traffic tickets, which 
will let the agency deal with minor violations of the law in an 
expeditious manner. Finally, it will permit campaign committees to file 
with the FEC on an election-cycle basis, as opposed to the current 
system which requires calendar-year reporting.
  These are all common-sense, bipartisan reforms that will give the FEC 
more time to investigate serious violations of the law. All of these 
reforms were recommended by an audit conducted by the independent firm 
of PricewaterhouseCoopers and are supported by the FEC itself.
  Mr. Speaker, a strong FEC is critical to the integrity of our 
electoral process. Our election laws are meaningless if we are not 
willing to give the FEC the tools and the resources it needs to enforce 
them.
  While I continue to believe that we must do more to clean up our 
elections--and I call on the leadership to bring campaign finance 
reform legislation to the floor as soon as possible--I do applaud the 
committee for taking this one small step that will enable the FEC to 
operate more efficiently.
  I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair will accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the time for voting on any postponed question immediately following 
another vote, provided the time for voting on the first question shall 
be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices 
     including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building 
     and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, 
     repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial 
     insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned 
     overseas, when necessary for the performance of official 
     business; not to exceed $2,900,000 for official travel 
     expenses; not to exceed $150,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; not to exceed $258,000 for 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be 
     allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his 
     certificate, $134,206,000.


        department-wide systems and capital investments programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For development and acquisition of automatic data 
     processing equipment, software, and services for the 
     Department of the Treasury, $31,017,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That these funds shall be 
     transferred to accounts and in amounts as necessary to 
     satisfy the requirements of the Department's offices, 
     bureaus, and other organizations: Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer 
     authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated shall be used to support or 
     supplement the Internal Revenue Service appropriations for 
     Information Systems.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       Page 3, line 9, insert before the period at the end the 
     following:

     : Provided, That, of the total amount provided under this 
     heading, $3,000,000 shall be for grants authorized in part 2 
     of subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 31, United States 
     Code (relating to money laundering and related financial 
     crimes)

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Velazquez-Bachus amendment 
designates $3 million within the funds appropriated for the Treasury 
Department for fiscal year 2000 to provide

[[Page H5623]]

grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to 
investigate and prosecute money laundering and related financial 
crimes.
  I would like the record to reflect also that the most influential 
Members of the House with respect to anti-money laundering policies 
support this amendment, including the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman 
Leach), the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), and my cosponsor, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  This grant program is authorized by legislation that I sponsored in 
the 105th Congress, the Money Laundering and Financial Strategy Act of 
1998. I am offering this amendment for the same reason the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and I have worked for years to get a money 
laundering strategy bill through Congress, because money laundering is 
one of the most destructive criminal elements that face our country.
  About 5 years ago I began working with law enforcement officials in 
my district to address the growing problem of money laundering in the 
neighborhoods I represent and throughout New York City. These 
neighborhoods are home to many hard-working low-income families. The 
tragedy is that they are also home to hundreds of money wire services 
that transfer up to $1.3 billion in illegal drug proceeds to South 
America.
  The success of drug dealers, arms dealers, and organized crime 
organizations is based upon their ability to launder money. Through 
money laundering, drug dealers transform the monetary receipts derived 
from criminal activity into funds with a seemingly legal source.
  For a moment, just consider the sheer size and changing nature of 
money laundering enterprises. In just the United States alone, 
estimates of the amount of drug profits moving through the financial 
system have been as high as $100 billion. It is staggering. Now 
consider the burden of local law enforcement officials. They need our 
help. In fact, since the passage of the Money Laundering and Financial 
Strategy Act, my office has received calls from local and State law 
enforcement officials from across the country asking how they can apply 
for these grants.
  Let me be clear, this is not funding for another government program. 
This amendment provides money directly to the States and local law 
enforcement agencies that are waging the war on crime. There is a lot 
of talk in this Congress about giving the States and local governments 
more control and about giving Federal money back to the communities, 
but now Congress has failed to appropriate a mere $3 million for grants 
to assist our State and local officials to fight money laundering. How 
do we expect our local police departments and prosecutors to fight 
crime networks that have access to more money than some States when we 
cannot make a $3 million commitment?
  Money laundering has devastating consequences for our communities 
because it provides the fuel for drug dealers, terrorists, arms 
dealers, and other criminals to operate and expand their operations. 
The dealers that sell drugs on our streets and in our schools rely on 
money laundering to disguise their illegal profits and continue their 
operations.
  Dirty money can take many routes, some complex, some simple, but all 
increasingly inventive, the ultimate goal being to hide its source. The 
money can move through banks, check cashers, money transmitters, 
businesses, and even be sent overseas to become clean, laundered money.
  The tools of the money launderer can range from complicated financial 
transactions carried out through webs of wire transfers and networks of 
shell companies to old-fashioned currency smuggling, and so the tools 
of law enforcement to combat money laundering must be at least as 
sophisticated, if not more so.
  Anti-money laundering legislation and funding for programs to combat 
money laundering are vital law enforcement weapons in the war on drugs. 
That is why we must begin to fund these grants and allow the States and 
local law enforcement officials to begin to even the playing field in 
their battle against drug dealers.
  I urge the passage of the Velasquez-Bachus amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition not because I disagree with what 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) is trying to do. I rise 
in opposition not because I do not agree with the merits of the program 
that she discussed.
  As she has told us, this is a program that I think has a lot of 
merit, and this program had very strong bipartisan support when we 
passed the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, 
because it did permit the Treasury Department, in consultation with 
Justice, to develop a grant program for State and local agencies to go 
after money laundering activities, which we know is a very serious 
problem, and is really at the root, the heart of the problem with our 
drug trafficking. If we cannot get at the money, we cannot really stop 
the drug trafficking.
  The Federal government alone cannot do this, it takes State and local 
agencies to do it, so the intent was very, very good. The problem that 
we have is a very simple one of budgetary constraints that are faced by 
this committee. Because it was a new program, we did not provide funds 
for this.
  I just would want to mention to the committee that we have made a 
very substantial cut in this particular line of Treasury, more than, I 
think, I would like to see. The request was for $53.5 million. We 
initially at the subcommittee level provided $35.9 million. We have 
taken another $4.5 million out of there in the full committee. That 
reduction was part of what we did in order to bring us down to the 
level necessary to meet the 1999 appropriated levels.
  The concern that I would have about designating $3 million out of 
what has been a shrinking pot here, or a shrinking piece of the pie, 
for the Justice Department for these operations is that we are going to 
cut deeply, I fear, into some of the other programs that are covered by 
this, which of course includes the modernization, the human resources 
reengineering project which is going on Treasury-wide to try to bring 
about a new personnel system within the department. They are continuing 
their Y2K conversion, their productivity enhancements, all the things 
we have directed them to do.
  I fear that if we designate this amount of money, we are going to be 
cutting someplace else. It does mean a cut from someplace else because 
we have not changed the total amount available to the Department.
  So I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. It is a program 
that I have a lot of interest in, and I think many of us sympathize 
with this. But I just believe that under the circumstances, it would be 
inappropriate for us to try to earmark this amount in this relatively 
small departmental appropriation. For that reason, I would oppose it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman 
that the Treasury Department has informed us that they would be able to 
find the $3 million within the existing levels for these $3 million 
grants.
  I just would like to add that appropriation bills are about 
priorities. If fighting money laundering in this Nation is not a 
priority, then we should get our priorities in line.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's comments. I would still argue that as we start to earmark 
particular amounts of departmental monies, it is going to make it that 
much more difficult for them to meet their other requirements and that 
is the only reason I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, last Congress the House authorized the Money Laundering 
Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, of which the gentlewoman from 
New York, Ms. Velazquez, was a cosponsor, along with the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who will also be speaking. I do 
not

[[Page H5624]]

know whether the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) was a 
cosponsor as well. Apparently.
  I understand what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is saying, 
but I am rising in support of this amendment. This bill created a 
national strategy to fight money laundering at the local level and 
attack drug trafficking at its source. Let me say to the gentlewoman 
from New York so she understands, the gentleman from Arizona has been 
an extraordinarily strong supporter of the financial crimes enforcement 
unit that is in this bill, FinCEN, that the gentlewoman is probably 
familiar with. So the gentleman has been very concerned about money 
laundering. I know the gentleman has a concern also about the levels in 
the bill. He and I at least momentarily disagree, and I think we can do 
this at this point in time.
  The bill on the floor does not include funding for these grants, and 
I think that is an oversight on our part. I think we should have 
included the money, and that is why I am supporting this amendment. 
Money to fund the grants was included by the President in this budget 
and in the Treasury Department's budget proposal, but the committee 
chose not to fund it.
  To remedy this, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema) and others have offered this amendment to earmark $3 
million to the general fund of the Treasury Department to finance it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have not been in touch with the Treasury Department, 
but the gentlewoman from New York has, and indicates that it is in 
their budget. They believe they can afford it and can support it in the 
context of their bill.
  In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we need to give local law enforcement 
the tools to fight these crimes which are the basis of the drug problem 
in our communities making money and then converting that money so that 
it can be used legally. The funding in the amendment would give local 
agency the tools to fight the root of the drug problem. It would target 
high-intensity drug trafficking areas.
  Because of that, and because I think it is so critically important, 
and because I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services have been strong supporters of this 
legislation.
  And I believe that we have such a broad base of support for this 
legislation, I would hope that the chairman of the subcommittee would 
see his way clear to letting this be adopted and then seeing how we can 
work between now and conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when we talk about drug trafficking, I think some of us 
think of it as a one-way street. We think of the drugs coming in. Drug 
trafficking is a two-way street. The drugs come in and the money goes 
out. We seize, by some estimates, as much as 30 percent of the drugs 
entering our country. We seize less than one-fourth of 1 percent of the 
money that leaves the country.
  Now, we can continue to put young men in jail, catching them pushing 
drugs on the street; and we can continue to fill up our prisons, but we 
have to start doing some new things. The legislation that the 
gentlewoman from New York steered through this House and through the 
Senate was considered ground breaking at the time, and that is what the 
New York Police Department described it as.
  Mr. Speaker, we authorize $3 million, and I would say that we cannot 
afford not to spend this money. Where we get it, that is a decision of 
the appropriators. But I can tell my colleagues that we had numerous 
hearings on this legislation. It is good legislation. I think it is 
foolhardy for us to take so much time, so much consideration, have law 
enforcement agents from all over this Nation testify in five different 
hearings, carefully construct legislation that this Congress felt very 
good about and which passed I think without a dissenting vote, and then 
not to fund it. It makes absolutely no sense.
  We are talking about a threat to every one of our communities, and we 
are talking about addressing the flip side of this threat, the money 
laundering side, which has not been seriously looked at or combatted. 
And we now have an opportunity, through the expenditure of just a small 
amount of money, to move in that direction.
  I want to say that I do not think we have a choice here. I do not 
think this is a situation where we do not have the money. I will leave 
my colleagues with this: a drug dealer last year was convicted of 
pushing drugs and the testimony revealed that he made $3 million in 
less than a month pushing drugs in one of our large cities. One drug 
dealer in one city made $3 million pushing drugs and we are talking 
about $3 million.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Velazquez-Bachus 
amendment which would earmark $3 million of appropriated fiscal year 
2000 Treasury Department funds to provide grants to States and local 
law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute 
money laundering related to financial crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, money laundering activities allow drug traffickers, 
arms smugglers, tax cheats, and many other criminals to fund and profit 
from their illicit activities. In my congressional district in Queens 
in the neighborhood of Jackson Heights, the seriousness of the drug 
money laundering problem is highlighted by the widespread use of money 
remitters and their agents by organized narcotics traffickers to send 
the proceeds of drug sales back to drug source countries.
  Mr. Chairman, the grant program funded by this amendment is part of 
an overall strategy to help provide local law enforcement officials 
greater access to Federal law enforcement resources in their ongoing 
battle against money laundering activity, and so I strongly urge all of 
my colleagues to support the Velazquez-Bachus amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just add that I know that the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez) has been working on this issue for a number of 
years, at least 7 years here in the House. And we are not talking about 
a great deal of money in the overall picture of the budget, but an 
amount of money that can go a long way to helping us curtail the drug 
importation and exploitation of many people in my district.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak in strong support of this amendment. It is very 
simple. If we want to fight drugs, we have got to vote for this 
amendment because money laundering equals the drug trade. And as has 
been already stated, this is a high priority by anybody's standards.
  Certainly, I want to join my colleague on the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) as he 
congratulated the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for the 
good work that she has done on money laundering. Her bill, just to 
remind or refresh the memories of our colleagues, the Money Laundering 
and Financial Strategy Act, was passed last year and it was signed into 
law in October of 1998, and it was passed easily with strong support. 
But we cannot have that bill on the ledger here without financing it 
and implementing it, and that is what we are saying here.
  The gentlewoman from New York talked about the administration and its 
responsibility to formulate a comprehensive anti-money laundering 
strategy and, by the way, we must also stress for all our colleagues 
this is not a Federal program. This is to give money to local law 
enforcement. It is putting money back at the local level where we can 
do the best possible in those high-risk areas to combat that money 
laundering. The need is very great, and it is pressing and it is 
growing.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to refresh the memory of both my colleagues on 
the Committee on Banking and Financial

[[Page H5625]]

Services as well as others about the hearings that were held in my 
committee, the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer 
Credit, on this subject of money laundering.
  The amount of money being laundered in the United States is 
estimated, conservatively, I might say, to be in the hundreds of 
billions of dollars. Law enforcement, that is, U.S. Attorneys, Customs 
and even Treasury, told us at these hearings that the lifeline of the 
drug trade is money laundering. The lifeline of drugs is money 
laundering.
  In addition, we were also told that approximately $30 billion in cash 
is being smuggled out of the U.S. on an annual basis. And it is 
obviously no small problem. It is growing and it is huge.
  One thing is very clear from the subcommittee hearings. If the drug 
lords, and I want to stress this, it is very clear for anybody that is 
knowledgeable on this subject, if the drug lords cannot launder the 
proceeds from the drug sales, they are out of business. Law enforcement 
has made this point time and again.
  Now, this amendment earmarks $3 million of Treasury Department's 
funds for local law enforcement to fight that money laundering. I want 
to stress with reference to some statement by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and his observation about the Treasury's lack 
of action, I also am not satisfied with the Treasury Department in the 
money laundering field. They are very late in issuing the national 
anti-money laundering strategy required by the Velazquez bill of last 
year. Their report was due, or strategy was due, in February of this 
year.
  But Treasury is also late in finalizing the money services business 
regulations and we were promised, both in writing as well as at the 
hearings, a written response by June 1 to give us some idea as to when 
Treasury would be acting on these statutory requirements. But I want 
the gentleman from Arizona to know as chairman of the subcommittee that 
nothing yet has been received, despite repeated promises.
  This amendment will make it clear to Treasury that Congress is 
serious about money laundering, and it will help us focus the Treasury 
Department on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong vote for this amendment.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several different types of crime, but the 
vast, vast preponderance of crime involves money. Money.
  If we go to law enforcement officials, whether Federal, State, local, 
and ask them what is the best way to detect crime, they would say 
``follow the money.'' Follow the money. That is what we want to do. And 
that was the reason that the Congress in October of 1998 passed the 
Money Laundering and Financial Strategies Act of 1998, so that the 
Federal law enforcement officials, the State law enforcement officials, 
the local law enforcement officials could also do together jointly what 
they thought would be most effective: follow the money.

                              {time}  1645

  The difficulty is, to follow the money, we need a little bit of 
money. The difficulty is, in order to have a cooperative strategy 
involving the Federal, State, and local governments, as is called for 
by a section of the October, 1998, act, that section of the October, 
1998, act must be funded.
  The amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) simply 
says, amongst the monies that already have been determined should be 
appropriated by the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
General Government for the Treasury Department, of that amount $3 
million should be designated for what local law enforcement officials 
think is the most important act that can be done to detect crimes 
involving money, that is, follow the money.
  Vote for the Velazquez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Subcommittee on 
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government in strong support of 
the measure that we are now debating.
  This is a responsible bill that maintains fiscal discipline, fully 
funds all programs and activities under its jurisdiction at current 
year levels while targeting resources to critical activities. This bill 
is a very, very important measure that continues to fund important 
government operations.
  I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for the efforts 
in which they have put this measure together. We all understand that 
this is done under the auspices of retaining the tight fiscal caps. 
Difficult decisions have been made in putting this bill together.
  I want to compliment both the majority and the minority staff for the 
quality of this measure. It does move the process forward, and I rise 
in strong support.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a Member of the Subcommittee in strong 
support the FY 2000 Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
Appropriations Bill.
  This is a responsible bill that maintains fiscal discipline, fully 
funds all programs and activities under its jurisdiction at current 
year levels while targeting resources to critical activities, such as 
enforcing our gun and tobacco laws, combating illegal drugs, ensuring 
that the Customs Services' trade automation system, a system vital to 
maintaining the flow of goods into and out of the United States remains 
functional and providing vital funds necessary to continue the 
implementation of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform 
Act.
  For example, we provide:
  $12.6 million (over last year) to enforce Brady Law violations to 
keep convicted felons from obtaining guns; investigate illegal firearms 
dealers; and join forces with state and local law enforcement and 
prosecutors to fully investigate and prosecute offenders. Total funding 
is $12.6 million, the same as the President's request.
  $11.2 million (over last year) to expand the Youth Crime Gun 
Interdiction Initiative to 10 cities (total of 37), including rapid gun 
tracing analysis for state and local law enforcement and 60 new ATF 
agents to work in task force operations with local law enforcement 
illegal firearm successful investigations. Total funding is $45.2 
million, the same as the President's request.
  $5.2 million (over last year) to implement tobacco tax compliance 
provisions of the 1997 budget agreement. The same as the President's 
request.
  $10 million (over last year) for the Drug Free Communities Act. Total 
funding is $30 million, $8 million over the President's request.
  $10 million (over last year) for ONDCP's media campaign to reduce and 
prevent drug use among youth. Total funding is $195 million the same as 
the President's request.
  $108 million (over last year) to continue implementation of the IRS 
Restructuring and Reform Act.
  $200 million for the final phase of ensuring IRS information systems 
are Y2K compliant.
  In addition, this bill reinforces Congress' strong commitment to our 
nation's children by ensuring that low-income Federal employees have 
the resources they need to obtain safe and affordable child care.
  I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their efforts 
in this regard.
  Mr. Chairman this is a good bill, even if it is not a perfect bill, 
but it is a bill that has been crafted in a bipartisan and thoughtful 
fashion.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended; not to exceed $2,000,000 for official 
     travel expenses, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     and not to exceed $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General of the Treasury, 
     $30,716,000.

                Inspector General for Tax Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration in carrying out the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978, as amended; including purchase (not to exceed 
     150 for replacement only for police-type use) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); services 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Inspector General for Tax Administration; 
     not to exceed $6,000,000 for official travel expenses; and 
     not to exceed

[[Page H5626]]

     $500,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, 
     to be allocated and expended under the direction of the 
     Inspector General for Tax Administration, $112,207,000.
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I 
have prepared an amendment to provide information to poor and elderly 
Americans who rely on kerosene fuel to heat their homes.
  Specifically, the amendment that we would have offered would transfer 
money from the Treasury's general operating funds to the Internal 
Revenue Service's Processing, Assistance, and Management funds so that 
the IRS may conduct a study of the fuel.
  A study is needed because the effects of dyed kerosene, particularly 
for individuals who heat their homes with unvented heaters, are as yet 
undetermined; and under the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, Congress is 
pressing home heating customers to use red-dyed kerosene fuel to heat 
their homes.
  The 1997 tax bill established a 24 cents per gallon tax on kerosene 
fuel to deter fraud. Some customers, however, do not use red-dyed fuels 
to heat their homes because they are unsure of its safety or because 
area manufacturers have not yet made red-dyed fuel available to them.
  Unfortunately, the two alternatives in the 1997 bill that Congress 
made available to those who use red-dyed fuel are not feasible for many 
low income and elderly people because, under the 1997 tax bill, 
individuals unable to buy red-dyed fuel can only purchase clear 
kerosene tax free by purchasing at a blocked pump or by applying for a 
refund through their annual tax return.
  Low income and elderly Americans do not have the means to transport 
the kerosene from blocked pumps to their homes and, based on their 
income level, do not file tax returns. As a result, they must have the 
fuel delivered to their homes, and they end up paying the 24 cents per 
gallon tax.
  While this situation is an unintended consequence of the bill, the 
individuals who are shouldering this tax burden are among our country's 
most vulnerable populations, and they are paying a tax that they were 
never meant to pay.
  Congress should not push poor and elderly Americans to use dyed 
kerosene fuel to heat their homes when Congress has not taken the 
opportunity itself to ensure its safety.
  Through conversations on both sides of the aisle, we understand that 
we will seek to address this problem through the conference committee, 
and we look to seeing that there is the funding necessary for a study 
to determine the safety of the burning of the undyed fuel, as I had 
indicated.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. I certainly yield to the gentleman from 
South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Connecticut for taking this initiative and also to say that this is an 
important problem for some people that have no other alternative but to 
use kerosene.
  There was no intention to impose a 24 cents tax on them. We gave them 
an out, namely, to use red-dyed kerosene. But even the oil refineries 
do not want to market that kind of kerosene yet, because they are not 
sure of the consequences of using it.
  I have had people call me and report to me problems where they have 
used red-dyed kerosenes, odors that come from the heaters. There is 
smoke. There is a ceramic residue. The wicks clog up. We are just 
waiting on a disaster to happen here.
  Before Congress imposes this requirement on people, we ought to know 
what we are talking about, and that is all that we are asking for, a 
study by the IRS.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Connecticut yield?
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. I certainly yield to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what both the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) said, and I think they have highlighted an important problem. I 
want to assure them that I will work with them in the conference 
committee to try to craft the right language that can get this study 
done that I think does need to be done.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Connecticut will 
yield, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) very much for his 
cooperation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Maloney) will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for raising this issue.
  As someone who has been involved in this, I have a lot of marinas in 
my district on the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River and Patuxent 
River. We have the fuel, commercial and recreational fuel, and that of 
course is colored as well. Not, obviously, the same issue but a similar 
one that I have been involved in. I think that the gentlemen's 
initiatives on this are very well taken. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to see if we can get this problem resolved. I thank the 
gentlemen for their efforts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury 
     Building and Annex, $23,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network;


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel 
     expenses of non-Federal law enforcement personnel to attend 
     meetings concerned with financial intelligence activities, 
     law enforcement, and financial regulation; not to exceed 
     $14,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and for assistance to Federal law enforcement agencies, with 
     or without reimbursement, $29,656,000, of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated in this account may be used 
     to procure personal services contracts.

                    Violent Crime Reduction Programs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities authorized by Public Law 103-322, to remain 
     available until expended, which shall be derived from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, as follows:
       (1) As authorized by section 190001(e), $122,000,000; of 
     which $26,800,000 shall be available to the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, including $3,000,000 for 
     administering the Gang Resistance Education and Training 
     program; of which $4,200,000 shall be available to the United 
     States Secret Service for forensic and related support of 
     investigations of missing and exploited children, of which 
     $2,200,000 shall be available as a grant for activities 
     related to the investigations of exploited children and shall 
     remain available until expended; of which $64,000,000 shall 
     be available for the United States Customs Service; and of 
     which $27,000,000 shall be available for Interagency Crime 
     and Drug Enforcement.
       (2) As authorized by section 32401, $10,000,000 to the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for disbursement 
     through grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to local 
     governments for Gang Resistance Education and Training: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding sections 32401 and 310001, 
     such funds shall be allocated to State and local law 
     enforcement and prevention organizations.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
through page 34, line 6 be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 34, line 6 is as 
follows:

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, as a bureau of the Department of the 
     Treasury, including materials and support costs of Federal 
     law enforcement basic training; purchase (not to exceed 52 
     for police-type use, without regard to the general purchase 
     price limitation) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     expenses for student athletic and related activities; 
     uniforms without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year; the conducting of and 
     participating in firearms matches and presentation of awards; 
     for public awareness and enhancing community support of law 
     enforcement training; not to exceed $9,500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; room and board for 
     student interns; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $82,827,000, of which up to $16,511,000 for materials and 
     support costs of Federal law enforcement basic training shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That the 
     Center is authorized to accept and use gifts of property, 
     both real and personal, and

[[Page H5627]]

     to accept services, for authorized purposes, including 
     funding of a gift of intrinsic value which shall be awarded 
     annually by the Director of the Center to the outstanding 
     student who graduated from a basic training program at the 
     Center during the previous fiscal year, which shall be funded 
     only by gifts received through the Center's gift authority: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, students attending training at any Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center site shall reside in on-Center or 
     Center-provided housing, insofar as available and in 
     accordance with Center policy: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this account shall be available, at the 
     discretion of the Director, for the following: training 
     United States Postal Service law enforcement personnel and 
     Postal police officers; State and local government law 
     enforcement training on a space-available basis; training of 
     foreign law enforcement officials on a space-available basis 
     with reimbursement of actual costs to this appropriation, 
     except that reimbursement may be waived by the Secretary for 
     law enforcement training activities in foreign countries 
     undertaken pursuant to section 801 of the Antiterrorism and 
     Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Public Law 104-32; 
     training of private sector security officials on a space-
     available basis with reimbursement of actual costs to this 
     appropriation; and travel expenses of non-Federal personnel 
     to attend course development meetings and training sponsored 
     by the Center: Provided further, That the Center is 
     authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from agencies receiving training sponsored by 
     the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, except that 
     total obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total budgetary resources available at the end of the 
     fiscal year: Provided further, That the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center is authorized to provide training 
     for the Gang Resistance Education and Training program to 
     Federal and non-Federal personnel at any facility in 
     partnership with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: 
     Provided further, That the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center is authorized to provide short-term medical services 
     for students undergoing training at the Center.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center, for acquisition of necessary additional real property 
     and facilities, and for ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses, $24,310,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For expenses necessary for the detection and investigation 
     of individuals involved in organized crime drug trafficking, 
     including cooperative efforts with State and local law 
     enforcement, $48,900,000, of which $7,827,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.

                      Financial Management Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service, 
     $201,320,000, of which not to exceed $10,635,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, for information systems 
     modernization initiatives.

                Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms; including purchase of not to exceed 812 
     vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall be for 
     replacement only, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire 
     of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates as 
     may be determined by the Director; for payment of per diem 
     and/or subsistence allowances to employees where an 
     assignment to the National Response Team during the 
     investigation of a bombing or arson incident requires an 
     employee to work 16 hours or more per day or to remain 
     overnight at his or her post of duty; not to exceed $15,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; for 
     training of State and local law enforcement agencies with or 
     without reimbursement, including training in connection with 
     the training and acquisition of canines for explosives and 
     fire accelerants detection; and provision of laboratory 
     assistance to State and local agencies, with or without 
     reimbursement, $567,059,000; of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of attorneys' 
     fees as provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of which 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for the equipping of any 
     vessel, vehicle, equipment, or aircraft available for 
     official use by a State or local law enforcement agency if 
     the conveyance will be used in joint law enforcement 
     operations with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
     and for the payment of overtime salaries, travel, fuel, 
     training, equipment, supplies, and other similar costs of 
     State and local law enforcement personnel, including sworn 
     officers and support personnel, that are incurred in joint 
     operations with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: 
     Provided, That no funds made available by this or any other 
     Act may be used to transfer the functions, missions, or 
     activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to 
     other agencies or Departments in fiscal year 2000: Provided 
     further, That no funds appropriated herein shall be available 
     for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with 
     consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of the 
     Treasury, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition 
     and disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms 
     licensees: Provided further, That no funds appropriated 
     herein shall be used to pay administrative expenses or the 
     compensation of any officer or employee of the United States 
     to implement an amendment or amendments to 27 CFR 178.118 or 
     to change the definition of ``Curios or relics'' in 27 CFR 
     178.11 or remove any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it 
     existed on January 1, 1994: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated herein shall be available to 
     investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal 
     firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): Provided 
     further, That such funds shall be available to investigate 
     and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief 
     from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): 
     Provided further, That no funds in this Act may be used to 
     provide ballistics imaging equipment to any State or local 
     authority who has obtained similar equipment through a 
     Federal grant or subsidy unless the State or local authority 
     agrees to return that equipment or to repay that grant or 
     subsidy to the Federal Government: Provided further, That no 
     funds under this Act may be used to electronically retrieve 
     information gathered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name 
     or any personal identification code.

                     United States Customs Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Customs 
     Service; including purchase and lease of up to 1,050 motor 
     vehicles of which 550 are for replacement only and of which 
     1,030 are for police-type use and commercial operations; hire 
     of motor vehicles; contracting with individuals for personal 
     services abroad; not to exceed $40,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and awards of compensation to 
     informers, as authorized by any Act enforced by the United 
     States Customs Service, $1,708,089,000, of which such sums as 
     become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums 
     subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(f)(3)), shall be derived from that Account, and of which 
     $3,000,000 shall be derived only from the Harbor Services 
     Fund; of the total, not to exceed $150,000 shall be available 
     for payment for rental space in connection with preclearance 
     operations; not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be available until 
     expended for research; not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for conducting special operations 
     pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2081; not to exceed $8,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for the procurement of automation 
     infrastructure items, including hardware, software, and 
     installation; and not to exceed $5,000,000, shall be 
     available until expended, for repairs to Customs facilities: 
     Provided, That uniforms may be purchased without regard to 
     the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the fiscal year aggregate overtime 
     limitation prescribed in subsection 5(c)(1) of the Act of 
     February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 261 and 267) shall be $30,000.


  operation, maintenance and procurement, air and marine interdiction 
                                programs

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of marine vessels, aircraft, and 
     other related equipment of the Air and Marine Programs; 
     including operational training and mission-related travel, 
     and rental payments for facilities occupied by the air or 
     marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, the 
     operations of which include the following: the interdiction 
     of narcotics and other goods; the provision of support to 
     Customs and other Federal, State, and local agencies in the 
     enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the Customs 
     Service; and, at the discretion of the Commissioner of 
     Customs, the provision of assistance to Federal, State, and 
     local agencies in other law enforcement and emergency 
     humanitarian efforts, $109,413,000, which shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other 
     related equipment, with the exception of aircraft that is one 
     of a kind and has been identified as excess to Customs 
     requirements and aircraft that has been damaged beyond 
     repair, shall be transferred to any other Federal agency, 
     department, or office outside of the Department of the 
     Treasury, during fiscal year 2000 without the prior approval 
     of the Committees on Appropriations.

                       Bureau of the Public Debt


                     administering the public debt

       For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt 
     issues of the United States, $181,319,000, of which not to 
     exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and of which not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for systems 
     modernization: Provided, That the sum appropriated herein 
     from the General Fund for fiscal year 2000 shall be reduced 
     by not more than $4,400,000 as definitive security issue fees 
     and Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance fees are 
     collected, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2000 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at 
     $176,919,000, and in addition, $20,000, to be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to reimburse the Bureau 
     for administrative and personnel expenses for financial 
     management of the Fund, as authorized by section 1012 of 
     Public Law 101-380.

[[Page H5628]]

                        Internal Revenue Service


                 processing, assistance, and management

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     tax returns processing; revenue accounting; tax law and 
     account assistance to taxpayers by telephone and 
     correspondence; programs to match information returns and tax 
     returns; management services; rent and utilities; and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may 
     be determined by the Commissioner, $3,270,098,000, of which 
     up to $3,700,000 shall be for the Tax Counseling for the 
     Elderly Program, and of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be 
     for official reception and representation expenses.


                          tax law enforcement

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     determining and establishing tax liabilities; providing 
     litigation support; issuing technical rulings; examining 
     employee plans and exempt organizations; conducting criminal 
     investigation and enforcement activities; securing unfiled 
     tax returns; collecting unpaid accounts; compiling statistics 
     of income and conducting compliance research; purchase (for 
     police-type use, not to exceed 850) and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Commissioner, $3,301,136,000, of which not 
     to exceed $1,000,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2002, for research.


             earned income tax credit compliance initiative

       For funding essential earned income tax credit compliance 
     and error reduction initiatives pursuant to section 5702 of 
     the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), 
     $144,000,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 may be used 
     to reimburse the Social Security Administration for the costs 
     of implementing section 1090 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
     1997.


                          information systems

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     information systems and telecommunications support, including 
     developmental information systems and operational information 
     systems; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 
     1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at 
     such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner, 
     $1,394,540,000.


          administrative provisions--internal revenue service

       Sec. 101. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be 
     transferred to any other Internal Revenue Service 
     appropriation upon the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
        Sec. 102. The Internal Revenue Service shall maintain a 
     training program to ensure that Internal Revenue Service 
     employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in dealing 
     courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural 
     relations.
       Sec. 103. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and 
     enforce policies and procedures that will safeguard the 
     confidentiality of taxpayer information.

                      United States Secret Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service; 
     including purchase of not to exceed 777 vehicles for police-
     type use, of which 739 shall be for replacement only, and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire of aircraft; training 
     and assistance requested by State and local governments, 
     which may be provided without reimbursement; services of 
     expert witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the 
     Director; rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, 
     and fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on 
     private or other property not in Government ownership or 
     control, as may be necessary to perform protective functions; 
     for payment of per diem and/or subsistence allowances to 
     employees where a protective assignment during the actual day 
     or days of the visit of a protectee require an employee to 
     work 16 hours per day or to remain overnight at his or her 
     post of duty; the conducting of and participating in firearms 
     matches; presentation of awards; for travel of Secret Service 
     employees on protective missions without regard to the 
     limitations on such expenditures in this or any other Act if 
     approval is obtained in advance from the Committees on 
     Appropriations; for research and development; for making 
     grants to conduct behavioral research in support of 
     protective research and operations; not to exceed $20,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; not to exceed 
     $50,000 to provide technical assistance and equipment to 
     foreign law enforcement organizations in counterfeit 
     investigations; for payment in advance for commercial 
     accommodations as may be necessary to perform protective 
     functions; and for uniforms without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year, 
     $662,312,000: Provided, That up to $18,000,000 provided for 
     protective travel shall remain available until September 30, 
     2001.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses of construction, repair, alteration, 
     and improvement of facilities, $4,923,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

             General Provisions--Department of the Treasury

       Sec. 110. Any obligation or expenditure by the Secretary of 
     the Treasury in connection with law enforcement activities of 
     a Federal agency or a Department of the Treasury law 
     enforcement organization in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 
     9703(g)(4)(B) from unobligated balances remaining in the Fund 
     on September 30, 2000, shall be made in compliance with 
     reprogramming guidelines.
        Sec. 111. Appropriations to the Department of the Treasury 
     in this Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including 
     maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for 
     official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; 
     purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and used 
     overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into contracts 
     with the Department of State for the furnishing of health and 
     medical services to employees and their dependents serving in 
     foreign countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
        Sec. 112. The funds provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms for fiscal year 2000 in this Act for the 
     enforcement of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act shall 
     be expended in a manner so as not to diminish enforcement 
     efforts with respect to section 105 of the Federal Alcohol 
     Administration Act.
        Sec. 113. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in 
     this Act made available to the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, United States Customs 
     Service, and United States Secret Service may be transferred 
     between such appropriations upon the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations. No transfer may increase or 
     decrease any such appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 114. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in 
     this Act made available to the Departmental Offices, Office 
     of Inspector General, Financial Management Service, and 
     Bureau of the Public Debt, may be transferred between such 
     appropriations upon the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations. No transfer may increase or decrease any such 
     appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 115. Of the funds available for the purchase of law 
     enforcement vehicles, no funds may be obligated until the 
     Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the purchase by the 
     respective Treasury bureau is consistent with Departmental 
     vehicle management principles: Provided, That the Secretary 
     may delegate this authority to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Management.
       Sec. 116. (a) Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments for 
     Employees of the Office of the Treasury Inspector General for 
     Tax Administration.--During the period from October 1, 1999 
     through January 1, 2003, the Treasury Inspector General for 
     Tax Administration is authorized to offer voluntary 
     separation incentives in order to provide the necessary 
     flexibility to carry out the plan to establish and reorganize 
     the Office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Office'').
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``employee'' 
     means an employee (as defined by 5 U.S.C. 2105) who is 
     employed by the Office serving under an appointment without 
     time limitation, and has been currently employed by the 
     Office or the Internal Revenue Service or the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury for a 
     continuous period of at least 3 years, but does not include--
       (1) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter 
     83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, or another 
     retirement system;
       (2) an employee having a disability on the basis of which 
     such employee is or would be eligible for disability 
     retirement under the applicable retirement system referred to 
     in paragraph (1);
       (3) an employee who is in receipt of a specific notice of 
     involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable 
     performance;
       (4) an employee who has previously received any voluntary 
     separation incentive payment by the Federal Government under 
     this section or any other authority and has not repaid such 
     payment;
       (5) an employee covered by statutory reemployment rights 
     who is on transfer to another organization; or
       (6) any employee who, during the 24-month period preceding 
     the date of separation, has received a recruitment or 
     relocation bonus under 5 U.S.C. 5753 or who, within the 12-
     month period preceding the date of separation, received a 
     retention allowance under 5 U.S.C. 5754.
       (c) Authority To Provide Voluntary Separation Incentive 
     Payments.--
       (1) In general.--The Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration may pay voluntary separation incentive 
     payments under this section to any employee to the extent 
     necessary to organize the Office so as to perform the duties 
     specified in the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and 
     Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-206).
       (2) Amount and treatment of payments.--A voluntary 
     separation incentive payment--
       (A) shall be paid in a lump sum after the employee's 
     separation;
       (B) shall be paid from appropriations available for the 
     payment of the basic pay of the employees of the Office;
       (C) shall be equal to the lesser of--

[[Page H5629]]

       (i) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be 
     entitled to receive under 5 U.S.C. 5595(c); or
       (ii) an amount determined by the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration, not to exceed $25,000;
       (D) may not be made except in the case of any qualifying 
     employee who voluntarily separates (whether by retirement or 
     resignation) before January 1, 2003;
       (E) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be 
     included in the computation, of any other type of Government 
     benefit; and
       (F) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be 
     entitled under 5 U.S.C. 5595 based on any other separation.
       (d) Additional Office of the Treasury Inspector General for 
     Tax Administration Contributions to the Retirement Fund.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any other payments that it 
     is required to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 or 
     chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, the Office shall 
     remit to the Office of Personnel Management for deposit in 
     the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal to 15 
     percent of the final basic pay of each employee who is 
     covered under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, to whom a voluntary separation 
     incentive has been paid under this section.
       (2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the term ``final basic 
     pay'', with respect to an employee, means the total amount of 
     basic pay that would be payable for a year of service by such 
     employee, computed using the employee's final rate of basic 
     pay, and, if last serving on other than a full-time basis, 
     with appropriate adjustment therefor.
       (e) Effect of Subsequent Employment With the Government.--
     An individual who has received a voluntary separation 
     incentive payment under this section and accepts any 
     employment for compensation with the United States 
     Government, or who works for any agency of the United States 
     Government through a personal services contract, within 5 
     years after the date of the separation on which the payment 
     is based, shall be required to pay, prior to the individual's 
     first day of employment, the entire amount of the incentive 
     payment to the Office.
       (f) Effect on Office of the Treasury Inspector General for 
     Tax Administration Employment Levels.--
       (1) Intended effect.--Voluntary separations under this 
     section are not intended to necessarily reduce the total 
     number of full-time equivalent positions in the Office.
       (2) Use of voluntary separations.--The Office may redeploy 
     or use the full-time equivalent positions vacated by 
     voluntary separations under this section to make other 
     positions available to more critical locations or more 
     critical occupations.
       Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or 
     otherwise available to the Department of the Treasury or the 
     Bureau of Engraving and Printing may be used to redesign the 
     $1 Federal Reserve note.
       Sec. 118. (a) Subsection (c) of section 5547 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3)(A) Subject to regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management, if premium pay for a pay period 
     consists (in whole or in part) of premium pay for protective 
     services, then--
       ``(i) premium pay for such pay period shall be payable 
     without regard to the limitation under paragraph (2); except 
     that
       ``(ii) premium pay shall not be payable to the extent that 
     the aggregate of the employee's basic pay and premium pay for 
     the year would otherwise exceed the annual equivalent of the 
     limitation that (but for clause (i)) would otherwise apply 
     under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `protective services' refers to protective 
     functions authorized by section 3056(a) of title 18 or 
     section 37(a)(3) of title I of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2709(a)(3)); and
       ``(ii) the term `premium pay' refers to premium pay under 
     the provisions of law cited in the first sentence of 
     subsection (a).''.
       (b) This section and the amendment made by this section--
       (1) shall take effect on the first day of the first pay 
     period beginning on or after the later of October 1, 1999, or 
     the 180th day after the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) shall apply with respect to premium pay for service 
     performed in any pay period beginning on or after the 
     effective date of this section.
       Sec. 119. (a) Voluntary Separation Incentive payments for 
     Employees of the Chicago Financial Center of the Financial 
     Management Service.--During the period from October 1, 1999, 
     through January 31, 2000, the Commissioner of the Financial 
     Management Service (FMS) of the Department of the Treasury is 
     authorized to offer voluntary separation incentives in order 
     to provide the necessary flexibility to carry out the closure 
     of the Chicago Financial Center (CFC) in a manner which the 
     Commissioner shall deem most efficient, equitable to 
     employees, and cost effective to the Government.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``employee'' 
     means an employee (as defined by 5 U.S.C. 2105) who is 
     employed by FMS at CFC under an appointment without time 
     limitation, and has been so employed continuously for a 
     period of at least 3 years, but does not include--
       (1) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter 
     83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code,or another 
     retirement system;
       (2) an employee with a disability on the basis of which 
     such employee is or would be eligible for disability 
     retirement under the retirement systems referred to in 
     paragraph (1) or another retirement system for employees of 
     the Government;
       (3) an employee who is in receipt of a specific notice of 
     involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable 
     performance;
       (4) an employee who has previously received any voluntary 
     separation incentive payment from an agency or 
     instrumentality of the Government of the United States under 
     any authority and has not repaid such payment;
       (5) an employee covered by statutory reemployment rights 
     who is on transfer to another organization; or
       (6) an employee who during the 24-month period preceding 
     the date of separation has received and not repaid a 
     recruitment or relocation bonus under section 5753 of title 
     5, United States Code, or who, within the twelve month period 
     preceding the date of separation, has received and not repaid 
     a retention allowance under section 5754 of that title.
       (c) Agency Plan; Approval.--
       (1) The Secretary, Department of the Treasury, prior to 
     obligating any resources for voluntary separation incentive 
     payments, shall submit to the Office of Management and Budget 
     a strategic plan outlining the intended use of such incentive 
     payments and a proposed organizational chart for the agency 
     once such incentive payments have been completed.
       (2) The agency's plan under subsection (1) shall include--
       (A) the specific positions and functions to be reduced or 
     eliminated;
       (B) a proposed coverage for offers of incentives;
       (C) the time period during which incentives may be paid;
       (D) the number and amounts of voluntary separation 
     incentive payments to be offered; and
       (E) a description of how the agency will operate without 
     the eliminated positions and functions.
       (3) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall review the agency's plan and approve or disapprove such 
     plan, and may make appropriate modifications in the plan 
     including waivers of the reduction in agency employment 
     levels required by this Act.
       (d) Authority To Provide Voluntary Separation Incentive 
     Payments.--
       (1) A voluntary separation incentive payment under this Act 
     may be paid by the agency head to an employee only in 
     accordance with the strategic plan under section (c).
       (2) A voluntary incentive payment--
       (A) shall be offered to agency employees on the basis of 
     organizational unit, occupational series or level, geographic 
     location, other nonpersonal factors, or an appropriate 
     combination of such factors;
       (B) shall be paid in a lump sum after the employee's 
     separation;
       (C) shall be equal to the lesser of--
       (i) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be 
     entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5, United 
     States Code, if the employee were entitled to payment under 
     such section (without adjustment for any previous payment 
     made); or
       (ii) an amount determined by the agency head, not to exceed 
     $25,000;
       (D) may be made only in the case of an employee who 
     voluntarily separates (whether by retirement or resignation) 
     under the provisions of this Act;
       (E) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be 
     included in the computation of any other type of Government 
     benefit;
       (F) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be 
     entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code, 
     based on any other separation; and
       (G) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available 
     for the payment of the basic pay of the employee.
       (e) Eligibility for Payments.--Payments under this section 
     may be made to any qualifying employee who voluntarily 
     separates, whether by retirement or resignation, between 
     October 1, 1999, and January 31, 2000.
       (f) Effect on Subsequent Employment With the Government.--
     An individual who has received a voluntary separation 
     incentive payment under this section and accepts any 
     employment for compensation with any agency or 
     instrumentality of the Government of the United States within 
     5 years after the date of the separation on which the payment 
     is based shall be required to pay, prior to the individual's 
     first day of employment, the entire amount of the incentive 
     payment to FMS.
       (g) Contributions to the Retirement Fund.--
       (1) In addition to any other payments which it is required 
     to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, FMS shall remit to the Office of 
     Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury to the 
     credit of Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund an 
     amount equal to 15 percent of the final annual basis pay for 
     each employee covered under subchapter III of chapter 83 or 
     chapter 84 of title 5 United States Code, to whom a voluntary 
     separation incentive has been paid under this section.

[[Page H5630]]

       (2) For the purpose of paragraph (1), the term ``final 
     basic pay'' with respect to an employee, means the total 
     amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year of 
     service by such employee, computed using the employee's final 
     rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a full-
     time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
       (h) Reduction of Agency Employment Levels.--
       (1) The total number of funded employee positions in the 
     agency shall be reduced by one position for each vacancy 
     created by the separation of any employee who has received, 
     or is due to receive, a voluntary separation incentive 
     payment under this Act. For the purposes of this subsection, 
     positions shall be counted on a full-time equivalent basis.
       (2) The President, through the Office of Management and 
     Budget, shall monitor the agency and take any action 
     necessary to ensure that the requirements of this section are 
     met.
       (3) At the request of the Secretary, Department of the 
     Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget may waive the 
     reduction in total number of funded employee positions 
     required by subsection (1) if it believes the agency plan 
     required by section (c) satisfactorily demonstrates that the 
     positions would better be used to reallocate occupations or 
     reshape the workforce and to produce a more cost-effective 
     result.
       This title may be cited as the ``Treasury Department 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any amendment to that portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        TITLE II--POSTAL SERVICE

                   Payment to the Postal Service Fund

       For payment to the Postal Service Fund for revenue forgone 
     on free and reduced rate mail, pursuant to subsections (c) 
     and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code, 
     $93,436,000, of which $64,436,000 shall not be available for 
     obligation until October 1, 2000: Provided, That mail for 
     overseas voting and mail for the blind shall continue to be 
     free: Provided further, That 6-day delivery and rural 
     delivery of mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 
     level: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available to the Postal Service by this Act shall be used to 
     implement any rule, regulation, or policy of charging any 
     officer or employee of any State or local child support 
     enforcement agency, or any individual participating in a 
     State or local program of child support enforcement, a fee 
     for information requested or provided concerning an address 
     of a postal customer: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds provided in this Act shall be used to consolidate or 
     close small rural and other small post offices in fiscal year 
     2000.
       This title may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.

TITLE III--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO 
                             THE PRESIDENT

        Compensation of the President and the White House Office


                     compensation of the president

       For compensation of the President, including an expense 
     allowance at the rate of $50,000 per annum as authorized by 3 
     U.S.C. 102; $250,000: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available for official expenses shall be expended for any 
     other purpose and any unused amount shall revert to the 
     Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That none of the funds made available 
     for official expenses shall be considered as taxable to the 
     President.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by 
     law; including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; subsistence 
     expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which shall be 
     expended and accounted for as provided in that section; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, periodicals, 
     teletype news service, and travel (not to exceed $100,000 to 
     be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 103); 
     and not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment 
     expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive 
     Office of the President, $52,444,000: Provided, That 
     $10,313,000 of the funds appropriated shall be available for 
     reimbursements to the White House Communications Agency.

                 Executive Residence at the White House


                           operating expenses

       For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
     refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including 
     electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House and official entertainment expenses of the 
     President, $9,260,000, to be expended and accounted for as 
     provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112-114.


                         reimbursable expenses

       For the reimbursable expenses of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, 
     That all reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence shall be made in accordance with the provisions of 
     this paragraph: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such amount for reimbursable 
     operating expenses shall be the exclusive authority of the 
     Executive Residence to incur obligations and to receive 
     offsetting collections, for such expenses: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall require each person 
     sponsoring a reimbursable political event to pay in advance 
     an amount equal to the estimated cost of the event, and all 
     such advance payments shall be credited to this account and 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall require the national committee of 
     the political party of the President to maintain on deposit 
     $25,000, to be separately accounted for and available for 
     expenses relating to reimbursable political events sponsored 
     by such committee during such fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall ensure that a written 
     notice of any amount owed for a reimbursable operating 
     expense under this paragraph is submitted to the person owing 
     such amount within 60 days after such expense is incurred, 
     and that such amount is collected within 30 days after the 
     submission of such notice: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall charge interest and assess 
     penalties and other charges on any such amount that is not 
     reimbursed within such 30 days, in accordance with the 
     interest and penalty provisions applicable to an outstanding 
     debt on a United States Government claim under section 3717 
     of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That each 
     such amount that is reimbursed, and any accompanying interest 
     and charges, shall be deposited in the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Executive 
     Residence shall prepare and submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, by not later than 90 days after the end of 
     the fiscal year covered by this Act, a report setting forth 
     the reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence during the preceding fiscal year, including the 
     total amount of such expenses, the amount of such total that 
     consists of reimbursable official and ceremonial events, the 
     amount of such total that consists of reimbursable political 
     events, and the portion of each such amount that has been 
     reimbursed as of the date of the report: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall maintain a system for the 
     tracking of expenses related to reimbursable events within 
     the Executive Residence that includes a standard for the 
     classification of any such expense as political or 
     nonpolitical: Provided further, That no provision of this 
     paragraph may be construed to exempt the Executive Residence 
     from any other applicable requirement of subchapter I or II 
     of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.


                   white house repair and restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the 
     Executive Residence at the White House, $810,000, to remain 
     available until expended for required maintenance, safety and 
     health issues, and continued preventative maintenance.

 Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the 
                             Vice President


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Vice President to 
     provide assistance to the President in connection with 
     specially assigned functions; services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 106, including subsistence expenses 
     as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 106, which shall be expended and 
     accounted for as provided in that section; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; $3,617,000.


                           operating expenses

       For the care, operation, refurnishing, improvement, 
     heating, and lighting, including electric power and fixtures, 
     of the official residence of the Vice President; the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $90,000 for 
     official entertainment expenses of the Vice President, to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate; $345,000: Provided, 
     That advances or repayments or transfers from this 
     appropriation may be made to any department or agency for 
     expenses of carrying out such activities.

                      Council of Economic Advisers


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Council of Economic Advisors 
     in carrying out its functions under the Employment Act of 
     1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021), $3,840,000.

                      Office of Policy Development


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, $4,032,000.

                       National Security Council


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Security Council, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $6,997,000.

                        Office of Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $39,448,000, of which $8,806,000 shall be available for a 
     capital investment plan which provides for the continued 
     modernization of the information technology infrastructure.

                    Office of Management and Budget


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $63,495,000, of 
     which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available to

[[Page H5631]]

     carry out the provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United 
     States Code: Provided, That, as provided in 31 U.S.C. 
     1301(a), appropriations shall be applied only to the objects 
     for which appropriations were made except as otherwise 
     provided by law: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the Office of Management and 
     Budget may be used for the purpose of reviewing any 
     agricultural marketing orders or any activities or 
     regulations under the provisions of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.): 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available for 
     the Office of Management and Budget by this Act may be 
     expended for the altering of the transcript of actual 
     testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, before the Committees on 
     Appropriations or the Committees on Veterans' Affairs or 
     their subcommittees: Provided further, That the preceding 
     proviso shall not apply to printed hearings released by the 
     Committees on Appropriations or the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs.

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     1998 (title VII of division C of Public Law 105-277); not to 
     exceed $8,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and for participation in joint projects or in the 
     provision of services on matters of mutual interest with 
     nonprofit, research, or public organizations or agencies, 
     with or without reimbursement; $52,221,000, of which 
     $31,350,000 shall remain available until expended, consisting 
     of $2,100,000 for policy research and evaluation, of which 
     $1,000,000 is for the National Alliance for Model State Drug 
     Laws, $16,000,000 for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment 
     Center for counternarcotics research and development 
     projects, and $13,250,000 for the continued operation of the 
     technology transfer program: Provided, That the $16,000,000 
     for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center shall be 
     available for transfer to other Federal departments or 
     agencies: Provided further, That the Office is authorized to 
     accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and 
     personal, public and private, without fiscal year limitation, 
     for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the 
     Office.

                     Federal Drug Control Programs


             high intensity drug trafficking areas program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
     Program, $192,000,000 for drug control activities consistent 
     with the approved strategy for each of the designated High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than 51 
     percent shall be transferred to State and local entities for 
     drug control activities, which shall be obligated within 120 
     days of the date of enactment of this Act: Provided, That up 
     to 49 percent may be transferred to Federal agencies and 
     departments at a rate to be determined by the Director: 
     Provided further, That, of this latter amount, $1,800,000 
     shall be used for auditing services: Provided further, That, 
     hereafter, of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000 or 
     any succeeding fiscal year for the High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Areas Program, the funds to be obligated or 
     expended during such fiscal year for programs addressing the 
     treatment and prevention of drug use shall not be less than 
     the funds obligated or expended for such programs during 
     fiscal year 1999 without the prior approval of the Committees 
     on Appropriations.


                        special forfeiture fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities to support a national anti-drug campaign for 
     youth, and other purposes, authorized by Public Law 105-277, 
     $225,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds may be transferred to other Federal 
     departments and agencies to carry out such activities: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided, $195,000,000 
     shall be to support a national media campaign, as authorized 
     in the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided, $30,000,000 shall be to 
     continue a program of matching grants to drug-free 
     communities, as authorized in the Drug-Free Communities Act 
     of 1997.

                          Unanticipated Needs


                          Unanticipated Needs

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet 
     unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest, 
     security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during 
     the current fiscal year, as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 108, 
     $1,000,000.
       This title may be cited as the ``Executive Office 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
through page 63, line 13 be considered as read, printed in the RECORD, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 63, line 13 is as 
follows:

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

 Committee for Purchase From People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Committee for Purchase From 
     People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled established by the 
     Act of June 23, 1971, Public Law 92-28, $2,674,000.

                      Federal Election Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 
     $38,152,000, of which no less than $4,866,500 shall be 
     available for internal automated data processing systems, and 
     of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for 
     reception and representation expenses.

                   Federal Labor Relations Authority


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the 
     Federal Labor Relations Authority, pursuant to Reorganization 
     Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 
     1978, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the 
     District of Columbia and elsewhere, $23,828,000: Provided, 
     That public members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel may 
     be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence 
     as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons employed 
     intermittently in the Government service, and compensation as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received from fees 
     charged to non-Federal participants at labor-management 
     relations conferences shall be credited to and merged with 
     this account, to be available without further appropriation 
     for the costs of carrying out these conferences.

                    General Services Administration


                         federal buildings fund

                 limitations on availability of revenue

       To carry out the purpose of the Federal Buildings Fund 
     established pursuant to section 210(f) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended 
     (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), the revenues and collections deposited 
     into the Fund shall be available for necessary expenses of 
     real property management and related activities not otherwise 
     provided for, including operation, maintenance, and 
     protection of federally owned and leased buildings; rental of 
     buildings in the District of Columbia; restoration of leased 
     premises; moving governmental agencies (including space 
     adjustments and telecommunications relocation expenses) in 
     connection with the assignment, allocation, and transfer of 
     space; contractual services incident to cleaning or servicing 
     buildings, and moving; repair and alteration of federally 
     owned buildings, including grounds, approaches, and 
     appurtenances; care and safeguarding of sites; maintenance, 
     preservation, demolition, and equipment; acquisition of 
     buildings and sites by purchase, condemnation, or as 
     otherwise authorized by law; acquisition of options to 
     purchase buildings and sites; conversion and extension of 
     federally owned buildings; preliminary planning and design of 
     projects by contract or otherwise; construction of new 
     buildings (including equipment for such buildings); and 
     payment of principal, interest, and any other obligations for 
     public buildings acquired by installment purchase and 
     purchase contract; in the aggregate amount of $5,245,906,000, 
     of which: (1) $8,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for construction of nonprospectus construction 
     projects; (2) $559,869,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for repairs and alterations, which includes 
     associated design and construction services: Provided, That 
     funds made available in any previous Act in the Federal 
     Buildings Fund for Repairs and Alterations shall, for 
     prospectus projects, be limited to the amount identified for 
     each project, except each project may be increased by an 
     amount not to exceed 10 percent unless advance approval is 
     obtained from the Committee on Appropriations of a greater 
     amount: Provided further, That the amounts provided in this 
     or any prior Act for ``Repairs and Alterations'' may be used 
     to fund costs associated with implementing security 
     improvements to buildings necessary to meet the minimum 
     standards for security in accordance with current law and in 
     compliance with the reprogramming guidelines of the 
     appropriate Committees of the House and Senate: Provided 
     further, That the difference between the funds appropriated 
     and expended on any projects in this or any prior Act, under 
     the heading ``Repairs and Alterations'', may be transferred 
     to Basic Repairs and Alterations or used to fund authorized 
     increases in prospectus projects: Provided further, That all 
     funds for repairs and alterations prospectus projects shall 
     expire on September 30, 2001, and remain in the Federal 
     Buildings Fund, except funds for projects as to which funds 
     for design or other funds have been obligated in whole or in 
     part prior to such date: Provided further, That the amount 
     provided in this or any prior Act for Basic Repairs and 
     Alterations may be used to pay claims against the Government 
     arising from any projects under the heading ``Repairs and 
     Alterations'' or used to fund authorized increases in 
     prospectus projects: Provided further, That the General 
     Services Administration is directed to use funds

[[Page H5632]]

     available for Repairs and Alterations to undertake the first 
     construction phase of the project to renovate the Department 
     of the Interior Headquarters Building located in Washington, 
     D.C.; (3) $205,668,000 for installment acquisition payments 
     including payments on purchase contracts which shall remain 
     available until expended; (4) $2,782,186,000 for rental of 
     space which shall remain available until expended; and (5) 
     $1,590,183,000 for building operations which shall remain 
     available until expended, of which $1,974,000 shall be 
     available until expended for acquisition, lease, 
     construction, and equipping of flexiplace telecommuting 
     centers, including $150,000 for the center in Winchester, 
     Virginia, and $200,000 for the center in Woodbridge, 
     Virginia: Provided further, That funds available to the 
     General Services Administration shall not be available for 
     expenses of any construction, repair, alteration and 
     acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required by 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, has not been 
     approved, except that necessary funds may be expended for 
     each project for required expenses for the development of a 
     proposed prospectus: Provided further, That funds available 
     in the Federal Buildings Fund may be expended for emergency 
     repairs when advance approval is obtained from the Committees 
     on Appropriations: Provided further, That amounts necessary 
     to provide reimbursable special services to other agencies 
     under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 
     490(f)(6)) and amounts to provide such reimbursable fencing, 
     lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or 
     other property not in Government ownership or control as may 
     be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to 
     perform its protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056, 
     shall be available from such revenues and collections: 
     Provided further, That revenues and collections and any other 
     sums accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2000, excluding 
     reimbursements under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     490(f)(6)) in excess of $5,245,906,000 shall remain in the 
     Fund and shall not be available for expenditure except as 
     authorized in appropriations Acts.


                         policy and operations

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     for Government-wide policy and oversight activities 
     associated with asset management activities; utilization and 
     donation of surplus personal property; transportation; 
     procurement and supply; Government-wide responsibilities 
     relating to automated data management, telecommunications, 
     information resources management, and related technology 
     activities; utilization survey, deed compliance inspection, 
     appraisal, environmental and cultural analysis, and land use 
     planning functions pertaining to excess and surplus real 
     property; agency-wide policy direction; Board of Contract 
     Appeals; accounting, records management, and other support 
     services incident to adjudication of Indian Tribal Claims by 
     the United States Court of Federal Claims; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and not to exceed $5,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, $110,448,000, 
     of which $12,758,000 shall remain available until expended.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $33,317,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $15,000 shall be available for 
     payment for information and detection of fraud against the 
     Government, including payment for recovery of stolen 
     Government property: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,500 shall be available for awards to employees of other 
     Federal agencies and private citizens in recognition of 
     efforts and initiatives resulting in enhanced Office of 
     Inspector General effectiveness.


           allowances and office staff for former presidents

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the provisions of the Act of August 25, 
     1958, as amended (3 U.S.C. 102 note), and Public Law 95-138, 
     $2,241,000: Provided, That the Administrator of General 
     Services shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of such 
     Acts.

          General Services Administration--General Provisions

       Sec. 401. The appropriate appropriation or fund available 
     to the General Services Administration shall be credited with 
     the cost of operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, 
     repair, and improvement, included as part of rentals received 
     from Government corporations pursuant to law (40 U.S.C. 129).
       Sec. 402. Funds available to the General Services 
     Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 403. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made 
     available for fiscal year 2000 for Federal Buildings Fund 
     activities may be transferred between such activities only to 
     the extent necessary to meet program requirements: Provided, 
     That any proposed transfers shall be approved in advance by 
     the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 404. No funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to transmit a fiscal year 2001 request for United States 
     Courthouse construction that (1) does not meet the design 
     guide standards for construction as established and approved 
     by the General Services Administration, the Judicial 
     Conference of the United States, and the Office of Management 
     and Budget; and (2) does not reflect the priorities of the 
     Judicial Conference of the United States as set out in its 
     approved 5-year construction plan: Provided, That the fiscal 
     year 2001 request must be accompanied by a standardized 
     courtroom utilization study of each facility to be 
     constructed, replaced, or expanded.
       Sec. 405. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to increase the amount of occupiable square feet, 
     provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any 
     other service usually provided through the Federal Buildings 
     Fund, to any agency that does not pay the rate per square 
     foot assessment for space and services as determined by the 
     General Services Administration in compliance with the Public 
     Buildings Amendments Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-313).
       Sec. 406. Funds provided to other Government agencies by 
     the Information Technology Fund, General Services 
     Administration, under 40 U.S.C. 757 and sections 5124(b) and 
     5128 of Public Law 104-106, Information Technology Management 
     Reform Act of 1996, for performance of pilot information 
     technology projects which have potential for Government-wide 
     benefits and savings, may be repaid to this Fund from any 
     savings actually incurred by these projects or other funding, 
     to the extent feasible.
       Sec. 407. From funds made available under the heading 
     ``Federal Buildings Fund, Limitations on Availability of 
     Revenue'', claims against the Government of less than 
     $250,000 arising from direct construction projects and 
     acquisition of buildings may be liquidated from savings 
     effected in other construction projects with prior 
     notification to the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 408. Funds made available for new construction 
     projects under the heading ``Federal Buildings Fund, 
     Limitations on Availability of Revenue'' in Public Law 104-
     208 shall remain available until expended so long as funds 
     for design or other funds have been obligated in whole or in 
     part prior to September 30, 1999.

                     Merit Systems Protection Board

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, and direct procurement of 
     survey printing, $27,586,000 together with not to exceed 
     $2,430,000 for administrative expenses to adjudicate 
     retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts determined by the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board.

   Federal Payment to Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
                National Environmental Policy Foundation

       For payment to the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
     Excellence in National Environmental Trust Fund, to be 
     available for the purposes of Public Law 102-252, $1,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                 Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund

       For payment to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to 
     carry out activities authorized in the Environmental Policy 
     and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998, $1,250,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

              National Archives and Records Administration


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in connection with the 
     administration of the National Archives (including the 
     Information Security Oversight Office) and archived Federal 
     records and related activities, as provided by law, and for 
     expenses necessary for the review and declassification of 
     documents, and for the hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $180,398,000: Provided, That the Archivist of the United 
     States is authorized to use any excess funds available from 
     the amount borrowed for construction of the National Archives 
     facility, for expenses necessary to provide adequate storage 
     for holdings.


                        repairs and restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 
     facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, 
     $13,518,000, to remain available until expended.


                     records center revolving fund

       (a) Establishment of Fund.--There is hereby established in 
     the Treasury a revolving fund to be available for expenses 
     and equipment necessary to provide for storage and related 
     services for all temporary and pre-archival Federal records, 
     which are to be stored or stored at Federal National and 
     Regional Records Centers by agencies and other 
     instrumentalities of the Federal government. The Fund shall 
     be available without fiscal year limitation for expenses 
     necessary for operation of these activities.
       (b) Start-Up Capital.--
       (1) There is appropriated $22,000,000 as initial 
     capitalization of the Fund.
       (2) In addition, the initial capital of the Fund shall 
     include the fair and reasonable value at the Fund's inception 
     of the inventories, equipment, receivables, and other assets, 
     less the liabilities, transferred to the Fund. The Archivist 
     of the United States is authorized to accept inventories, 
     equipment, receivables and other assets from other Federal 
     entities that were used to provide for

[[Page H5633]]

     storage and related services for temporary and pre-archival 
     Federal records.
       (c) User Charges.--The Fund shall be credited with user 
     charges received from other Federal government accounts as 
     payment for providing personnel, storage, materials, 
     supplies, equipment, and services as authorized by subsection 
     (a). Such payments may be made in advance or by way of 
     reimbursement. The rates charged will return in full the 
     expenses of operation, including reserves for accrued annual 
     leave, worker's compensation, depreciation of capitalized 
     equipment and shelving, and amortization of information 
     technology software and systems.
       (d) Funds Returned to Treasury.--
       (1) In addition to funds appropriated to and assets 
     transferred to the Fund in subsection (b), an amount not to 
     exceed 4 percent of the total annual income may be retained 
     in the Fund as an operating reserve or for the replacement or 
     acquisition of capital equipment, including shelving, and the 
     improvement and implementation of the financial management, 
     information technology, and other support systems of the 
     National Archives and Records Administration.
       (2) Funds in excess of the 4 percent at the close of each 
     fiscal year shall be returned to the Treasury of the United 
     States as miscellaneous receipts.
       (e) Reporting Requirement.--The National Archives and 
     Records Administration shall provide quarterly reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives on the operation of the Fund.

        National Historical Publications and Records Commission


                             grants program

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for 
     historical publications and records as authorized by 44 
     U.S.C. 2504, as amended, $6,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading in Public Law 105-277, $4,000,000 are 
     rescinded: Provided further, That the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in division 
     A, section 101(h), of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) 
     is amended in title IV, under the heading ``National 
     Historical Publications and Records Commission, Grants 
     Program'' by striking the proviso.

                      Office of Government Ethics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Government Ethics pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act 
     of 1978, as amended and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, and not to exceed $1,500 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $9,114,000.

                     Office of Personnel Management


                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Personnel Management pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; medical 
     examinations performed for veterans by private physicians on 
     a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not 
     to exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; advances for reimbursements to applicable funds of 
     the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order No. 
     10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended; and payment of per diem 
     and/or subsistence allowances to employees where Voting 
     Rights Act activities require an employee to remain overnight 
     at his or her post of duty, $90,584,000; and in addition 
     $95,486,000 for administrative expenses, to be transferred 
     from the appropriate trust funds of the Office of Personnel 
     Management without regard to other statutes, including direct 
     procurement of printed materials, for the retirement and 
     insurance programs, of which $4,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for the cost of automating the 
     retirement recordkeeping systems: Provided, That the 
     provisions of this appropriation shall not affect the 
     authority to use applicable trust funds as provided by 
     sections 8348(a)(1)(B) and 8909(g) of title 5, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation 
     shall be available for salaries and expenses of the Legal 
     Examining Unit of the Office of Personnel Management 
     established pursuant to Executive Order No. 9358 of July 1, 
     1943, or any successor unit of like purpose: Provided 
     further, That the President's Commission on White House 
     Fellows, established by Executive Order No. 11183 of October 
     3, 1964, may, during fiscal year 2000, accept donations of 
     money, property, and personal services in connection with the 
     development of a publicity brochure to provide information 
     about the White House Fellows, except that no such donations 
     shall be accepted for travel or reimbursement of travel 
     expenses, or for the salaries of employees of such 
     Commission.


                      office of inspector general

                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act, 
     as amended, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles, $960,000; and in 
     addition, not to exceed $9,645,000 for administrative 
     expenses to audit, investigate, and provide other oversight 
     of the Office of Personnel Management's retirement and 
     insurance programs, to be transferred from the appropriate 
     trust funds of the Office of Personnel Management, as 
     determined by the Inspector General: Provided, That the 
     Inspector General is authorized to rent conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia and elsewhere.


      government payment for annuitants, employees health benefits

       For payment of Government contributions with respect to 
     retired employees, as authorized by chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and the Retired Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Act (74 Stat. 849), as amended, such sums as may be 
     necessary.


       government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance

       For payment of Government contributions with respect to 
     employees retiring after December 31, 1989, as required by 
     chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, such sums as may 
     be necessary.


        payment to civil service retirement and disability fund

       For financing the unfunded liability of new and increased 
     annuity benefits becoming effective on or after October 20, 
     1969, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8348, and annuities under 
     special Acts to be credited to the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, 
     That annuities authorized by the Act of May 29, 1944, as 
     amended, and the Act of August 19, 1950, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 771-775), may hereafter be paid out of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

                       Office of Special Counsel


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Special Counsel pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 
     of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
     454), the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (Public Law 
     101-12), Public Law 103-424, and the Uniformed Services 
     Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-353), 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, payment of 
     fees and expenses for witnesses, rental of conference rooms 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; $9,740,000.

                        United States Tax Court


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and 
     other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $36,489,000: 
     Provided, That travel expenses of the judges shall be paid 
     upon the written certificate of the judge.
       This title may be cited as the ``Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that will be offered 
and then withdrawn to title I. Now I know we are past title I.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) ask 
unanimous consent to return to an earlier title to offer his amendment?
  Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me under his 
reservation?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield under my reservation to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) has 
great concern about a case I have been working with him on. I 
apologize. He wanted to offer the amendment, and I suggested that he 
offer it and then withdraw it, which he has agreed to. But he wants to 
raise the issue. It deals with a Customs matter in which his 
constituents, he believes, were mistreated. He simply wants to make 
that point. I have assured him that we will then work on the issue.
  Mr. KOLBE. Continuing under my reservation, Mr. Chairman, I would 
just note that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), if he intends 
just to discuss this, can just strike the last word and discuss the 
issue. My concern is, about doing this, is if somebody else comes back 
and says they want to come back.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman raises a good point. I 
ask the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw his unanimous consent and 
move

[[Page H5634]]

to strike the last word so we can discuss the matter.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) was to be here on the 
floor also, because he actually represents the individuals involved and 
was to have spoken with the chairman, I believe, at this point. I 
believe he is probably en route to the floor.
  I have an amendment which the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) 
was going to co-author which would increase the amount of 
appropriations for salaries and payroll by $150,000 to include in this 
appropriation bill the ability of the U.S. Customs Service to settle an 
egregious action which was taken by a customs official in the Chicago 
office at O'Hare Airport. I believe it was the constituent of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) as well as the constituent of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) who traveled to Africa, paid the 
government in Africa of Cameroon some $116,000 in trophy fees for hides 
and horns and other animals that were taken and harvested there.

                              {time}  1700

  When the Customs official ordered this cargo destroyed, she was out 
of line because it was the official jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Department.
  And so these two individuals are going to have a very difficult time. 
Even if they spent the same amount of money, they could not be 
guaranteed to harvest those animals, and certainly the costs that are 
involved in their trip as well are tremendous. The fact is everything 
was legal. They had their sitings permits; all of the paperwork was in 
order and in the crates of the cargo. This individual just went out and 
ordered these two crates to be destroyed, and they were subsequently 
placed in a landfill.
  Several Members of Congress contacted Customs and indicated that the 
cargo would still be good; that they were, in fact, preserved before 
shipment from Africa to the United States and before they were placed 
in a landfill. And we had instructed that Customs official to get a 
shovel and go out and attempt to relocate those two crates. It was very 
valuable cargo.
  We have very difficult regulations with the Customs Service. In the 
case of negligence of an employee, the Secretary of the Treasury is 
authorized to reimburse up to an amount of $1,000 per individual per 
claim. And since the value of the cargo is $116,000, involving two 
individuals, it would be almost impossible to recover those costs 
without congressional action.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARCIA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman. The 
gentleman came up to me on the floor about 2 months ago, I believe, and 
brought this matter to my attention, and I shared his anger and outrage 
at the apparent treatment that has occurred here. When I say apparent, 
it is simply that I have not personally verified all the facts, but the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Chambliss) are both men of great integrity.
  I know the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is also very 
concerned about this, as is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is 
also very concerned about this.
  I personally have been pursuing this with Customs and with Mr. Kelly. 
I know that Mr. Kelly, the commissioner of Customs, is very concerned 
about this matter and shares the outrage of the gentleman from Michigan 
and the gentleman from Georgia about what apparently has occurred. They 
are in the process of trying to come to grips with this.
  Unfortunately, the timing is not as good as it should have been; 
better to have met last week than next week, but my staff is pursuing a 
meeting, as the gentleman knows, and I hope the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Chambliss) knows, because we have been in touch with his staff, a 
meeting next week, with Customs and with the four gentlemen who have 
been so involved in this, along with myself, and hopefully either the 
chairman or a member of the chairman's staff so that we can continue to 
pursue this and get to the bottom of it.
  The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Georgia, the two 
gentlemen from Georgia, I suppose, and the gentleman from South 
Carolina are absolutely correct if individuals were treated in the 
manner that we believe they were. It was outrageous, unacceptable, and 
the citizens involved deserve compensation for their loss.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan wanted to offer an 
amendment which set a specific dollar value for the loss.
  The CHAIRMAN. Time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) has 
expired.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The gentleman from Michigan had an amendment to set a specific amount 
of damages for the two parties that were most directly affected here. I 
indicated to him that I would not be able to support that at this time, 
simply because I do not know what the amount of damages are. Quite 
obviously, on the floor it is difficult to assess the amount of damages 
of a claim, and there are thousands of claims, of course, against the 
government; and if we did that on a regular basis, it would be chaotic. 
That does not, however, diminish in any way the absolute justice in the 
amendment.
  I am going to be working very, very hard to try to get to the bottom 
of this. And I say to my friends from Michigan and Georgia that their 
prosecution of this matter is obviously very vigorous, very focused, 
but very appropriate; and I look forward to working very closely with 
them so we can come to the bottom of this. And whatever we assess as 
the damages, we will work with them towards making sure that their 
constituents and people with whom they are involved are made whole to 
the extent they can be.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to say 
that I associate myself with all of the remarks of both my friend from 
Maryland and my friend from Michigan. This was a very egregious and 
intentional and, frankly, malicious act, I think, on the part of this 
particular employee of the Customs Service.
  And I want to also say very publicly that were it not for the 
intervention of our friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in 
this, I am not sure we would even be at the point we are today, where 
they have recognized the issue and recognized the problem. And I thank 
him for his diligent efforts on behalf of our folks back home in this 
regard.
  We will continue to pursue this with the gentleman at this meeting 
next week. I hope we are able to come to some satisfactory resolution 
of it. Because if we are not, then I think we will be back here in this 
same venue the next time we are able to, to ensure that our folks are 
well compensated and well taken care of for a malicious intentional act 
on the part of this  employee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                                This Act

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
        Sec. 502. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary 
     of any Government employee where funding an activity or 
     paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a 
     decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that 
     would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930.
       Sec. 504. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available in fiscal year 2000 for the purpose of 
     transferring control over the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center located at Glynco, Georgia, and Artesia, New 
     Mexico, out of the Department of the Treasury.

[[Page H5635]]

       Sec. 505. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to pay the salary for any person 
     filling a position, other than a temporary position, formerly 
     held by an employee who has left to enter the Armed Forces of 
     the United States and has satisfactorily completed his period 
     of active military or naval service, and has within 90 days 
     after his release from such service or from hospitalization 
     continuing after discharge for a period of not more than 1 
     year, made application for restoration to his former position 
     and has been certified by the Office of Personnel Management 
     as still qualified to perform the duties of his former 
     position and has not been restored thereto.
       Sec. 506. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be 
     expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 
     2 through 4 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
       Sec. 507. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--In the case of any equipment or products that may 
     be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
     provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that 
     entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the 
     assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 508. If it has been finally determined by a court or 
     Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label 
     bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription 
     with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to 
     the United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 509. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefit program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLAURO:
       Strike section 509.

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is a 
bipartisan measure which would strike the provision in this bill which 
prevents health plans which participate in the Federal Employee Health 
Benefits Program from providing coverage for abortion services. On a 
more basic level, this amendment would restore fairness to the women 
serving in the Federal Government.
  As we all know, this bill provides funding for the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program, the network of health insurance plans for 
Federal employees, dedicated people who serve the public around the 
Nation, in Maryland and in Virginia, and our staffs right here in the 
House. They depend on the FEHBP for their medical care. That includes 
1.2 million women of reproductive age.
  Until November 1995, Federal employees could choose a health care 
plan which covered the full range of reproductive health services, 
including abortion, just like every other employee in this Nation. Now 
our Federal employees no longer have that right. They are unable to 
choose a health care plan which includes coverage of this legal, and I 
repeat, this legal medical procedure.
  I would remind my colleagues that the right to choose has been upheld 
by the Supreme Court. It is protected by the United States 
Constitution. It is only July, but already we have been to the floor 
far too many times fighting to protect women's health against the 
personal agendas of some of our colleagues.
  To my colleagues who oppose this amendment, let me stress that I 
respect their beliefs, but it is unfair to foist those beliefs on 
others who may not share the same views and who are paying for the 
health care plans of their choice.
  Restricting access to abortion is dangerous to women's health. 
According to the American Medical Association, funding restrictions 
like the ones in this bill makes it more likely that a woman will 
continue a potentially life-threatening pregnancy to term or undergo 
abortion procedures that would endanger their health. Coverage of 
abortion services in Federal health plans does not mean that the 
government or the taxpayer is subsidizing abortion. I would bet that we 
will hear that argument repeated over and over again today.
  When an individual agrees to work for the government, he or she 
receives a salary and a benefit package. The health benefit, like the 
salary, belongs to the employee and not the government; and employees 
are free to use both as they see fit. The government contributes to 
premiums of Federal employees, and the employees purchase private 
health insurance and pay the rest of the premium. Each employee has the 
power to choose a health plan that best fits his or her needs. If 
employees do not want to choose a plan with abortion coverage, they do 
not have to. The choice is available.
  Approximately one-third of private fee-for-service plans and 30 
percent of HMOs do not provide for abortion coverage, but Federal 
employees are left with no choice and no option if tragedy strikes.
  Let me read to my colleagues a short excerpt from a letter from one 
family affected by this restriction. It is a woman from Alabama, and 
she says, ``My doctor told me that my twins, which were boys, suffered 
from Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome. Both babies shared the same 
blood vessels. Because of this, the baby on top was giving his blood 
and water to the baby on the bottom. The smaller twin was about one 
month smaller in size than the larger twin. The doctor said the larger 
twin was growing too fast. After consulting with the doctor, my husband 
and I decided that the best thing to do would be to end the pregnancy. 
It was the hardest decision of my life.''
  This family thought that in fact that they were covered by their 
insurance. This was right after the Congress made their decision to 
restrict this kind of coverage. What happened to this family is 
unbelievable. They had to file for bankruptcy. And I will quote the 
last line of the letter from this woman. ``Families like ours should 
not have to go bankrupt in order to receive appropriate medical care.''
  I offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues, as I said. But let 
me just say that when an individual does work for the government, they 
ought to be allowed to take their salary and their benefit package and 
have the choice of what kind of coverage meets their family needs. We 
must allow them to have the choice in that decision. It is unfair to 
ask people to spend the kinds of hours that they do day in and day out, 
who want to be loyal public servants, and to deny them what, in fact, 
they are willing to pay for and what they are paying for.
  By singling out abortion for exclusion from health plans that cover 
other reproductive health care, it is dangerous and it is desperately 
unfair to these employees. I urge my colleagues to give our public 
servants the right to choose the health care that is best for them. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and, in doing so, 
I want to make it clear that my position is not because of where I come 
from on this issue. As I think many of the Members know, I have 
regarded myself as pro-choice, in that I believe a woman should have 
the right not only to choose, but certainly in the case of coverage by 
a Federal health benefit should have the right to have this kind of 
coverage.
  However, having said that, I rise in opposition to this because I 
believe that it goes to the very heart of this bill and the balance 
that I think is in this bill. If this were a freestanding bill, I would 
be joining with the gentlewoman from Connecticut. But it is not; it is 
on this piece of legislation, which has been historically a magnet for 
a lot of the abortion issues that we have discussed in this body.

                              {time}  1715

  The bill that we have before us today is balanced, balanced in the 
sense that it reflects exactly what this body and the Congress and the 
President of the United States signed into law last year. That is, it 
continues a prohibition which has existed since 1995 in the Congress 
against Federal health benefit funds being used to pay for an abortion.

[[Page H5636]]

  On the other hand, it also includes a provision that was adopted last 
year which we have come to know as the Lowey amendment, which provides 
for contraceptive coverage for women who are covered under the Federal 
Health Benefits Plan. So there is a certain symmetry to this. We do not 
fund an abortion procedure, but we do say that we will fund 
contraceptive coverage.
  In any event, it is my view that this battle, having been fought very 
hard in the House and the Senate last year and with the administration, 
that we ought to accept the bill that we have already adopted. We 
should leave these two provisions, both of them, in the bill. We should 
leave this section 509; and later, when we get to the section dealing 
with contraceptive coverage, we should leave that in the bill.
  I hope my colleagues, regardless of where they come down on this 
issue, would vote as I intend to do, which is to vote to retain both of 
these provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, legislating is the art of the possible. Legislating on 
appropriations bills particularly is the art of the possible. There are 
balances, there are compromises that have to be made. There are trade-
offs which have to be made. We have to get a bill that can pass not 
only the House, that can pass the Senate, that can get through a 
conference committee, be passed again by the House and the Senate and 
be accepted by the President of the United States.
  I believe that these provisions, both of which did that last year, 
got through the House, got through the Senate, were adopted in the 
conference, and were signed into law by the President. We should retain 
these provisions in the legislation.
  I hope my colleagues would reject this amendment to strike section 
509.
  Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 45 minutes and the time 
to be equally divided between the two sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I guess that gives us 22\1/2\ minutes 
apiece; am I correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  The Chair will assume that the time will be controlled by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a new issue for anybody on this floor. I 
join in supporting and, as a matter of fact, I cosponsored the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I would 
just take a brief time to reiterate why.
  Some very close friends of mine have a view different than mine, and 
I respect their view and I hope they respect mine, with respect to the 
termination of a pregnancy, for important reasons.
  It is my view, however, Mr. Chairman, that this issue does not deal 
with that directly; and the reason is this: It is my belief that a 
Federal employee covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan 
has, as a part of their compensation package, three things.
  They, first of all, have their salary, the money they are paid 
directly. No one would get up on this floor, it seems to me, and say 
that we ought to take a portion of that salary and ensure that they do 
not spend it for x, y, or z. Surely those who say that they want to 
have tax cuts because they want to leave more money in the pockets of 
those Americans so that they can choose how to spend their money would 
not support that effort.
  Secondly, a Federal employee has their retirement benefit. Obviously, 
that is a valuable part of their compensation package. It will in 
retirement provide them with the, in effect, income in retirement that 
they earned during their working years.
  Thirdly, they have the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. We 
should not tell them how to spend that portion of their compensation. 
We ought to allow them the option to purchase such policy as they 
choose because it is part of their compensation and is their money, not 
ours. We made a deal with them. We said, if they work for us, this is 
what we will pay them. They ought to have the option to spend it as 
they see fit.
  I support the amendment of the gentlewoman.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this radical 
amendment. As all of my colleagues know, the provision that the 
gentlewoman seeks to strike has been included in this legislation for 
years and, as we all know, this is a highly controversial issue. The 
debate we are engaging in is not one involving the legality of 
abortion. It is about using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.
  While the availability of abortion on demand is a very controversial 
issue in the United States, with many Americans feeling very strongly 
that it should not be allowed and some feeling very strongly that it 
should be allowed, the issue that the gentlewoman brings up this 
afternoon is indeed not very controversial, with the vast majority of 
Americans feeling very strongly that taxpayer dollars should not be 
used to fund abortions in the United States of America.
  Now, some people may try to claim that this is just another medical 
procedure. And we all know seriously, Mr. Chairman, that this is not 
just another simple medical procedure. It is a very unique medical 
procedure where one of the participants in the procedure ends up dead.
  The Supreme Court itself, the Supreme Court that created legalized 
abortion in the United States, has actually ruled on this issue. In 
upholding the Hyde amendment, which prohibits abortion funding in 
programs funded by the Labor HHS bill, the Court said: ``Abortion is 
inherently different from other medical procedures because no other 
procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.''
  Now, I, as a medical doctor, would argue that the unborn baby in the 
womb is not a potential life. It meets all of the medical criteria of a 
life, the criteria that I used to use as a practicing physician to 
determine whether somebody is alive or dead: a beating heart, active 
brain waves. Indeed, with modern ultrasound technology today, as early 
as 8, 9, 10 weeks we can see them moving around their arms.
  Clearly a very controversial issue, and the gentlewoman brings this 
up now. I believe very strongly that our colleagues should reject this 
amendment. We should not allow taxpayer dollars to be used for this 
purpose.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the position of the gentleman. 
I ask this legitimately because the gentleman heard my argument.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have to 
apologize to the gentleman. I was preparing my remarks, and I did not 
listen to his argument.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
what I essentially said was that the money spent on the Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Plan, in other words, the gentleman is saying 
Federal tax dollars, the money we spend toward the retirement program 
and the salary, are all a part of the compensation package of the 
employee.
  Now, the salary is paid directly. I put it in my pocket. No one could 
refer to that as Federal tax dollars that were given to me and put in 
my pocket. But surely my point would be, my colleague would not tell me 
or anybody else tell me that I can only spend that money in this way or 
that way. In fact, a woman could spend her part of her salary to 
accomplish a legal objective with which my colleague would disagree, I 
understand.
  My question to my colleague is, how do we differentiate that part of 
the compensation package, albeit it is paid directly to the insurance 
company, because it is put all together?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
the argument of the gentleman; and it is a legitimate part to bring 
forward in the debate.

[[Page H5637]]

  We in the Congress established the compensation package, and I think 
there is clearly a difference between the two. While I do not think 
American taxpayers could in any way object to how they use the money 
that is in their pocket, many American taxpayers I believe would object 
very, very strongly to this benefit being included. And that is the 
essence of my argument.
  This is a very, very controversial issue. It divides the Nation, as 
we all know. I feel that it is best for this particular piece of 
legislation that we reject the amendment and we stay with the language 
that exists, though I appreciate the argument of the gentleman and 
though I respectfully disagree.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a woman that God has created, and many of us around 
this world, many of us feel very passionately that we have the right to 
choose, to choose with our God and our husband or significant other 
whether we will, in fact, bear children and whether we will, in fact, 
bring that pregnancy to term.
  I rise today in support of the DeLauro amendment, and I am proud to 
be a cosponsor of that amendment.
  1.2 million Federal employees, women of reproductive age, do have the 
will but not the right to use their health plan for the health benefit 
that they would choose if they wanted to have an abortion. 1.2 million 
women, many of whom work in this House of Representatives, cannot 
choose a health plan and use an abortion coverage.
  As was mentioned by our ranking member, when we hire an employee, as 
employees all over the country know, they have a choice as to which 
plan they want to pick and which services they want to use in their 
health care plan.
  What we are saying in this amendment is give the women of the Federal 
Government who work all over this country, some 1.2 million of them, 
that same opportunity.
  Every employee in this country has a right to choose the health care 
plan with the full range of reproductive health services, including 
abortion, except Federal employees. I find that inherently wrong, as a 
woman, as a mother, as one who God has made to be able to reproduce.
  It is unfortunate this amendment has to come before this House. This 
bears repeating. It is a medical procedure that is legal, an abortion.
  I know, in my history as a 20-year public employee, we are not going 
to change people's opinion one way or the other on abortion. It is a 
very private, personal decision that each individual must make.
  But the amendment is a good one. Let us not deny the 1.2 million 
Federal employees all over this country and, yes, who work for this 
Congress the opportunity to pick the health coverage that they want.
  Mr. Chairman, let us support the DeLauro amendment. Let us support 
the 1.2 million women who serve our country across this country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise all Members that the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is controlling time on her side and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is controlling time on his side.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the introducer of the amendment 
that I strongly support for yielding the time to me and for introducing 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply prevent discrimination 
against Federal employees in their health care coverage.

                              {time}  1730

  It was 4 years ago when Congress voted to deny Federal employees 
abortion coverage that was already provided to most of the country's 
workforce through their private health insurance plans. Incidentally, 
before that it was provided in the Federal employee plans. This 
decision was discriminatory and it was another example of Congress 
chipping away at the benefits of Federal employees and their right to 
choose an insurance plan that best meets their health care needs.
  The coverage of abortion services in Federal health plans would not 
mean that abortions would be subsidized by the Federal Government as 
has been mentioned. The government simply contributes to the premiums 
of Federal employees in order to allow them to purchase health 
insurance. This contribution is part of the employee benefit package, 
just as an employee's salary or retirement benefits.
  Currently, let us remember that approximately two-thirds of private 
fee-for-service health insurance plans and 70 percent of HMOs provide 
abortion coverage. When this ban was reinstated 4 years ago, 178 FEHBP 
plans, that means Federal Employee Health Benefit Plans, out of 345 
offered abortion coverage. Women had the choice. They had the choice to 
decide whether to participate in a plan with or without the coverage. 
Thus, an employee could choose a plan with abortion coverage or not.
  Congress denied Federal employees their access to abortion coverage, 
thereby discriminating against them and treating them differently than 
the vast majority of private sector employees. I frankly think it is 
insulting to Federal employees that they are being told that part of 
their own compensation package is not under their control.
  Mr. Chairman, approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age 
rely on FEHBP for their health coverage, 1.2 million women without 
access to abortion coverage. Without access, their constitutionally 
protected right to choose is effectively denied.
  So I indeed urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment and 
ensure that Federal employees are once again provided their legal right 
to choose.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLauro 
amendment. This amendment has been offered, and defeated, for the last 
4 years. But our pro-choice colleagues are at it again, trying to force 
taxpayers to fund abortion.
  According to a New York Times/CBS poll, and I quote, ``Only 23 
percent of those polled said the national health care plan should cover 
abortions, while 72 percent said that those costs should be paid for 
directly by the women who have them.''
  When an ABC News/Washington Post poll asked Americans if they agree 
or disagree with this statement, ``The Federal Government should pay 
for an abortion for any woman who wants it and cannot afford to pay,'' 
69 percent disagreed.
  The Center for Gender Equality has reported that 53 percent of women 
favor banning abortion except for rape, incest and life of the mother 
exceptions. The pro-life language in the bill that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut seeks to gut includes these exceptions. Obviously, if 53 
percent of women favor banning abortion aside from these exceptions, 
then they would not want their tax dollars paying for abortion-on-
demand as this amendment intends.
  In a Gallup poll from May of this year, 71 percent of Americans 
supported some or total restrictions on abortion. Do these citizens 
want their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for abortion for any reason, 
as the DeLauro amendment calls for?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask, should taxpayers, our constituents, be forced to 
underwrite the cost of abortions for Federal employees? I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Taxpayers are 
not paying for these abortions. Federal employees who are female 
contract with the Federal Government. They get a salary and a benefit 
package. They then should have the opportunity to choose a health care 
package which ought to include abortion services.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague's motion, 
because I believe that the approximately

[[Page H5638]]

1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for their 
medical care should have the option of choosing a health plan which 
includes coverage for abortion. My colleagues are not surprised to hear 
me say this, because it is well-known that I am pro-choice. In fact, 
some of them may be tired of seeing me stand to speak about the right 
to choose and in fact I must tell them, I share that weariness. Many of 
us are tired of constantly battling over these issues. But I do so 
because I do believe that it is America's families, husbands and wives, 
moms and dads, who should be making decisions about abortion, not those 
of us who serve in the Congress. I have fought my entire tenure in 
Congress to allow women their right to choose, without fear, without 
shame.
  I also believe that our approach should be not to make abortion less 
accessible or more difficult but less necessary. If we agree, pro-
choice, pro-life, that our goal should be less abortion, then our focus 
must be on what we can do to further that goal.
  We should increase access to contraception as we have done in this 
bill, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his important work in 
including that provision in this bill. If we want to make abortion less 
necessary, we have to send a clear signal. Americans want us to work 
together toward a solution, not beat each other to death about 
abortion.
  So I believe that making abortion inaccessible is not the answer. 
Contraceptive methods may fail, pregnancies may go unexpectedly and 
tragically wrong. No matter how good the contraceptive technology and 
how much education we do, some women will just need abortions. And 
abortion must remain safe and legal. I oppose my colleagues excluding 
abortion, among the most common surgeries for women, from health care 
coverage. And I support allowing Federal employees to have the option 
of abortion coverage in their health plans.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in supporting the DeLauro motion 
to strike.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. In terms of 
polling data, 54 percent of respondents in a recent poll opposed 
proposals that would prevent health plans from providing coverage of 
abortion services for Federal employees. So there appears to be a 
difference in numbers that are out there. But that is not the issue. 
Polling data is not the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time and for her leadership on this issue and so many 
others.
  I rise in strong support of the DeLauro-Morella amendment. I would 
like very much to be associated with the comments of my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Maryland, when she 
spoke of the discrimination against female Federal employees because of 
the action of this Congress which the DeLauro amendment would address.
  I would like to put this vote in perspective. It is the 122nd vote on 
choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. This Congress has 
acted again and again to eliminate a woman's right to choose, procedure 
by procedure, restriction by restriction.
  Mr. Chairman, it was only 3 short years ago that I received a notice 
in the mail that my health insurance coverage, by law, would no longer 
cover abortion. It was one small notice in the mail but one giant step 
backward for a woman's right to choose.
  A Federal employee no longer gets a choice. Federal employees cannot 
purchase, with their own money, insurance coverage for abortion 
services. This amendment would not require coverage for abortion, it 
would simply allow an insurance company to cover abortion.
  This amendment also does not require a Federal employee to choose a 
health plan which offers abortion coverage because a Federal employee 
may choose a plan that does not cover abortion.
  This amendment is about making a choice and letting the marketplace 
work without interference from the Federal Government. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me this time.
  First, Mr. Chairman, let me point out again, as was noted by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), that the parameters of the 
compensation package, including the health package, are established not 
by the collective bargaining procedure, not by the Office of Personnel 
Management but by the Congress. That goes for the entire spectrum of 
benefits, whether it be the money, the health benefits, the retirement 
package--so we are right and this is the proper place to deal with this 
issue and to come to a conclusion on it.
  I do rise in very strong opposition to the DeLauro amendment. This is 
not the first time we have dealt with this. For the last four 
appropriations bills that have been signed into law, this language has 
been rejected and the underlying pro-life language which proscribes 
funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or life of the 
mother has been put into law. This was also in effect from 1984 through 
1993, and hopefully in fiscal year 2000 it will be again.
  Let me remind Members, as well, that 72 percent of the money that is 
used towards the purchase of the health plan comes from the taxpayer, 
not from the premium payer. The remainder comes, about a quarter of it, 
from the premium payer, but almost three-fourths of the money is a 
direct subsidy from the United States taxpayer. This amendment would 
strike the Hyde amendment of the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program. Again, I hope that Members will vote against it.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also point out, it is bad enough from our 
perspective on the pro-life side that abortion on demand is the Supreme 
Court-imposed policy of our land. It was not voted into policy by the 
Congress, nor by the States. It was imposed upon us--forced on 
America--by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. But we do not have to pay 
for it. That is the issue squarely before this body today.
  Many of us have profound, conscientious objections to abortion. We 
believe it is killing. We believe it is the taking of an innocent and 
defenseless human life. We believe abortion exploits women, and hurts 
them both emotionally and physically. The pro-life language in this 
bill ensures that all of us who believe that abortion is killing and 
dangerous to women will not be complicit, will not be party to the 
taking of that innocent, unborn child's life.
  Let me remind Members as well that more and more people in America, 
and the polls clearly reflect this, are coming to the inescapable 
conclusion that abortion methods are acts of violence against children, 
against little kids. Abortion, rather than the language in the bill, 
abortion itself is discriminatory against children who cannot defend 
themselves, boys and girls of all races who cannot say, ``Hey, wait, 
what about me?'' I think at a time when we know more about the unborn 
child's life in fetology, at a time when we have a window to the womb 
with ultrasound and can watch with incredible clarity an unborn child 
moving, sucking his or her thumb at the very earliest stages, to turn 
around and say that we can poke holes in that child and stab that child 
and kill that child, I think, is unspeakable.
  I have spent my 19 years in Congress working on human rights issues. 
I believe this is the most egregious human rights abuse on the planet, 
because it is so often disguised and masqueraded as somehow being a 
right is abortion. It is indeed violence against babies.
  I would just ask Members, remember what abortion methods are actually 
done. As soon as we get into the rhetoric of choice and all of the 
numbing rhetoric that makes us look askance rather than at the reality 
of abortion, then we are able to put it out of mind, put it under the 
table and fail to realize that dismemberment and chemical poisonings 
are terrible things. And that is what abortion is.
  Look at dismemberment abortions--commonplace all over America. A 
loop-shaped knife is hooked up to a hose, into a suction device that is 
20 to 30 times more powerful than the average vacuum cleaner, and then 
that child's

[[Page H5639]]

body is literally hacked to death. That is violence, I say to my 
colleagues.
  One of the Members on the pro-abortion side just threw her arm as if 
to say I should go jump in a lake. But this is the reality whether you 
like it or not.
  I have viewed the ``Silent Scream'' produced by Dr. Bernard 
Nathanson, a former abortionist, who wrote in the New England Journal 
of Medicine, ``I've come to the agonizing conclusion that I have 
presided over 60,000 deaths,'' and then he quit doing abortions. This 
is a man who founded NARAL, a group that is backing the DeLauro 
amendment. He gave up doing abortions and now supports life. One of the 
things that made him give it up was that he saw that abortion in 
America and healing are schizophrenic. In some operating rooms 
physicians desperately try to save unborn children, in other operating 
rooms they hack off their limbs and decapitate babies.

                              {time}  1745

  He produced a video called The Silent Scream and another video that 
followed it in which he used real-life ultrasound. He used the 
ultrasound and chronicled an abortionist hacking that baby to death. 
And, as my colleagues know, I have been in the movement, the pro-life 
movement, for 25 years. Until I saw that, it did not even hit me as to 
how hideous this process, this violence against children, really is.
  So dismemberment is not a pretty thing--it doesn't get any uglier--
and to pay for it on demand because the child is, quote, unwanted, and 
then reduced to an object that can be thrown away and be treated as 
junk, is inhumane.
  Then look at the saline abortions. High concentrated saltwater is 
injected into the baby's amniotic sac. The baby swallows that water and 
dies a slow, excruciatingly painful, death. It takes 2 hours for the 
baby to die from the caustic effects of saline abortions. It is legal; 
it is being done. If the DeLauro amendment passes, my colleagues and I 
in this Chamber will have to pay for it, and that is outrageous.
  And then partial-birth abortions. In recent years, finally, Members 
have begun to see the reality of abortion when we talked about partial-
birth abortion where the baby is more than half born, legs outside the 
mother's womb, literally in view, plain view, and then the brain is 
punctured with scissors, and the brains are literally sucked out.
  That is the reality. We can talk all about choice and use all the 
sophistry from here to kingdom come, but the reality of what the 
abortionist does when he plies his or her craft is the killing of 
innocent human life. That is violence against children. That is a human 
rights abuse. Someday, I do not know when, someday I believe there will 
be an overwhelming consensus that we should not have been doing that 
for so long.
  We have 40 million kids in this country who have died from abortions 
since 1973. That is more than the combined populations of many of our 
States who have been killed by dismemberment, chemical poisoning or 
some other hideous means. To tell us we have to fund it goes beyond the 
pale.
  I urge a strong no vote on the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the DeLauro 
amendment and against the provision in this bill that denies women who 
are Federal employees a constitutional right that other citizens of 
this country currently enjoy.
  Now I would say to my friend who had 8 minutes of graphic testimony 
to share with us that partial-birth abortions are banned. I even voted 
to ban such partial-birth abortions.
  So that is not the reality, and neither is it the reality that 
Federal funds are being used for abortion services. If in fact they 
were, then the Hyde amendment of 1974 would apply, and we would not 
have this amendment on the floor.
  The only reason we have this amendment on the floor is because these 
are not Federal funds. This is the compensation that Federal employees 
receive for work that they provide to the citizens of this country. 
They receive compensation the same way that every other working family 
does, salary, health benefits, retirement; and with virtually every 
other working situation, every other employer, there is some subsidy of 
that health benefit. But this is their income, and my colleague has no 
more right to restrict what they can do with their private income than 
he does to restrict what other families receiving income from the 
private sector are able to do.
  Now let me also share with my colleagues some reality, what this 
really means, and I will get a little graphic, too, although not nearly 
as graphic as my friend from New Jersey has gotten.
  I received a letter from a constituent from northern Virginia who 
happened to be a Federal employee. She writes:

       I was 20 weeks pregnant when I got the bad news. My baby 
     had Trisomy 18, a fatal genetic defect that causes the heart 
     and lungs to fail after birth. There is no possibility that a 
     baby can survive after birth. My doctor strongly recommended 
     that I terminate the pregnancy. He was astounded to learn 
     that the insurance company was not the problem because our 
     insurance covered abortion services for situations like this. 
     The problem was the United States Government and specifically 
     the United States Congress. My husband and I were faced with 
     a terrible decision, go to term with a baby that could not 
     possibly live or spend a year's worth of our savings to 
     terminate the pregnancy. I could not face the thought of 
     spending another 5 months pregnant knowing my baby would not 
     live.

  Imagine having to explain, Mr. Chairman, this is reality, having to 
explain to everyone who asked, which people do, that we have not chosen 
a name or made any preparations because the baby is not going to live. 
This law amounts to discrimination against Federal Government 
employees, against Federal female government employees. It is 
absolutely wrong. This amendment should be approved; the provision 
should be struck.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeLauro 
amendment. As Members of Congress from across the country, we come 
representing various positions on the life issue, but the fundamental 
question presented to us by this amendment is should the Federal 
Government be in the business of subsidizing abortions.
  Make no mistakes. Taxpayers do pay for the salaries and benefits of 
Federal workers. The taxpayers are our employers, and they do have the 
right to decide what benefits that they offer.
  This amendment is supposedly about fairness, being fair to women who 
choose to have an abortion. I ask my colleagues this: How is it fair to 
ask millions of Americans who oppose abortion because they believe it 
is the taking of human life to pay for the very procedure they oppose? 
In addition to taxpayers' funds paying for abortion, insurance premiums 
contributed by all Federal employees would also be used to subsidize 
abortions on demand.
  In a 1994 poll published by the Journal of American Medical 
Association, only 4 percent of the respondents answered that they 
thought the government should pay for the expense of an abortion. A New 
York Times poll indicated that 72 percent of poll respondents said the 
cost of abortion should be paid for directly by the women who have 
them, not by a national health plan. And, remember, we are not taking 
the choice away. All we are saying is do not ask taxpayers to pay for 
it.
  Regardless of one's position on life issues, it is frankly surprising 
that there would be a push to ask taxpayers of America who subsidize 72 
percent of the purchase of Federal employees health insurance to pay 
for abortions. In fact, this amendment would create a situation in 
which Americans, both Federal and others who are struggling to make 
ends meet, are asked to subsidize the abortion decision of a Federal 
worker who may make five times as much as they do. Regardless of the 
salary level, it is fundamentally unfair to ask Americans to subsidize 
a procedure which ends with the taking of a human life.
  To conclude, I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
both sides of the issue, to oppose this unfair and unreasonable 
amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time

[[Page H5640]]

to me and for her leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of 
the DeLauro amendment and oppose this continuing discrimination against 
women who are Federal employees by denying those women enrolled in the 
Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan access to abortion services.
  Until 4 years ago, Federal employees, like their private sector 
counterparts, could choose a health plan which covered the full range 
of reproductive services including abortion. Two-thirds of private 
health plans and 70 percent of HMOs today provide abortion services. We 
are not talking here about the government or the taxpayer subsidizing 
abortion. Federal employees purchase their own private health 
insurance. The government contributes to the premium. The health 
benefit, like their salary, belongs to the employees. Employees who do 
not choose a plan with abortion coverage are not required to.
  This provision discriminates again women in public service. It is 
egregious, reprehensible and arrogant that Members of Congress think 
they have a right to tell women who in many cases have dedicated their 
lives to public service that they do not have the choice of receiving 
legal abortion services.
  The real agenda here, of course, is to make the women's 
constitutional right to an abortion as difficult as possible. Since 
some Members cannot amend the Constitution to appeal the constitutional 
right, they will do everything possible to place roadblocks in the way 
of women who want to exercise their constitutional right to have a an 
abortion.
  I can respect honest disagreement. They should amend the 
Constitution, if they can. We will oppose that, we will have an honest 
debate, and the American people will make a decision. But do not skulk 
in the rear and use a thousand different ways to violate women's 
constitutional rights.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, this body is made up of 435 Members, 22 
of which are in the health profession, and 10 are medical doctors. Yet 
today we stand ready to determine the type of reproductive health 
services Federal employees should be provided, basically infringing 
upon the rights of women, their doctors and health plans to make this 
determination.
  I believe that public policy should advocate the provision of 
comprehensive reproductive health care services in a manner that 
protects the essential privacy and rights of our Nation's women. 
Unfortunately, provisions in this legislation would work to chip away 
at this very important principle.
  I believe that we must uphold the constitutional protections provided 
to women by giving doctors the ability to consider a woman's life, 
extenuating circumstances such as rape or incest and health when making 
reproductive health decisions.
  The significance of this issue comes to light when we answer the 
following questions:
  First, who does it affect? 1.2 million of our Nation's women of 
reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for their medical care.
  Second, why should plans participating in FEHBP provide expanded 
reproductive health coverage? Attempts to prohibit comprehensive 
coverage discriminate against women in public service who are denied 
access to legal health services and procedures based on who they work 
for. Federal employees, like private sector workers, should be able to 
choose an insurance plan that covers a full range of reproductive 
health services including abortion. Approximately two-thirds of private 
fee for service plans and 70 percent of HMOs provide such coverage.
  Lastly, how will expanded reproductive health coverage make a 
difference? These women, along with those in private insurance plans, 
currently spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than 
men, and much of this gap is due to reproductive health services.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) talked about violence in very graphic terms, violence to unborn 
children. Well, let us talk about violence. Maybe he could explain 
about violence to the parents of Becky Bell, Karen and Bill Bell, whose 
17-year-old daughter died from a botched illegal abortion. Maybe 
Becky's doctor could come and talk about what happened inside of her 
and the ripped organs and the bleeding that she had before she died 
from having that abortion. Maybe we can have doctors come in and talk 
about what happens when a hanger is used by a desperate woman who 
cannot bring another baby into poverty, who has gone through everything 
to try and get a legal abortion and now has taken things into her own 
hands.

                              {time}  1800

  We have seen the violence against women who are deprived of a safe 
and a legal, a legal procedure.
  All we are asking is that women who are Federal employees, whose 
doctor says they can have an abortion, who have discussed it probably 
with their families, who have talked to their rabbis, who are denied 
that, that is what I call violence against women.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind Members that the language in the 
bill constitutes the Hyde amendment of the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program. On average, approximately 72 percent of the money 
that is in the federal health plan system comes from the U.S. 
taxpayers, and the premium payers donate the remainder of that amount 
of money.
  An earlier speaker spoke about violence. So let me remind you that 
many women are dying from so-called safe and legal abortions, as well. 
There are many of them. One recent mother-victim is the woman who was 
butchered by an abortionist in Arizona. This woman who died of a 
botched abortion by a totally legal, so-called reputable abortionist. 
She bled to death, so both mother and baby were the victims of that 
violence.
  Let me again remind Members that approximately 40 million children 
have died from abortion in this country, a staggering loss of babies 
through dismemberment, chemical poisoning, and other types of poison 
shots.
  Do not make us subsidize any more child killing.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro-
Morella amendment to strike the ban on abortions in this bill. I 
applaud this stalwart commitment to stop discrimination, discrimination 
by the far right that would place 1.2 million women in the Federal 
government that work for this government, discriminate against them and 
them alone.
  The reality is that the Congress' political antics have no place in a 
woman's health care decisions, reproductive or otherwise. Let us be 
very clear about this, a woman's health decisions should be made 
between herself and her doctor, not by the Federal government, and 
certainly not by Members of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, women in public service deserve a full range of 
reproductive health care services, including abortion. They deserve 
this in their Federal health plans, no different from a worker in 
private industry. Please vote for the DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I just think we ought to be honest about 
this debate. There is nothing in law today that prohibits women who 
work for the Federal government from obtaining an abortion. There is 
nothing in the legislation that is before us that would overturn Roe 
versus Wade. Every Federal employee has the opportunity to procure an 
abortion if she chooses to terminate the life of her child. So I think 
we ought to be honest about the debate.
  The question is whether the taxpayers of the country are going to 
subsidize that process. I think, just in the

[[Page H5641]]

way that they would not want to subsidize the purchase and ownership of 
a slave, they would not want to subsidize and purchase an abortion. A 
majority of American taxpayers do not want to see their tax dollars 
going to fund someone else's abortion.
  So let us simply be honest about the debate. This is not whether we 
can have abortions in America. The question is whether we are going to 
subsidize abortions for people who work for the Federal government. I 
do not think we should do that. I think if they make that choice, they 
should pay for it out of their own pocket.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard several different arguments 
in this debate. I, too, agree we must be very honest in this debate. It 
comes down to a simple fact, that no amount of debate will change the 
fact that many of my colleagues just fundamentally oppose a woman's 
right to choose.
  Like it or not, abortion is a legal medical procedure. The majority 
of Americans support keeping it a legal medical procedure. This 
amendment would simply ensure that Federal employees have access to 
that legal medical procedure. It would not require a health plan to 
offer abortion coverage, it does not require any employee to choose a 
health plan which covers abortion. It simply ensures that our Nation's 
public servants have the choice to health insurance which would provide 
coverage of legal, doctor-recommended abortions which are necessary to 
preserve a woman's health.
  This is not a question of taxpayer money being used to subsidize 
abortion. The health insurance premiums are earned by employees of our 
government every bit as much as their paycheck. The paycheck and the 
premium belong to the employee, not to the government and not to the 
taxpayers. What right do we have to dictate what someone can or cannot 
do with the paycheck or with the health benefit that they receive?
  This amendment is about basic fairness, about allowing the women who 
serve in our Federal Government to choose a health insurance plan which 
covers an important aspect of women's health.
  Under the existing language in the bill, health plans cannot cover an 
abortion, even when a doctor tells a patient that it is needed to 
preserve the mother's health. Why are women who work in the Federal 
government treated as second-class citizens? This is not acceptable.
  I urge my colleagues, do not impose their personal beliefs on our 
public servants. Give women the dignity of being able to choose for 
themselves. Support this amendment to strike this dangerous provision.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not against a woman's right to choose. I am not 
even against a woman's right to have insurance coverage for abortion 
procedures when they are deemed necessary. But Mr. Chairman, I am not 
entirely, in this instance, a free agent in the sense that as chairman 
of this subcommittee, I believe I have a responsibility to bring a bill 
to the floor which can and will pass this body, as well as the Senate, 
and be enacted into law.
  This body has debated this issue on many numerous occasions. I have 
been on the other side of this issue. But I believe that the will of 
this body ought to stand at this point. I believe that this bill is 
balanced in the coverage, the provision that prohibits Federal funding 
for abortions, but on the other hand, permits contraceptive coverage. I 
would certainly vote against any effort to strike that provision from 
this bill.
  I believe we should keep this bill intact as it is. I hope that my 
colleagues will join me in voting to keep this provision in the bill so 
that we may pass a piece of legislation that can ultimately be enacted 
into law. It is for that reason that I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the amendment offered by several Members on the Appropriations 
Committee--Representatives DeLauro, Morella, Hoyer, Greenwood, Moran, 
Kilpatrick, and Lowey. This amendment strikes Section 509 of the 
Federal Employee Health Benefits Program that prohibits coverage of 
abortion services for those covered by the plan. For those who rely on 
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program for their medical care, 
they are unable to take advantage of the same reproductive health care 
services that are available to private sector employees.
  Approximately 1.2 million women rely on this program for their 
medical care. Some of these women work here in this Congress as members 
of our respective staffs. Until 1995, federal employees could select 
health care plans that covered the full range of reproductive services, 
including abortion.
  The current provision discriminates against women in public sector 
service. Federal employees should not be denied this legal health 
procedure simply because of the political nature of abortion. For a 
government employee faced with the decision about a serious fetal 
health condition, this provision leaves her with few options.
  Although 509 does contain exceptions for cases of rape and incest or 
in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, this language 
contains no health exception. This omission places many women in the 
painful decision to continue a potentially health-threatening 
pregnancy.
  This section places federal employees on unequal footing with private 
sector employees, many of whom receive health care coverage from 
private fee-for-service plans or from HMO's. Approximately two-thirds 
of private fee-for-service plans and seventy percent of HMO's provide 
abortion coverage.
  It is rather ironic that we have been debating patient protection 
legislation because many of us believe private insurance companies and 
HMOs need to provide specialized services as needed by patients. Yet, 
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, our health plan for our 
employees, does not provide a specialized service that is provided by 
the HMOs.
  Like most health insurance plans, the Federal government contributes 
to the premiums, but the employees purchase private health insurance. 
For those employees who do not want a plan with abortion coverage, they 
may simply choose not to.
  I hope that my colleagues support this amendment because it does not 
in any way mean that the government is subsidizing abortion services. 
There are specific limitations governing the conditions which a woman 
would be eligible for those services--rape, incest, danger to the life 
of the mother, and certain health conditions.
  Please support the DeLauro-Morella-Hoyer-Greenwood-Moran-Kilpatrick-
Lowey amendment to this bill. Let's extend coverage for the full range 
of reproductive health services, including abortion services to our 
employees.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about restoring equal 
access and equal rights to women and families who devote their careers 
to public service. There are over 1 million women of child bearing age 
who are enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that 
are being denied comprehensive access to reproductive health care.
  Three years ago, Congress decided that federal employees do not 
deserve the same rights that private sectors employees have--the right 
to choose and pay for a health plan that covers a full range of 
reproductive services, including abortion.
  Opponents will try to mislead their colleagues and the American 
people by arguing that this amendment means that taxpayers will pay for 
abortions. That is absolutely not true. Federal employees purchase 
private health insurance of which the government contributes a share to 
the premium. The health benefit, like the salary, belongs to the 
employee. Employees are given the freedom to choose from a range of 
health plans and the Delauro amendment merely ensures that an employee 
can choose a health plan that does or does not cover abortion.
  Until this anti-choice Congress succeeds in making abortion illegal, 
they are intent on making it more dangerous and difficult. I believe as 
should anyone in this body who cares about the health of American women 
and their families, that abortions should be safe, legal and RARE.
  Last year, Congress was right to pass legislation to cover 
prescription contraceptives for federal employees. Let us value the 
nation's public servants--not turn their health care coverage into yet 
another political game. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the 
reproductive health care needs of America's women and vote yes on the 
DeLauro amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H5642]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 230, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kuykendall
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baldwin
     Barton
     Brown (CA)
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Hilliard
     Latham
     Luther
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Quinn
     Thurman

                              {time}  1828

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
in a colloquy.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am pleased to 
join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) in a colloquy.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the committee has included 
language in its report directing the U.S. Customs Service to continue 
to provide service to the Port of Racine, Wisconsin, and that any 
change in service shall only be an improvement.
  I would like to clarify the term ``service'' as used in the 
committee's report. The Port of Racine is a growing area. It is home to 
modern industrial corporations and businesses that depend on continuous 
availability of Customs' services to ensure the rapid clearance of 
cargo to support their business operations in what has really become a 
growing business hub. The importance of having Customs' presence in 
Racine cannot be underestimated, given the growth of just-in-time 
manufacturing that allows very little room for delays in the delivery 
of trade goods in the Racine community.
  I recognize that the committee has attempted to ensure with the 
report language that Racine will continue to be well served. However, I 
would like an assurance that there will be no attempt to reduce the 
level of services, including, perhaps, the closing of the Customs 
office in Racine. Can the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) 
provide such assurances that this is the intention of the committee by 
this report language?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me. He has spoken with me at some length about this issue. 
I believe that he has raised some very, very good points; and I 
appreciate the tenacity with which he has pursued this.
  I want to share with the gentleman my understanding of the need to 
ensure that Racine does continue to be served by the U.S. Customs 
Service.
  The committee does not, as I think the gentleman knows, as a matter 
of fact, support specific designations or expansions of Customs' 
districts or ports in this appropriations bill. It is the intent of the 
committee that timely services at the Port of Racine will not be 
adversely affected in any way.
  I, therefore, would emphasize for the Record that this committee 
would expect to see and approve any Customs' proposal before actions 
are taken to close the offices of the Port of Racine or to otherwise 
change service in any way to Racine.
  No action could be taken by the Customs Service until it has been 
proven to the satisfaction of the committee that no reduction in timely 
service to Racine would result.
  I would also commit to the gentleman from Wisconsin that we will work 
in close consultation with him to ensure that, if there were to be any 
proposed changes, that they are in the best interest of Racine and of 
the business community there.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like 
to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his support and his willingness 
to work with us on this very, very important matter. I look forward to 
reviewing any possible proposal from the Customs Service before 
anything would be implemented.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
through page 99, line 20 be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?

[[Page H5643]]

  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 99, line 20 is as 
follows:
       Sec. 510. The provision of section 509 shall not apply 
     where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
     were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest.
       Sec. 511. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
     available at the end of fiscal year 2000 from appropriations 
     made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2000 
     in this Act, shall remain available through September 30, 
     2001, for each such account for the purposes authorized: 
     Provided, That a request shall be submitted to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for approval prior to the expenditure of 
     such funds: Provided further, That these requests shall be 
     made in compliance with reprogramming guidelines.
       Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Executive Office of the President to request 
     from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official 
     background investigation report on any individual, except 
     when--
       (1) such individual has given his or her express written 
     consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the 
     date of such request and during the same presidential 
     administration; or
       (2) such request is required due to extraordinary 
     circumstances involving national security.
       Sec. 513. Notwithstanding section 515 of Public Law 104-
     208, 50 percent of the unobligated balances available to the 
     White House Office, Salaries and Expenses appropriations in 
     fiscal year 1997, shall remain available through September 
     30, 2000, for the purposes of satisfying the conditions of 
     section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1999.
       Sec. 514. The cost accounting standards promulgated under 
     section 26 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422) shall not apply with 
     respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

       Sec. 601. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act may 
     be used to pay travel to the United States for the immediate 
     family of employees serving abroad in cases of death or life 
     threatening illness of said employee.
       Sec. 602. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2000 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession, 
     or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the 
     Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of 
     such department, agency, or instrumentality.
       Sec. 603. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the 
     maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in 
     accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60 
     Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle 
     (exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and 
     undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100 
     except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100: 
     Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed 
     $3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000 
     for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the 
     limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more 
     than 5 percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for 
     demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid 
     Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976: 
     Provided further, That the limits set forth in this section 
     may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative 
     fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over 
     the cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles.
       Sec. 604. Appropriations of the executive departments and 
     independent establishments for the current fiscal year 
     available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the 
     activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters 
     allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.
       Sec. 605. Unless otherwise specified during the current 
     fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
     officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
     (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is 
     owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of 
     duty is in the continental United States unless such person: 
     (1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the 
     service of the United States on the date of enactment of this 
     Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a 
     declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
     States prior to such date and is actually residing in the 
     United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the 
     United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South 
     Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the 
     Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or 
     Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1, 
     1975; or (6) is a national of the People's Republic of China 
     who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the 
     Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such 
     person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the 
     requirements of this section with respect to his or her 
     status have been complied with: Provided further, That any 
     person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, 
     and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided 
     further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, 
     and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing 
     law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer 
     or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall 
     be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This 
     section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or 
     the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those 
     countries allied with the United States in a current defense 
     effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the 
     United States Information Agency, or to temporary employment 
     of translators, or to temporary employment in the field 
     service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.
       Sec. 606. Appropriations available to any department or 
     agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses, 
     including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be 
     available for payment to the General Services Administration 
     for charges for space and services and those expenses of 
     renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which 
     constitute public improvements performed in accordance with 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public 
     Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other 
     applicable law.
       Sec. 607. In addition to funds provided in this or any 
     other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and 
     use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including 
     Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule 
     recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs. 
     Such funds shall be available until expended for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and 
     recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 13101 
     (September 14, 1998), including any such programs adopted 
     prior to the effective date of the Executive order.
       (2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs, 
     including, but not limited to, the development and 
     implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution 
     prevention programs.
       (3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as 
     deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.
       Sec. 608. Funds made available by this or any other Act for 
     administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the 
     corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31, 
     United States Code, shall be available, in addition to 
     objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for 
     rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all 
     the provisions of which shall be applicable to the 
     expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the 
     Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the 
     event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are 
     subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the 
     limitations on administrative expenses shall be 
     correspondingly reduced.
       Sec. 609. No part of any appropriation for the current 
     fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid 
     to any person for the filling of any position for which he or 
     she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to 
     approve the nomination of said person.
       Sec. 610. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of 
     boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions, 
     councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they 
     are interagency entities) that do not have a prior and 
     specific statutory approval to receive financial support from 
     more than one agency or instrumentality.
       Sec. 611. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available 
     for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or 
     occupied by the Postal Service and under the charge and 
     control of the Postal Service, and such guards shall have, 
     with respect to such property, the powers of special 
     policemen provided by the first section of the Act of June 1, 
     1948, as amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), and, as to 
     property owned or occupied by the Postal Service, the 
     Postmaster General may take the same actions as the 
     Administrator of General Services may take under the 
     provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a and 318b), attaching 
     thereto penal consequences under the authority and within the 
     limits provided in section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).
       Sec. 612. None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act shall be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce any regulation which has been 
     disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly 
     adopted in accordance with the applicable law of the United 
     States.
       Sec. 613. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and except as otherwise

[[Page H5644]]

     provided in this section, no part of any of the funds 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2000, by this or any other Act, 
     may be used to pay any prevailing rate employee described in 
     section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code--
       (1) during the period from the date of expiration of the 
     limitation imposed by section 614 of the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1999, until the normal 
     effective date of the applicable wage survey adjustment that 
     is to take effect in fiscal year 2000, in an amount that 
     exceeds the rate payable for the applicable grade and step of 
     the applicable wage schedule in accordance with such section 
     614; and
       (2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal 
     year 2000, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage 
     survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by 
     more than the sum of--
       (A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year 
     2000 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
       (B) the difference between the overall average percentage 
     of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in 
     fiscal year 2000 under section 5304 of such title (whether by 
     adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage 
     of such payments which was effective in fiscal year 1999 
     under such section.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no 
     employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid 
     during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a 
     rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under 
     subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such 
     employee.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to 
     an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid 
     from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 1999, shall 
     be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of 
     premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be 
     changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 1999, 
     except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel 
     Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
       (e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for 
     service performed after September 30, 1999.
       (f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law 
     (including any rule or regulation that provides premium pay, 
     retirement, life insurance, or any other employee benefit) 
     that requires any deduction or contribution, or that imposes 
     any requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of 
     salary or basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable 
     after the application of this section shall be treated as the 
     rate of salary or basic pay.
       (g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit 
     or require the payment to any employee covered by this 
     section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable 
     were this section not in effect.
       (h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for 
     exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the 
     Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to 
     ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
       Sec. 614. During the period in which the head of any 
     department or agency, or any other officer or civilian 
     employee of the Government appointed by the President of the 
     United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or 
     expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the 
     office of such department head, agency head, officer, or 
     employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for 
     any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or 
     redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations. For the purposes of this section, the word 
     ``office'' shall include the entire suite of offices assigned 
     to the individual, as well as any other space used primarily 
     by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled 
     by the individual.
       Sec. 615. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     executive branch agency shall purchase, construct, and/or 
     lease any additional facilities, except within or contiguous 
     to existing locations, to be used for the purpose of 
     conducting Federal law enforcement training without the 
     advance approval of the Committees on Appropriations, except 
     that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is 
     authorized to obtain the temporary use of additional 
     facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement for 
     training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 616. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 610 of this Act, funds made available 
     for fiscal year 2000 by this or any other Act shall be 
     available for the interagency funding of national security 
     and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives 
     which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or 
     entities, as provided by Executive Order No. 12472 (April 3, 
     1984).
       Sec. 617. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal 
     department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries 
     or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a 
     confidential or policy-determining character excepted from 
     the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5, 
     United States Code, without a certification to the Office of 
     Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C 
     appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely 
     or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White 
     House.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed 
     to or from--
       (1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
       (2) the National Security Agency;
       (3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
       (4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the 
     collection of specialized national foreign intelligence 
     through reconnaissance programs;
       (5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the 
     Department of State;
       (6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     and the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of 
     Justice, the Department of Transportation, the Department of 
     the Treasury, and the Department of Energy performing 
     intelligence functions; and
       (7) the Director of Central Intelligence.
       Sec. 618. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2000 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual 
     harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in 
     violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 
     amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
     and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       Sec. 619. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act may be used to pay for the expenses of travel of 
     employees, including employees of the Executive Office of the 
     President, not directly responsible for the discharge of 
     official governmental tasks and duties: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply to the family of the President, 
     Members of Congress or their spouses, Heads of State of a 
     foreign country or their designees, persons providing 
     assistance to the President for official purposes, or other 
     individuals so designated by the President.
       Sec. 620. None of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be used to acquire information technologies 
     which do not comply with part 39.106 (Year 2000 compliance) 
     of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless an agency's 
     Chief Information Officer determines that noncompliance with 
     part 39.106 is necessary to the function and operation of the 
     requesting agency or the acquisition is required by a signed 
     contract with the agency in effect before the date of 
     enactment of this Act. Any waiver granted by the Chief 
     Information Officer shall be reported to the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and copies shall be provided to 
     Congress.
       Sec. 621. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the United States Customs Service may be used to allow the 
     importation into the United States of any good, ware, 
     article, or merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured by 
     forced or indentured child labor, as determined pursuant to 
     section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307).
       Sec. 622. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for the payment of the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     who--
       (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
     prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government from having any direct oral or written 
     communication or contact with any Member, committee, or 
     subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter 
     pertaining to the employment of such other officer or 
     employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such 
     other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether 
     such communication or contact is at the initiative of such 
     other officer or employee or in response to the request or 
     inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
       (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
     reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of 
     efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, 
     transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any 
     employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or 
     condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit 
     any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other 
     officer or employee, by reason of any communication or 
     contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, 
     committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in 
     paragraph (1).
       Sec. 623. Section 627(b) of the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(h) of division A of Public Law 105-277) is amended by 
     striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the following: 
     ``Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     thereafter, and notwithstanding''.
       Sec. 624. Notwithstanding any provision of law, the 
     President, or his designee, must certify to Congress, 
     annually, that no person or persons with direct or indirect 
     responsibility for administering the Executive Office of the 
     President's Drug-Free Workplace Plan are themselves subject 
     to a program of individual random drug testing.

[[Page H5645]]

       Sec. 625. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee 
     training that--
       (1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, 
     and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of 
     official duties;
       (2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of 
     emotional response or psychological stress in some 
     participants;
       (3) does not require prior employee notification of the 
     content and methods to be used in the training and written 
     end of course evaluation;
       (4) contains any methods or content associated with 
     religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age'' 
     belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
       (5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants' 
     personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or 
     otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 626. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act 
     for fiscal year 2000 may be used to implement or enforce the 
     agreements in Standard Forms 312 and 4355 of the Government 
     or any other nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such 
     policy, form, or agreement does not contain the following 
     provisions: ``These restrictions are consistent with and do 
     not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee 
     obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive 
     Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code 
     (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title 
     10, United States Code, as amended by the Military 
     Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to 
     Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of 
     title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower 
     Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, 
     fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the 
     Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 
     et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose 
     confidential Government agents); and the statutes which 
     protect against disclosure that may compromise the national 
     security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The 
     definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, 
     and liabilities created by said Executive order and listed 
     statutes are incorporated into this agreement and are 
     controlling.'': Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding 
     paragraph, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is 
     to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of an 
     intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than an 
     employee or officer of the United States Government, may 
     contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for 
     which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement 
     shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not 
     disclose any classified information received in the course of 
     such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the 
     United States Government. Such nondisclosure forms shall also 
     make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress or 
     to an authorized official of an executive agency or the 
     Department of Justice that are essential to reporting a 
     substantial violation of law.
       Sec. 627. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, 
     other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the 
     Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
       Sec. 628. (a) In General.--For calendar year 2001, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall prepare 
     and submit to Congress, with the budget submitted under 
     section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, an accounting 
     statement and associated report containing--
       (1) an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits 
     (including quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of 
     Federal rules and paperwork, to the extent feasible--
       (A) in the aggregate;
       (B) by agency and agency program; and
       (C) by major rule;
       (2) an analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on State, 
     local, and tribal government, small business, wages, and 
     economic growth; and
       (3) recommendations for reform.
       (b) Notice.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall provide public notice and an opportunity to 
     comment on the statement and report under subsection (a) 
     before the statement and report are submitted to Congress.
       (c) Guidelines.--To implement this section, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidelines to 
     agencies to standardize--
       (1) measures of costs and benefits; and
       (2) the format of accounting statements.
       (d) Peer Review.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall provide for independent and external peer 
     review of the guidelines and each accounting statement and 
     associated report under this section. Such peer review shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).
       Sec. 629. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any 
     other Act, may be used by an agency to provide a Federal 
     employee's home address to any labor organization except when 
     the employee has authorized such disclosure or when such 
     disclosure has been ordered by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction.
       Sec. 630. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to 
     establish scientific certification standards for explosives 
     detection canines, and shall provide, on a reimbursable 
     basis, for the certification of explosives detection canines 
     employed by Federal agencies, or other agencies providing 
     explosives detection services at airports in the United 
     States.
       Sec. 631. None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to provide any non-public 
     information such as mailing or telephone lists to any person 
     or any organization outside of the Federal Government without 
     the approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 632. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized 
     by the Congress.
       Sec. 633. (a) In this section the term ``agency''--
       (1) means an Executive agency as defined under section 105 
     of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) includes a military department as defined under section 
     102 of such title, the Postal Service, and the Postal Rate 
     Commission; and
       (3) shall not include the General Accounting Office.
       (b) Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations 
     to use such time for other purposes, an employee of an agency 
     shall use official time in an honest effort to perform 
     official duties. An employee not under a leave system, 
     including a Presidential appointee exempted under section 
     6301(2) of title 5, United States Code, has an obligation to 
     expend an honest effort and a reasonable proportion of such 
     employee's time in the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 634. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used for any 
     system to implement section 922(t) of title 18, United States 
     Code, unless the system allows, in connection with a person's 
     delivery of a firearm to a Federal firearms licensee as 
     collateral for a loan, the background check to be performed 
     at the time the collateral is offered for delivery to such 
     licensee: Provided, That the licensee notifies local law 
     enforcement within 48 hours of the licensee receiving a 
     denial on the person offering the collateral: Provided 
     further, That the provisions of section 922(t) shall apply at 
     the time of the redemption of the firearm.
       Sec. 635. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes 
     a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except 
     where the contract also includes a provision for 
     contraceptive coverage.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract 
     with--
       (1) any of the following religious plans:
       (A) Providence Health Plan;
       (B) Personal Care's HMO;
       (C) Care Choices;
       (D) OSF Health Plans, Inc.;
       (E) Yellowstone Community Health Plan; and
       (2) any existing or future plan, if the plan objects to 
     such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs.
       (c) In implementing this section, any plan that enters into 
     or renews a contract under this section may not subject any 
     individual to discrimination on the basis that the individual 
     refuses to prescribe contraceptives because such activities 
     would be contrary to the individual's religious beliefs or 
     moral convictions.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
       Sec. 636. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 610 of 
     this Act, funds made available for fiscal year 2000 by this 
     or any other Act to any department or agency, which is a 
     member of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 
     (JFMIP), shall be available to finance an appropriate share 
     of JFMIP administrative costs, as determined by the JFMIP, 
     but not to exceed a total of $800,000 including the salary of 
     the Executive Director and staff support.
       Sec. 637. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 610 of 
     this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency is 
     hereby authorized to transfer to the ``Policy and 
     Operations'' account, General Services Administration, with 
     the approval of the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, funds made available for fiscal year 2000 by this or 
     any other Act, including rebates from charge card and other 
     contracts. These funds shall be administered by the 
     Administrator of General Services to support government-wide 
     financial, information technology, procurement, and other 
     management innovations, initiatives, and activities, as 
     approved by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, in consultation with the appropriate interagency 
     groups designated by the Director (including the Chief 
     Financial Officers Council and the Joint Financial Management 
     Improvement Program for financial management initiatives and 
     the Chief Information Officers Council for information 
     technology initiatives). The total funds transferred shall 
     not exceed $7,000,000. Such transfers may only be made 15 
     days following

[[Page H5646]]

     notification of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations by the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget.


    chief financial officer in the executive office of the president

       Sec. 638. (a) In General.--Section 901 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) There shall be within the Executive Office of the 
     President a Chief Financial Officer, who shall be designated 
     or appointed by the President from among individuals meeting 
     the standards described in subsection (a)(3). The position of 
     Chief Financial Officer established under this paragraph may 
     be so established in any Office (including the Office of 
     Administrator) of the Executive Office of the President.
       ``(2) The Chief Financial Officer designated or appointed 
     under this subsection shall, to the extent that the President 
     determines appropriate and in the interest of the United 
     States, have the same authority and perform the same 
     functions as apply in the case of a Chief Financial Officer 
     of an agency described in subsection (b).
       ``(3) The President shall submit to Congress notification 
     with respect to any provision of section 902 that the 
     President determines shall not apply to a Chief Financial 
     Officer designated or appointed under this subsection.
       ``(4) The President may designate an employee of the 
     Executive Office of the President (other than the Chief 
     Financial Officer), who shall be deemed `the head of the 
     agency' for purposes of carrying out section 902, with 
     respect to the Executive Office of the President.''.
       (b) Plan for Implementation.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     communicate in writing, to the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, Chairman of 
     the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, a plan for implementation 
     of the provisions of, and amendments made by this section.
       (c) Deadline for Appointment.--The Chief Financial Officer 
     designated or appointed under section 901(c) of title 31, 
     United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall be so 
     designated or appointed not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Pay.--The Chief Financial Officer designated or 
     appointed under such section shall receive basic pay at the 
     rate payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Transfer of Functions.--(1) The President may transfer 
     such offices, functions, powers, or duties thereof, as the 
     President determines are properly related to the functions of 
     the Chief Financial Officer under section 901(c) of title 
     31, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
       (2) The personnel, assets, liabilities, contracts, 
     property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, 
     authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, 
     used, arising from, available or to be made available, of any 
     office the functions, powers, or duties of which are 
     transferred under paragraph (1) shall also be so transferred.
       (f) Separate Budget Request.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph 
     (30) the following new paragraph:
       ``(31) a separate statement of the amount of appropriations 
     requested for the Chief Financial Officer in the Executive 
     Office of the President.''.
       (g) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 503(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7) by striking ``respectively.'' and 
     inserting ``respectively (excluding any officer designated or 
     appointed under section 901(c)).''; and
       (2) in paragraph (8) by striking ``Officers.'' and 
     inserting ``Officers (excluding any officer designated or 
     appointed under section 901(c)).''.


                      electronic filing threshold

       Sec. 639. Section 304(a) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (11) and inserting the following:
       ``(11)(A) The Commission shall promulgate a regulation 
     under which a person required to file a designation, 
     statement, or report under this Act--
       ``(i) is required to maintain and file a designation, 
     statement, or report for any calendar year in electronic form 
     accessible by computers if the person has, or has reason to 
     expect to have, aggregate contributions or expenditures in 
     excess of a threshold amount determined by the Commission; 
     and
       ``(ii) may maintain and file a designation, statement, or 
     report in electronic form or an alternative form if not 
     required to do so under the regulation promulgated under 
     clause (i).
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed electronically with the 
     Commission accessible to the public on the Internet not later 
     than 24 hours after the designation, statement, report, or 
     notification is received by the Commission.
       ``(C) In promulgating a regulation under this paragraph, 
     the Commission shall provide methods (other than requiring a 
     signature on the document being filed) for verifying 
     designations, statements, and reports covered by the 
     regulation. Any document verified under any of the methods 
     shall be treated for all purposes (including penalties for 
     perjury) in the same manner as a document verified by 
     signature.''.


   alternative procedures for imposition of penalties for reporting 
                               violations

       Sec. 640. (a) In General.--Section 309(a)(4) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``clause (ii)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (ii) and subparagraph (C)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of a 
     violation of any requirement under this Act relating to the 
     reporting of receipts or disbursements, the Commission may--
       ``(I) find that a person committed such a violation on the 
     basis of information obtained pursuant to the procedures 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2); and
       ``(II) based on such finding, require the person to pay a 
     civil money penalty in an amount determined under a schedule 
     of penalties which is established and published by the 
     Commission and which takes into account the amount of the 
     violation involved, the existence of previous violations by 
     the person, and such other factors as the Commission 
     considers appropriate.
       ``(ii) The Commission may not make any determination 
     adverse to a person under clause (i) until the person has 
     been given written notice and an opportunity for the 
     determination to be made on the record.
       ``(iii) Any person against whom an adverse determination is 
     made under this subparagraph may obtain a review of such 
     determination in the district court of the United States for 
     the district in which the person is found, resides, or 
     transacts business, by filing in such court (prior to the 
     expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the date the 
     person receives notification of the determination) a written 
     petition requesting that the determination be modified or set 
     aside.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 309(a)(6)(A) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``paragraph 
     (4)(A)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     January 1, 2000.


 change in certain reporting from a calendar year basis to an election 
                              cycle basis

       Sec. 641. Section 304(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(b)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(or election cycle, in the case of an 
     authorized committee of a candidate for Federal office)'' 
     after ``calendar year'' each place it appears in paragraphs 
     (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7).


                    Professional Liability Insurance

       Sec. 642. (a) In General.--Section 636 of the Treasury 
     Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 
     1997 (5 U.S.C. prec. 5941 note) is amended in the first 
     sentence by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall, subject 
     to the availability of appropriations,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999, or the date of 
     enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
       Sec. 643. In General.--Hereafter, an Executive agency which 
     provides or proposes to provide child care services for 
     Federal employees may use appropriated funds (otherwise 
     available to such agency for salaries) to provide child care, 
     in a Federal or leased facility, or through contract, for 
     civilian employees of such agency.
       (b) Affordability.--Amounts so provided with respect to any 
     such facility or contractor shall be applied to improve the 
     affordability of child care for lower income Federal 
     employees using or seeking to use the child care services 
     offered by such facility or contractor.
       (c) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management shall, 
     within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     issue regulations necessary to carry out this section.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not 
     include the General Accounting Office.


                     compensation of the president

       Sec. 644. (a) Increase in Annual Compensation.--Section 102 
     of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``$200,000'' and inserting ``$400,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect at noon on January 20, 2001.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?


               Amendment Offered By Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       In section 635 (relating to contraceptive coverage), 
     redesignate subsection (d) as subsection (e) and insert after 
     subsection (c) the following new subsection:
       (d)(1) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Office of Personnel Management to enter into or 
     renew a contract with a health benefits plan which does not 
     offer health plan enrollees at the time of enrollment the 
     option of choosing an enhanced benefit described in paragraph 
     (2)

[[Page H5647]]

     in lieu of the contraceptive coverage mandated by this 
     section.
       (2) An enrollee may elect enhanced benefits for any one of 
     the following categories of benefits: dental, optometry, 
     prenatal, infertility, or prescription drug. Each enhanced 
     benefits option shall be designed by the plan involved and 
     shall be equivalent in value to what the plan spends for the 
     average enrollee who chooses the contraceptive coverage.
       (3) Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to 
     require a plan to offer an enhanced benefits option for any 
     category of benefits for which no coverage would otherwise be 
     available under the plan.

  Mr. WELDON of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, last year, Congress adopted the 
Lowey mandate that all FEHBP plans include coverage of contraceptive 
care. This year, that language was considered in the base text of the 
bill. There are millions of Americans who object to being forced to 
subsidize, through higher premiums, contraceptive benefits for other 
plan enrollees, for one reason or another, including many Federal 
employees.
  They have many reasons to object to being forced to subsidize these 
benefits. They may have moral and religious objections. They may be a 
single person, and they feel that they should not be forced to 
subsidize this benefit. They may be an infertile couple facing the 
tragedy of having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills 
for infertility work-ups while they are simultaneously paying a higher 
premium for this benefit for others.
  Why should those older Federal employees who may be beyond the 
childbearing years pay the higher premium when they might prefer better 
dental care coverage or preventive care?
  My amendment ensures that Federal employees are given the choice of 
opting out of this mandate of contraceptive benefits. My amendment 
would give enrollees the choice to select the contraceptive benefit 
currently required in the bill, or they could, if they preferred, 
exercise and choose enhanced dental, optometry, prenatal, infertility, 
or prescription drug benefits.
  My amendment will not result in additional costs to plans, because 
the language in my amendment calls for these benefits to be of 
equivalent value of what the plan spends for the average beneficiary 
choosing the contraceptive benefit.
  My amendment does not require a plan to offer any new benefits that 
they do not already offer. Plans could opt to provide these enhanced 
benefits through lower copays for doctors visits or lower copays for 
prescription drugs. They could enhance preventive care benefits like 
providing free dental checkups. I believe that my amendment is a 
significant improvement over the base text language.
  I understand the decision of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman 
Kolbe) to raise a point of order against my amendment. I will, 
therefore, withdraw my amendment from consideration. But I would 
encourage members of this subcommittee to consider language such as 
this when they go to conference or when they take this bill up next 
year.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his 
amendment. As the gentleman knows, I would have supported the 
chairman's point of order. But I do want to commend the gentleman. 
Significantly, Federal employees do not have the dental benefits that 
are available in some other policies.
  I think the gentleman raises a good issue, not in the context he 
raises it, he and I would disagree on that, but in a separate context 
outside of that. I think that it is a good issue, and I am pursuing it, 
along with others.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his input. I would be very happy to work with 
him on this issue in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered By Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       Strike section 644 (relating to compensation of the 
     President).

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes section 664, which 
doubles the President of the United States' salary from $200,000 to 
$400,000 effective January 20 at noon in the year 2001.
  I believe that doubling the President's salary in an era when we are 
expected to make tough, responsible decisions to save the American 
people's money, to save Social Security, and to ensure a smaller, 
smarter, common sense budget, means that we did not attempt to invoke 
reason or balance in this process.
  Our amendment is sponsored by the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, and Americans for Tax Reform.
  I am joined in this effort by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I concur wholeheartedly with what the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said and what this amendment is 
about. As the gentleman suggested, it is simply about leaving the 
presidential salary at $200,000 rather than doubling it to $400,000. 
That has absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton. It has absolutely 
nothing to do with George Bush. It has everything to do with George 
Washington.
  Because our Founding Fathers, and George Washington in particular, 
went to absolutely great degrees to make sure that we did not elect a 
king but that we had representative government.
  The idea of representative government was that it would be of the 
people, by the people, for the people. Instead, we have gone from there 
to the point where, and as we all remember, George Washington was going 
through the checkout line at the grocery store, and he could not 
remember how much a gallon of milk cost.
  People have become very removed in this political process from what 
regular day people feel. So what this amendment is about is simply 
trying to keep some small thread of connection between elected 
leadership and what people feel on a daily basis.
  This is very much a back-of-the-envelope kind of write-up here, but 
what it points to is that the President's compensation is about $20 
million. I think that that is the back of the envelope. An average CEO 
compensation, according to Forbs magazine is $2.3 million. So I think 
that he is adequately paid.
  Let me just walk through a few of these numbers. The numbers up here, 
we begin with the White House. If a corporate CEO is paid, he has to go 
out and rent a place or buy a place. One gets a pretty nice pad, if one 
wants to call it that, if one is staying down at the White House. One 
has a staff of about 100 on the domestic side. One has got cooks. One 
has got housekeepers. One has got calligraphers. One has got a pool. 
One has got a hot tub. One has got a bowling alley. One has got a 
theater. One has got a few goodies in there. It costs about $10 million 
to run. That is not including security. That is just, again, on the 
domestic side.
  One also has a vacation home. It is called Camp David. I do not know 
exactly what it costs to run, but I do know that if one is to go into 
the mountains and rent a vacation place like that that had stables, a 
tennis court, a swimming pool, a theater, it would run one maybe 
$10,000 a week. So let us just throw it in at $40,000 a month. So that 
would be about $480,000 of compensation there.
  One has got a plane called Air Force One. It is a pretty nice jet. 
One can go with Marine One. I do not know what the numbers would be in 
terms of operating costs. An executive jet would run

[[Page H5648]]

one $5,000 an hour. A 747 would surely run one a lot more than that.
  One has got a retirement plan. Every President, after he becomes 
President, gets $151,000 a year for the rest of his life in a pension 
plan.

                              {time}  1845

  And if we were to blow that number backward, what that means is that 
wealth is accruing at about the rate of $275,000 a year on top of the 
$200,000 base pay the President is already getting.
  There is the Presidential office, the Presidential library, there is 
unlimited earning power after they get out of office. There is a fair 
bit of prestige. We have the Ronald Reagan National Airport, the Ronald 
Reagan Federal Building, the Ronald Reagan Aircraft Carrier. The 
President gets a few benefits and he has a chance to affect public 
policy.
  The point of all that is that the President is by no means 
undercompensated, and I think that is what the heart of the gentleman 
from Texas is trying to get at.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we have talked 
about tonight is we believe this decision to raise the rate of pay for 
the President of the United States, doubling it from $200,000 to 
$400,000, should be challenged by Members of Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I moved my place and I went over to the seat on the 
other side of the aisle so I would have a better opportunity to see 
this sort of monologue stand-up comedy routine that we had. It was a 
great routine. But I thought to myself, I wonder if the President calls 
up the comptroller at Stanford and says, ``By the way, can I send you a 
picture of Air Force One, and maybe you can even get a picture of the 
White House, because it's a worth a lot, for my tuition payment this 
semester.'' And the bursar at Stanford is going to say, ``Send money.''
  My colleagues, with all due respect, let us look at what we are 
talking about. The President of the United States in 1969 had his 
salary set at $200,000. Now, hear me now, my colleagues. The Founding 
Fathers, not in the Constitution, but in their early legislation set 
the President's salary in 1789 at $25,000 cash money that he was paid. 
Twenty-five thousand dollars 210 years ago. In today's dollars our 
Founding Fathers set the President's salary at $4 million per year.
  Frankly, when I go to the grocery store, I do not say, ``Hey, I am a 
Congressman. I have a heck of a good office, I've got a great view 
there and all kinds of things, so can I get my groceries for that?'' 
No. They say, ``Give me the money.''
  We have an insurance executive in America who made last year $400 
million. Now, my colleagues, Mr. Sununu, whose son is a Member of 
Congress, testified, and he is the one that, by the way, said that the 
President's salary effectively in 1789 was in today's dollars $4 
million per year.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that I 
think that one has to look at how George Washington got around. He did 
not get around in Air Force One; he did not get around in Marine 1. He 
got around on a horse.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's 
perception that George Washington said, ``I know Air Force One is out 
at Andrews, but I am a good guy, and I am just not going to use it''? 
Because if that is the gentleman's perception, I must inform him, with 
all due respect, that Air Force One was not there to use. But I have a 
sneaking hunch if he had had a horse that flew, he would have used it.
  Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would agree 
with him on that, but I guess the point I'm getting at, as we both 
know, there was no White House when George Washington was here. There 
are a number of different things that go into the package now.
  Mr. HOYER. Has the gentleman noticed the House that George Washington 
lived in?
  Mr. SANFORD. Mount Vernon.
  Mr. HOYER. It was not a bad place.
  Mr. SANFORD. His own, though.
  Mr. HOYER. Yes. How did he support that house?
  I do not want to get into that, but the fact is, the point I am 
making is that $400,000 is a very significant sum of money, but it is 
only 10 percent of what our Founding Fathers determined the President 
ought to be paid. Ten percent.
  Of course we have him live in the White House, but that is the 
People's house, America's house. The President lives there because that 
is where we tell him to live. Of course we fly him on an airplane, 
because he has international global responsibilities, and we want him 
to get from place A to place B safely and fast so he can conduct the 
People's business.
  Of course he has benefits of being the President of the United 
States, which he will lose when he leaves that office. Of course I 
agree with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) on that.
  But the fact of the matter is, the President of the United States, 
unlike the Congress, that has had numerous raises since 1969 when we 
were making $42,500, we will now be making approximately 3\1/2\ times 
that, the President has not had a raise in that period of time. If we 
did 3\1/2\ what we have gotten, clearly the President would be making 
about $750,000.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I tell my colleague from South Carolina that 
if the President had gotten simply a cost of living adjustment since 
1969, he would be making $758,000 today. Just a cost of living.
  So I think the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), has 
been very modest in his proposal. And as a matter of fact, all the 
testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, chaired by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), was that a higher salary was 
justified.
  So I enjoyed the back of the envelope presentation. I tell the 
gentleman from South Carolina, notwithstanding the fact that it was 
written on the back of the envelope, it was not given at Gettysburg, 
and may not last quite as long. I think his compilation was interesting 
but not particularly relevant.
  It is important for us, I think, to compensate the President not in 
the sense of a king or lavishly, but certainly appropriately as it 
relates to the rest of the people in government. And as the gentleman 
knows, the Speaker makes $175,000. In 1969 the Speaker was making less 
than half of that.
  So it is appropriate, in my opinion, to at this point in time, for 
the next President, this will not affect, as the gentleman knows, the 
incumbent President. Under the Constitution, we cannot do that and 
should not be able to do that. But this will reflect an appropriate 
salary for arguably the person who has the toughest job in the world 
and on whom billions of people rely for good judgment and honest 
service.
  So I would hope that the House would reject this amendment and 
approve the committee's recommendation.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take all that time, and I would agree with 
many of the things that the gentleman from Maryland said. He makes very 
good points in the fact that we by no means want to have an underpaid 
President of the United States.
  I guess the only point I was trying to make is that, A, there are a 
number of other ways that one is compensated besides just the base pay, 
and there are some benefits that, frankly, come with the job of being 
the President of the United States. I guess that was all I was trying 
to point out.
  And, too, I would point out the fact that I know of no poor 
Presidents. Thomas Jefferson, in other words, if we look back into the 
history books, Thomas Jefferson basically died broke. I am not 
suggesting that we want that to be the case, by any means, but that was 
the end of public service for him.
  That is not at all the case with modern-day public servants. We do 
not hear any stories of past Presidents being poor Presidents. In fact, 
Ronald Reagan makes, when he was giving

[[Page H5649]]

speeches, was making about $2 million per speech. And there was the big 
write-up on the speech George Bush gave in Japan wherein he took stock 
in lieu of the speech, and it turned out to be worth $13 million.
  So these guys do pretty well on their compensation package that seems 
to follow their time in office, and that is all I am trying to suggest.
  I guess tied to that would be the fact that I do not know of a 
shortage of people running for President. When compensation is out of 
whack in a given job, we generally do not see people seeking that job. 
But that is not at all the case that we see these days in Washington in 
terms of people seeking the office.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me 
respond to two points.
  First of all, I will tell my colleague that there would be no 
shortage of people who would be President of General Motors if they 
paid at $100,000. We could get a president of General Motors, perhaps 
not a very good one.
  There would be no shortage of players to play on the Washington 
Wizards for $100,000. Now, the fact is, the gentleman and I both know 
they would not win any games, ever, but there would be five players on 
the court.
  So I would make that point. We are not recruiting anybody if we paid 
them zero.
  Let me make another point. The gentleman talks about former 
Presidents. President James Carter, who was relatively wealthy when he 
came to the office, that is correct, but there is a perfect example of 
someone who has used his time in a voluntary way to make life better 
for his fellow citizens here and around the world.
  So I understand the gentleman's point, and people do different 
things. Both President Bush and President Reagan did make a lot of 
money in speeches. Maybe this President and future Presidents will do 
the same. But I think we ought to, nevertheless, appropriately 
compensate them relative to what the rest of us in government make.
  Because if an individual had the responsibility that the President of 
the United States has, they would be paid millions and millions of 
dollars in the private sector for comparable responsibility. I do not 
think we ought to do that. That is not appropriate, the gentleman is 
right. People should not seek this to become millionaires.
  Mr. SANFORD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say 
that the gentleman from Maryland raises great points. I guess it is 
just a philosophical divide on this particular one issue.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I think this debate has been worthy. I 
think we have gone through the process. Hearings have been held on this 
matter.
  I believe that it is an honest request that we would ask Members of 
Congress to take seriously that which they have before them, to make a 
determination about whether we are going to double the President's 
salary. I believe in a time when we are trying to do the responsible 
thing, it does not pass the smell test to think that we would double 
someone's salary.
  With that said, I hope that this debate has ended.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was also enjoying the recitation that the President 
has as fringes, but that is not the point. We do not know who the 
President of the United States will be after the 2000 election, and 
this will strictly apply solely to that individual and his successors.
  Now, there has only been a few times in American history that 
salaries have been increased. George Washington's salary was mentioned. 
By the way it, is $4.6 million adjusted for inflation, states the 
Congressional Research Service and the Office of Personnel Management. 
The Constitution authorizes in Article II that ``The President shall, 
at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation: . . .'' 
Washington was an outstanding President. The first Congress set his 
compensation at $25,000.
  I heard this comment that several post war Presidents were not very 
poor. Well, they sure were in the 19th century. When General Grant was 
dying of cancer he worked all days and nights to finish his memoir. 
Why? Because his spouse had no money. And there were, in the 1850s, 
presidential widows with no pensions. Mary Lincoln was one of them. We 
have solved that problem.
  And also in this century we have had widows that lived on very 
little. That should not be a factor for a President of the United 
States when they serve their country ably. And whether ably or not when 
they give the service, they are the People's choice.

                              {time}  1900

  We do not choose Presidents. The people do.
  Based on the testimony we had before our Subcommittee on Government 
Management, eleven chiefs of staff representing every administration 
since Lyndon Johnson--three Democratic Presidents and three Republican 
Presidents--all of them were unanimous that the President's 
compensation should go to $400,000. Some of them thought it should go 
to $500,000. We took the $400,000 and felt that was appropriate.
  Now, in addition to what was said about the salaries early in the 
government, it was not just the President of the United States that 
received $25,000 which is now equal to $4.6 million. John Adams earned 
$5,000 a year as Washington's Vice President, John Jay received $4,000 
a year as the first chief justice of the United States.
  If we do not make an adjustment for the President, we are going to 
find that by 2002 the Speaker, the Chief Justice, and the Vice 
President will have a higher salary than the President of the United 
States.
  It is not unreasonable to come in this chamber and ask our colleagues 
to support $400,000. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. We 
cannot always say that Presidents of the United States will match the 
salaries of many of our corporate heads in this country and even the 
compensation of a few university presidents. A handful are in that 
range.
  So I would hope my colleagues would vote down this particular 
amendment. I do not think it is appropriate. We have to face up to it. 
Times change. Congress first faced up to increasing the compensation in 
the Grant administration. And the latest facing up to the realities of 
presidential compensation was in the Lyndon Johnson administration. LBJ 
signed our act which doubled the salary from $100,000 to $200,000 a 
year. That decision benefited the three Democratic Presidents and the 
three Republican Presidents who occupied the White House since 
Johnson's time.
  $400,000 is appropriate because there has been steady inflation in 
this country, and $400,000 is about what $200,000 would really be back 
in 1969, when the latest law was passed. I think there is a need for 
equity between the heads of each of the three branches of government. 
So I think this is in order for the chief of the executive branch, 
which every one of us knows is the most complex job and most amazing 
managerial job.
  It does not mean Presidents have been good managers. Some of them 
have been horrible managers. We will deal with that matter later in the 
year. But the fact is they have the responsibility. They have to make 
key decisions. They are tough decisions: life, death, dollars, no 
dollars for programs. I think we know that. Many people do not.
  Some see the Presidency as ``fun and games.'' There are probably some 
White House occasions when a President, who has worked a 12 hour day is 
not excited by being the gracious host four or five more hours. ``How 
glorious,'' people think.
  We must compensate the individual who has the popular vote from the 
American people to represent our country with honor at home and abroad. 
Presidents also have children in school, as we have with this 
President, and tuition is high.
  So vote down this amendment and let us be sensible about it and give 
the next President a raise.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H5650]]

  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of things very clear. I do 
rise in opposition to this amendment. I do believe this is not about, 
and I think all of us would agree with this, this is not about the 
current occupant of the White House. This salary change would not 
affect that individual.
  I think there are some other points that go along with that, and that 
is that this is the right time to do this. This is the right time to do 
this for a couple of reasons. One, we are 18 months away from an 
election and having another President. That gives us a moment to look 
at this for the future.
  Another reason that we need to think about it now is that, unlike 
Members' compensation where the courts have ruled that, under the 28th 
amendment, a cost-of-living adjustment is not a change or a 
compensation, the Constitution is very clear, there can be no change to 
the President's compensation during the term of office. So that, if we 
do not do this now, we are really looking at 2005 as the next time any 
kind of change could be made to the compensation of the President.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) I thought speaks both very 
eloquently and clearly about why this is justified. And his 
subcommittee has done some yeoman's work on this, as the work of his 
subcommittee I think has brought us where we are today and caused us to 
include this in our bill.
  As he has pointed out and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
pointed out, the President's salary has not been adjusted since 1969. 
That is quite a time. And as I have just pointed out, if we do not make 
this adjustment now, this one, which, by the way, has no effect on the 
appropriations bill for this year and only for part of the following 
year, that is anything after January 20, 2001, if we do not make the 
change now, we are looking, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) 
has pointed out, at a situation where the Speaker of the House and the 
Vice President would actually be making more than the President of the 
United States might by the year about 2003.
  Now, if we go back to the last time we adjusted the President's 
salary in 1969 and we gave just the cost-of-living adjustments that 
other Federal employees have had since that time, the salary today 
would be $726,000. If the salary had kept pace with inflation, it would 
be $936,000, which suggests that we have perhaps not kept Federal 
employees in pace with inflation. Or, stated another way, in today's 
dollars the value of that $200,000 that we paid in 1969 is $45,367.
  Or we can look at the last time there was a formal recommendation on 
President's pay, and that was 1989 when the Commission on Executive, 
Legislative and Judicial Salaries met and they recommended the 
President's pay be increased from $200,000 to $350,000. If we assumed 
inflationary adjustments just since that time, the same inflationary 
adjustments that the Federal employees have had, the President's salary 
would be approximately $458,000.
  So I think that by any measure that we look at this, by purchasing 
power, by what we paid in 1969 and what it might have been adjusted, 
what we recommended in 1989 and how that might be adjusted, we are 
considerably under that level.
  But, Mr. Chairman, there is a more substantive reason for this. The 
United States is the preeminent power in the world. We are the major 
power in the world. And I believe that the job of the Chief Executive 
of the United States is an incredibly important and difficult job. 
There is not going to be any compensation that we can pay that can 
cover that, in my opinion.
  And as has been pointed out correctly by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford), there are a lot of things that the President of 
the United States enjoys that are not available to the rest of us. But, 
nonetheless, the President has to think about his future, about his 
retirement, about his family, about how he covers those expenses during 
time in office and after the time in office.
  If we are going to attract the right people to run for office, 
whether it is this office or the President's office, we have to, I 
think, have compensation that makes sense. And when we are paying the 
President of the United States less than we pay in many cases branch 
managers of banks, it simply makes no sense to me.
  I believe that this compensation is long overdue. It is a modest 
increase. I believe that it is fully justified under any analysis that 
my colleagues might give to this issue.
  I hope we will defeat this amendment.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come down. I have 
listened attentively to the speakers who have preceded me. I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Sitting here listening to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe), I am reminded of the scope and breadth of the President's 
responsibilities. Whoever the occupant of this office is is required to 
know things related to the minutia of trade agreements to nuclear waste 
responsibilities, to the minutia again of START contracts, to 
environmental questions in Antarctica, to what it takes for NASA to put 
a missile or a space shuttle up in the air.
  The responsibilities bearing on the occupant of the office of 
President of the United States are enormous, and we need to compensate 
this person accordingly.
  Just for comparison's sake, I wanted to go through a couple of the 
other countries of the world who also compensate their chief executive.
  For instance, Hong Kong, arguably a country far smaller than the 
United States, pays its chief executive over $400,000 a year.
  The country of Israel, whose economic challenges, security issues and 
the like and population is nowhere near the breadth and scope of ours, 
they pay their executive $90,000 a year.
  Panama, a country that we have a long historical association with, 
pays its chief executive $180,000 a year. We are currently paying the 
President of the United States $200,000 a year, essentially equivalent 
to the amount that the President of Panama is earning.
  The responsibilities of the President of Panama, are they equivalent 
to the responsibilities of the President of the United States? On a 
comparative basis alone, this body should move forward expeditiously to 
increase the rate of pay for the President of the United States.
  I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). What we pay will be reflected in the quality 
of the person we get. That is a dictum of business that has been proven 
year after year, decade after decade, century after century. We need to 
take advantage to the extent we can.
  And $400,000 is lot of money, but not for this job. Whoever the 
occupant of this office is, is gone from their family, loses any 
semblance of private life, is at the beck and call of the people of the 
United States, and stands under enormous stress day after day after 
day. We need to compensate this person appropriately. We need to have 
people who are good people in this office. We need to pay them to 
sacrifice their personal lives and come to the service of their 
country.
  I think the amendment, however well-meaning, does not serve that 
purpose; and I oppose it.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment. Serving 
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) on his committee, I think 
he has done the country and the Congress a great service in bringing 
this issue to the forefront at this particular moment, for the precise 
reasons as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) mentioned. If we do 
not do it now, we will not be able to do it successfully for another 5 
years. This is not a raise for the incumbent President. It is for the 
next President.
  I have to confess to my fellow colleagues that last week I had the 
occasion to spend the week with the President and sort of live in his 
shoes, if you will. It is a 20-hour-a-day job. There are a myriad of 
issues, great and small, that he must deal with every day.
  Obviously, his full commitment has to be to the job of executing the 
administration of the government of the United States. I would hope 
that we would want our Chief Executive to dedicate himself fully to 
that and think of nothing materialistic in his nature because this is, 
without a doubt, the most important office in the

[[Page H5651]]

world. I think we, as Americans and Members of Congress, ought to be 
proud to say that.
  I understand that there are some Members of Congress that like to put 
a dollar value on public service. But I remember several years ago a 
story told to me at a hearing by the then and present Chief Justice of 
the United States. We were talking about pensions and salaries at that 
hearing, and he remarked to me that he was a little disappointed as 
Chief Justice because that day when he returned to the court he was 
going to lose his Chief Clerk. And we all know the Chief Clerk is an 
excellent law student out of law school who serves with the Chief 
Justice for a period of a year or two. And he said it was ironic how he 
was losing his Chief Clerk, who in the next day who would be earning in 
excess of two times the salary of the Chief Justice of the United 
States.
  He threw out another important figure to me, that when we take the 
comparison of the entire Bar of the United States, the Chief Justice 
does not earn in up to the 75th percentile of the earning capacity of 
the Bar of the United States.
  And of course, the President of the United States, if we made that 
comparison to CEOs of corporations or, as the gentleman recently said, 
to other chief executive officers of what we would call minor states in 
the world, it is ludicrous the $200,000 that was allocated in 1969 for 
this President.
  I would just suggest one other thing. We heard value for inflation. 
If we took the stock market of 1969 at $200,000 and the stock market 
today, the President's salary would be over $2 million.

                              {time}  1915

  I do not know what measure we should use, but clearly there are few 
constituents of mine, I am sure, and many constituents of my colleagues 
that do not consider the salary of $200,000 as extravagant for the 
President of the United States.
  There is a special thing about being President. I learned it on the 
trip this week. It is not necessarily the individual. It is that 
office. Wherever he went and whoever he talked to, those people would 
remember until the day they died that they had an opportunity to meet 
and shake hands and welcome the President of the United States.
  We ought to be proud of that fact and we as Congressmen should not 
pander to the sympathies of Populism that says no pay, nothing. I know 
people who would accept the presidency for zero. The power is 
extraordinary, and if you were wealthy, you could afford it. But this 
is a country of average, common people and let us hope that common men 
can aspire to be President, and if they ever do, the salary of $400,000 
a year at the end of this millennium will not sound like very much.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to put aside our foolishness and 
stay with this bill and set the salary of the President of the United 
States at $400,000 a year.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that I think reasonable people can 
disagree on. I respect my colleagues for bringing forward this 
amendment, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them on this particular 
issue at this time.
  As we look through history, we look back to 1873 when the salary was 
$50,000; it was 36 years later that salary was moved to $75,000; in 
1949 it went to $100,000; 20 years later to $200,000, and it has not 
been changed for 30 years.
  We do not run for office and people do not aspire to serve in 
government for the money. If we did this for the money, we would be 
doing something else. I took a pay cut to come here. A number of my 
colleagues did that. We do it for the ability to serve. But the 
President of the United States I think arguably has the most 
challenging job on this planet. We do not want that individual worried 
about pinching pennies, worried about their financial future, the 
future of their kids, worried about putting their kids through college, 
about maintaining their homes back in their native States.
  We do not want only the wealthy to be able to aspire to the 
presidency because they can afford the other entertainment expenses 
that go along with this because their expenses could be cut in any 
given year.
  To give my colleagues a global perspective, it has been mentioned 
that the President of Hong Kong, not even an independent country, the 
Chancellor there gets $400,000 a year, in excess. The President of 
Japan, a country smaller than ours, an economy smaller than ours, 
$381,000 year. The President of Singapore gets almost a half million 
dollars a year in annual salary. The President of Switzerland gets more 
than our President gets today, $230,000. The President of Taiwan gets 
over $300,000 a year. This is not out of line. This is a reasonable, 
incremental increase that is commensurate with what we have done in the 
past to provide for our chief elected officers.
  I do not want government on the cheap, but I want that person in the 
Oval Office, of whatever party, of whatever persuasion, to not have to 
worry about the financial aspects of the job. I want him to concentrate 
on running the country. I think the increase that is in this bill, that 
has gone through extensive hearings, that is supported by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn) of the authorizing subcommittee and others, 
is the right approach at this time. I ask my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that I was undecided on this issue before a 
few minutes ago. I have tried to listen to the debate on both sides.
  Over the past few weeks, I have had conversations with friends of 
mine, and I will tell my colleagues what their advice was. They said, 
``Don't vote for a pay raise.'' They said that this is not a popular 
thing to do. We have discussed certain things and they have actually 
said, ``This is how I feel. My gosh, don't get out on the floor of the 
House and say that,'' because it is not a popular thing.
  Let us just sit back for a minute and imagine that we did not know 
how much the President of the United States made. Let us start from 
that reference point. We would consider certain things. We would look 
at what our forefathers paid the first President. That would be one 
calculation. I am sure major league baseball players would come into 
it. I am sure there would be other people that would say they ought to 
take the job for free. Most people that now run for President, they are 
independently wealthy and they could afford to do that. There are some 
that are not. If we wanted to approach it is to take the job for free 
and we would rule out anyone who was not a multimillionaire, that is 
the way some people might like it. But again, go back. We do not know 
what the President makes. What do you think we would guess he makes? I 
have asked some people that and the figure a million dollars is the 
most often response. ``I think the President ought to make a million 
dollars.''
  Now, we will discuss an amendment in a few minutes that the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is offering as to whether or not we have 
oversight when we pay out a billion dollars. We deal in those type 
figures. It is important that we focus on this figure and what the 
President makes.
  I will agree with the gentleman from Virginia that there are certain 
people that come here in all honesty and argue that $200,000 is fine. 
But when you talk to executives, when you talk to professionals, I 
think that they would probably tell you that the President ought to 
make a million dollars.
  I will not be doing the popular thing. I will be opposing this 
amendment. But in doing so, I will be doing the right thing, because I 
think the President of our country, the leader of the free world, ought 
to make at least what is proposed in this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 
will be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H5652]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       In section 635 (relating to contraceptive coverage), strike 
     paragraph (2) of subsection (b) and insert the following:
       (2) any existing or future plan, if the carrier for the 
     plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious 
     beliefs or moral convictions.
       In subsection (c) of such section 635, strike ``prescribe'' 
     and insert ``prescribe or otherwise provide for''.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me be very brief. This 
should be and I hope it will be a noncontroversial amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the effect of the policy enacted last year and carried 
over in this bill is to force health plans participating in FEHB to 
cover controversial abortifacients, such as the new ``morning after'' 
pill, Preven. Preven and some other new drugs, as we all know, destroy 
a developing embryo. They are really not contraceptives, but 
unfortunately they are included in this bill.
  While I oppose that mandate as bad public policy, I am not here today 
in an effort to strike it or even to limit it. Rather, I want to ensure 
that the conscience protection does what many already believe that it 
does, and that is to protect individuals in plans with moral or 
religious objections from the requirements of the mandate.
  This is a conscience clause. Right now the FEHB mandate lacks 
adequate conscience protection for some of the potential sponsors of 
health plans and individual providers who are opposed to providing such 
drugs and devices. As we know from the language of the bill, five 
religious plans are exempt by name as well as any existing or future 
plan if the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious 
beliefs. Left out is ``moral convictions.'' We believe, I believe, they 
should be protected as well.
  Finally, the conscience protection for individual providers also 
needs to be expanded and clarified to protect any health care worker--I 
repeat any health care worker--including physicians, nurses, 
pharmacists and physician assistants.
  The second part of my amendment provides conscience protection to 
everyone in health--all health care workers who might object on either 
moral or religious grounds to the contraceptive mandate. I would hope 
that this amendment would be agreed to.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment. Again, this was just handed to us.
  I make a point of order against the amendment, because it appears to 
me that it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
on an appropriations bill and would violate clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states that an amendment to a general appropriations bill 
shall not be in order if changing existing law imposes additional 
duties. This adds a word, in this case, to the current legislation, by 
adding ``moral convictions.'' For that reason, it would seem to impose 
an additional requirement on the Office of Personnel Management that 
administers these plans and in my view it would, for that reason, 
violate clause 2 of rule XXI. I would make that point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard, I would 
very briefly say that this is not legislating on an appropriations bill 
but merely perfecting legislation permitted to remain.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I too have just seen the amendment, but it 
does appear to require action beyond what would be solely a perfecting 
amendment with respect to the paragraph 2 that is being added, in that 
the plan objects to such coverage on the basis, one would have to make 
a judgment as to the objection, the reason for the objection, and, 
therefore, it imposes an additional duty on the administrator. Under 
those circumstances, it seems to me that this would be in violation of 
the rule cited by the gentleman from Arizona.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard additionally.
  Again, I would point out that the legislation as it exists now refers 
to any existing or future plan if the plan objects to such coverage on 
the basis of religious beliefs. That clearly is a particular limitation 
and says none of the funds appropriated may be used for that purpose.
  Now we have added in an additional duty to the Office of Personnel 
Management, by saying ``moral convictions.'' So they clearly have 
additional responsibilities that are going to be required in order to 
carry this out.
  In addition, subsection (c), and I am not sure I understand exactly 
what the impact of this is, but by striking ``prescribe'' and inserting 
``prescribe or otherwise provide for'' would seem also to require some 
additional duties, and I believe that this clearly is additional 
legislation, additional duties.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard? If 
not the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment must be judged against all the language found in 
section 635. Such language covers contraceptive ``coverage'' and 
``moral convictions'' as addressed in the pending text. The amendment 
appears to be merely perfecting and the Chair overrules the point of 
order.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I was walking in, I heard the amendment, part of the 
amendment, but I would like to address the first portion of the 
amendment as I believe I heard it. I believe the gentleman is 
attributing to a plan a conscience. We debated this point quite fully 
in the last session of the Congress. And, in fact, we were quite 
concerned that a plan could suddenly develop a conscience and not allow 
this service to be provided, and, therefore, working in a bipartisan 
way with Members on both sides of the aisle, there was an agreement 
that any individual provider could opt out as long as that plan would 
provide the service.

                              {time}  1930

  So I would like to ask the gentleman how a plan could suddenly 
develop a conscience, number one.
  Now I would like to continue. Number two, I would like to make 
another point. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that 1.2 million 
Federal employees currently have this service covered. There has not 
been any concern; there has not been any criticism. Under the 
conscience clause included in this provision, which the chairman has 
included in his mark which has been brought to this floor, it is my 
understanding that there are no other plans that have requested to even 
be part of the conscience clause. There were religious plans included 
in the conscience clause that was developed, and it is my understanding 
from talking to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan that no other 
plans have asked to be included in the conscience clause in the 
exemption.
  So, Mr. Chairman, every once in a while we tend to pass legislation 
that really works, that is really providing a service, that is basic 
health care for women, and based upon all the information that I have 
there has been no objection.
  So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask us to allow a program 
that is really working, that is providing basic health care for women, 
to move along as it is. And I would like to work with the gentleman, as 
I mentioned many times, in preventing unintended pregnancy, and it 
seems to me that one of the best ways to do this is to provide for 
contraceptive services. That is the way we reduce the number of 
abortions and prevent unintended pregnancies.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a very extensive debate on this issue last year. 
The extensive debate really dealt with the gravamen of the central 
point of the providing of contraceptive services through the insurance 
plans. Very frankly, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I, 
as many people in this body know, are very close personal friends and 
work very closely together, and I have the greatest respect and 
affection for him, but we disagree on this issue. We have a different 
perspective.
  But during the course of that debate and during the course of the 
compromise on trying to come to grips

[[Page H5653]]

with how to provide for what the overwhelming or significant majority 
of this House believed ought to be provided in the health care plans 
available Federal employees was the fact that we ought not to have 
insurance companies who had a religious affiliation and religious base 
do something that was inconsistent with their religious tenets. Most of 
us agreed that that was appropriate. What the gentlewoman who worked so 
hard on this amendment and so effectively on this amendment said when 
developing a conscience, the gentleman from New Jersey now seeks to add 
moral conviction to the language that exists for religious 
organizations.
  Now, clearly, executives of insurance companies have moral 
convictions; clearly, employees of insurance companies have moral 
convictions. But those moral convictions, I would suggest to my 
colleagues, are probably pretty diverse. And the executive vice 
president in charge of negotiations with the Federal Employee Health 
Benefit Plan may have one moral conviction, and the operating vice 
president may have another moral conviction. Now I am not sure whether 
the stockholders would vote on what a moral conviction is at any given 
time, but clearly, in fairness, that is an impractical standard to add 
to the standard that exists.
  What we were trying to do is make sure that religiously based and 
centered insurance offerers were not compelled to do something that was 
against their religious beliefs. We all understand that. But I defy 
anybody to explain to me how one is going to determine on insurance 
plan A or B or C that are not religious affiliated what their moral 
convictions are without, in effect, polling or voting or having 
included in their charter something that says moral convictions.
  The fact of the matter is that we had this debate last year, and we 
rejected this proposal because of the lack of clarity in the proposal.
  So I would hope my colleagues would reject this again this year 
because, quite clearly, it goes far beyond the exemption that we all 
agreed was appropriate; that is, the religious-based exemption, and 
goes to a further step, which moral convictions are critically 
important. Hopefully, all of us hold moral convictions; and, hopefully, 
as I said, insurance executives hold moral convictions as well. But 
they do not operate, unlike religiously based insurance companies, to 
promote their moral convictions. They hopefully operate legally, 
ethically and morally, but they operate to offer insurance programs to 
their clients. And, therefore, Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while I 
frankly would call it an imperfecting amendment, Mr. Chairman, in that 
it adds a provision that will be extraordinarily if not impossible to 
apply and interpret, for that reason I would hope the House would 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment. I believe the 
Smith amendment is a significant enhancement to the current conscience 
clause language in the bill. The current conscience clause language 
does not sufficiently cover all those individuals who would like to 
take a moral as well as a religious exemption.
  It is well known that some of these products that are being referred 
to as contraceptives are not in reality contraceptives but are 
abortifacients, and this indeed causes many people who are of strong 
personal moral conviction, pro-life, or people who take a very strong 
religious perspective on this issue to have a problem, and I believe 
the gentleman's amending language is a significant improvement over the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to 
our colleagues that there are at least four laws, and I can give my 
colleagues all the citations, and I will put them in the Record, where 
plans organizations and institutions can raise objections on either 
moral or religious grounds.
  Why ``moral'' was left out is a gaping oversight, and I hope it was 
an oversight, and to suggest that people with moral convictions should 
not be able to express them and somehow manifest them, maybe through a 
vote of the board of directors or in some other way, would be wrong and 
would disenfranchise people, especially those who do not believe in 
God. Say someone is an agnostic, but has a strongly held conviction 
about a certain practice. To disenfranchise that person would be wrong.
  Let me also point out that the language of this amendment says, the 
underlying language says, the prescriber, the doctor that writes the 
prescription, does not have to do so if he or she, as a matter of moral 
conviction, does not want to prescribe an abortifacient, for example, 
an abortion-producing pill or drug. Well, everyone else in the line, 
including the dispenser, the person that actually gives the abortion 
chemical, cannot conscientiously object and say, ``Wait a minute, I'm 
all for family planning, but this crosses the line.''
  And there is a case of that right now that just made the Associated 
Press, and it was in the San Diego Union Tribune, of five nurses who 
quit their positions at a county-run health clinic because they did not 
want to be compelled to dispense abortifacients. These are women who 
routinely counsel and provide family planning. They are all for family 
planning, but they felt that they hit their breaking point when a 
clinical administrator said that they had to cross this line, and this 
could be the beginning.
  Let us not compel people in the health care delivery service to do 
something against their deeply held convictions. This is a conscience 
clause. Unfortunately, we did not vote on anything comprehensive last 
year, as the membership will note. Much of this was done in conference. 
It is infirm as it exists today. We ought to make it a real conscience 
clause. Do not force people to do things they do not want to do. Please 
do not do that.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say that 
the gentleman's amendment, I believe, is a relatively modest amendment. 
By adding this moral clause I believe it will allow people to exercise 
their moral convictions and in many ways improve the underlying 
provisions in the language of the bill.
  In 1998, Congress included an amendment in the Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations bill requiring almost all health plans that participate 
in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program to provide 
``contraceptive coverage,'' including early abortifacient methods, to 
the same extent that they provide prescription drug coverage generally. 
(The Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill became law as part of the FY 
1999 Omnibus Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 4328, PL 105-277.)
  The FY 2000 Treasury-Postal contains the same language.
  The effect of this policy is to force health plans participating in 
FEHB to cover controversial abortifacients such as the new so-called 
``morning after'' product, Preven, approved by the FDA for use as 
``postcoital emergency contraception.'' Preven and similar drugs work 
up to three days after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure 
to destroy a developing embryo. Clearly, this is not contraception but 
it is called contraception by the FDA.
  The latest edition of the nation's leading embryology textbook 
explains the mode of action of such drugs: ``The administration of 
relatively large doses of estrogens (``morning after'' pills) for 
several days, beginning shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, 
usually does not prevent fertilization, but often prevents implantation 
of the blastocyst.'' K. Moore and T. Persaud, The Developing Human: 
Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.: 1998), p. 58.
  The FEHB mandate lacks adequate conscience protection for some 
sponsors of health plans and individual providers who are opposed to 
providing such drugs and devices. Five religious plans are exempt by 
name, as well as any ``existing or future plan, if the plan objects to 
such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs.'' Plans and 
individuals objecting to such coverage based on moral convictions 
should be protected as well, as they are under many state and federal 
laws.
  The conscience protection for individual providers also needs to be 
clarified to protect any health care provider--including but not 
limited to physicians, nurses and physician assistants--who objects to 
providing these drugs or devices on the basis of religious beliefs or 
moral convictions. The current law only protects individuals who 
decline to ``prescribe'' such drugs and devices and may be interpreted 
too narrowly.
  The conscience protection language enacted in 1998 and currently in 
this year's bill marks a departure from other federal conscience laws. 
The lack of an exemption for those whose moral convictions are offended 
by abortion sends the message that religious beliefs are the only 
foundation for respecting human life before birth. In fact, 
objections to

[[Page H5654]]

the destruction of living human embryos--and, in particular, forcing 
taxpayers and others to support this killing--is widely opposed by many 
people. We saw this in 1996 when 256 Members of House Representatives 
voted against funding research in which human embryos are destroyed, 
discarded or even put at risk.

  Prior to last year's enactment of the contraceptive mandate, most 
health plans participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
(FEHB) Program paid for prescription drugs approved by the FDA as 
``contraceptives''--including abortifacients. In 1998, each woman who 
participated in FEHB and who used contraception already had the choice 
of at least three (3) plans which provided coverage for whatever 
prescription method she used.
  Last year pro-life Members did not try to end this coverage, but to 
preserve the right of federal employees--including many women--to 
choose a health plan which did not cover abortion-inducing drugs 
characterized by the FDA as ``contraceptives.'' That choice was taken 
away from Federal employees when the mandate was enacted.
  One significant effect of the new coercive mandate was to force plans 
to cover--and force federal employees and taxpayers to pay for--the new 
``morning after'' drug regimens such as Preven, which is to be taken 
after intercourse, or in the case of ``contraceptive failure,'' to 
ensure that a developing embryo will be expelled and not implant in the 
mother's womb.
  The controversy surrounding this drug is widespread. Many 
pharmacists, who have no objection to dispensing contraceptives, are 
strongly opposed to dispensing a drug which is primarily intended to 
kill a developing human embryo.
  Outside the federal context, individual pharmacists have had their 
jobs threatened because of their refusal to provide so-called 
``emergency contraception.''
  Just this year, five nurses in Riverside, CA, quit their jobs at a 
county health department because of the department's insistence that 
they violate their religious beliefs and provide ``emergency 
contraception.'' (These nurses had spent years working in family 
planning, telling women about contraception.)
  Walmart, the nation's fifth largest distributor of pharmaceuticals, 
including contraceptives, recently announced that it would not dispense 
Preven in its stores because of concerns with objections from its 
customers.
  Conscience clauses are common both in federal and state law and are 
based on respect for individual freedom and individual beliefs. Forcing 
someone to engage in activity that violates his or her deeply and 
conscientiously held beliefs is a violation of human rights and a gross 
abuse of the power of government.
  Among the more recent conscience clauses enacted into law is 
legislation passed by Congress in 1996 to protect medical education 
programs from being required to provide abortion training. The 
exemption was provided regardless of whether their opposition is 
religiously or morally based. We recognized that abortion--the killing 
of an innocent human being--is simply not the kind of practice in which 
anyone should be forced to participate for any reason.
  As Senator Olympia Snowe--who is also a supporter of the 
contraceptive mandate--said during the debate on the amendment to 
protect doctors and training programs from having to perform abortions:

       This amendment accomplishes two things. One, it does 
     protect those institutions and those individuals who do not 
     want to get involved in the performance or training of 
     abortion when it is contrary to their beliefs.
       I do not think anybody would disagree with the fact--and I 
     am pro-choice on this matter, but I do not think anybody 
     would disagree with the fact that an institution or an 
     individual who does not want to perform an abortion should do 
     so contrary to their beliefs.

  By mandating coverage of contraception and abortifacients by health 
plans, Congress has increased the pressure on individual physicians, 
nurses and pharmacists providing services under these plans to violate 
their own consciences. In fact, currently only those who may be asked 
to ``prescribe'' the drug have any conscience protection under the law, 
and unless they are familiar with it, they may not even know of their 
right to refuse.
  In addition to the abortion training conscience protection described 
above, Congress provided conscience clauses for plans offered under 
Medicare+Choice if the sponsoring organization offering the plan 
objects on ``moral or religious grounds.'' (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395w-
22(j)(3)(B))
  Another section protects Medicaid managed care organizations from 
being required to ``provide, reimburse for, or provide coverage of, a 
counseling and referral service if the organization objects to the 
provision of such service on moral or religious grounds.'' (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1396u-2(b)(3)
  Also, in yet another section, Congress provided that Legal Services 
Corporation funds could not be used to attempt to ``compel any 
individual or institution to perform an abortion, or assist in the 
performance of an abortion, or provide facilities for the performance 
of an abortion, contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions 
of such individual or institution. . . . (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2996f(b)
  Clearly federal law has established that conscience protection should 
not be limited to individuals, nor should it be limited to objections 
based on religious beliefs.
  Ironically, some who support the mandate have been critical of 
attempts to clarify the conscience provisions in the mandate, claiming 
that it already exempts health plans with ``moral or religious'' 
objections (The Boston Globe, October 1, 1998) and that, under the 
mandate, ``individual doctors and nurses can refuse to provide 
contraceptives on moral grounds.'' (The New York Times, October 16, 
1998). Neither of these protections is actually in the contraceptive 
mandate's conscience exemption. Presumably they would not object to 
their addition now.
  While some pro-abortion Members may in fact believe that a drug which 
does not prevent fertilization but prevents implantation of an embryo 
is not an abortion-inducing drug, what these Members think is not 
important. What is important are the beliefs and convictions of those 
who will be required to carry out the mandate.
  No one should be forced to do what he or she believes would cause the 
death of an innocent human being, particularly in the name of health 
care.
  This is not, however, the view of those at the front of the fight for 
abortion on demand throughout pregnancy.
  At a March 5, 1999, briefing sponsored by the Center for Reproductive 
Law and Policy (CRLP)--which has challenged state Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban laws around the country--and the People for the American 
Way, Janet Benshoof, President of CRLP said, ``I don't think there 
should be conscience clauses.''
  Do you?
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment. This 
amendment is common sense. It is not a threat to any contraceptive 
coverage. What it does is expand the choices of women and health 
providers. All this amendment does is add two simple things to the 
current conscience clause in the contraceptive mandate.
  Number one, it expands the conscience protection to plans which 
object on moral not just religious grounds. Religion is not the only 
reason one would object to abortion, and this should be accounted for.
  Number two, it expands the conscience protection not only to those 
who prescribe medication as in current law but also to those who 
provide for the abortifacient drug. All this means is that a nurse who 
does not prescribe but might be asked to administer an abortifacient 
drug has a right to refuse if it goes against her conscience.
  Conscience clauses are common both in Federal and State law. They are 
based on respect for individual freedom and on individual beliefs. 
Forcing someone to engage in activity that violates his or her deeply 
and conscientiously held beliefs is a violation of human rights. It is 
a gross abuse of the power of government.
  We have similar moral and religious provisions in conscience clauses 
in medical education programs, in the Medicaid managed care 
organizations law, in the Legal Services Corporation law. By mandating 
coverage of contraception and abortifacients by health plans, Congress 
has increased the pressure on individual physicians, nurses and 
pharmacists providing services under these plans to violate their own 
consciences. In fact, currently only those who may be asked to 
prescribe the drug have any conscience protection under the law, and 
unless they are familiar with it, they may not even know of their right 
to refuse.
  If the contraceptive abortifacient mandate in this bill were imposed 
on all plans, the president of a business who objects or whose 
employees object to covering abortifacients would not be able to work 
with an insurance carrier to design a plan that reflects those 
convictions. The plan would have to cover them, and the business owner 
and the employees would have to pay for them. No one should be forced 
to do what he or she believes would cause the death of an innocent 
human being, particularly in the name of health care.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a rational, common-sense reform. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect the consciences of all 
those in

[[Page H5655]]

the medical profession and American women.

                              {time}  1945


 Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith 
                             of New Jersey

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       In the text of the matter proposed to be inserted, on line 
     3, strike the words ``or moral convictions''.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the part C of my good friend, 
which talks about implementing the section, ``Any plan that enters or 
renews a contract under this section may not subject any individual to 
discrimination on the basis that the individual refuses to prescribe or 
otherwise provide for contraceptives because such activities would be 
contrary to the individual's religious beliefs and moral convictions.''
  If an individual, be it another provider or a nurse, chooses not to 
provide this service, as long as the plan will continue to provide this 
service, we think this would be a perfecting provision. My objection, 
Mr. Chairman, is to to the first part, that a plan should develop a 
moral conscience.
  We were very careful last year in crafting this to respect every 
plan's religious conviction. We included five religious plans: 
Providence Health Plan, Personal Care's HMO, Personal Choices, OSF 
Health Plans, Yellowstone Community Health Plan, and any existing or 
future plan, if the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of 
religious belief.
  However, Mr. Chairman, in the year that this has been implemented 
there were no objections. There were no additional plans that appealed 
to be included in this opt out provision.
  I have real concerns, Mr. Chairman, that we should suddenly give Blue 
Cross-Blue Shield or any other plans a conscience. I would expect that 
a plan that wanted to opt out because of their deeply held convictions 
would have done so in the last year.
  This year, the religious exemption that is in effect today and is 
contained in the bill continues to specifically exempt the five plans, 
and again, beneficiaries who want contraceptive services but whose 
provider choose not to offer them can be referred to other providers by 
their health plan.
  I want to also remind my colleagues, because this is a very important 
point, that providing coverage of contraception does not compel 
provision of services contrary to moral or religious convictions by any 
individual or health care provider. It merely requires the Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Plan to provide the coverage, write the check, 
in other words, for the contraceptives.
  Again, OPM has reported that no other Federal employee health plan 
has requested a religious-based exemption, and no other plan has 
complained that the exemption is inadequate. No provider, no 
beneficiary, has complained.
  So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, many of us on both sides of the aisle 
worked very hard to be sure that the religious exemption was well 
thought out. It was extensively negotiated between the House 
leadership, the White House, and myself, and most importantly, it is 
working. It strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate 
religious concerns of individuals and plans participating in FEHBP with 
an equally compelling public policy goal facilitating access to the 
broad range of contraceptive methods in order to reduce unintended 
pregnancies.
  Again, I respect the personal views of my colleagues, on whichever 
side of the issue they fall. We should have respect for each other. But 
let us not impose our beliefs on any other individual. This provision 
is working. Let it continue to work. Please reject the motion and 
please accept this second degree, which we believe is a perfecting 
motion.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is Orwellian double speak--a gross 
distortion of reality to somehow suggest that pro-lifers are imposing 
our view in proffering this amendment when we are carving out a 
conscience clause so women and men, or by extension, groups of people, 
collections of people, who make up plans and administrators of plans 
don't have a contraceptive/abortion chemical mandate imposed upon them 
against their moral convictions. The imposition by force of law is by 
the pro-abortion side.
  I happen to believe that people who object to abortion chemicals on a 
basis other than religious beliefs should not have their deeply held 
moral convictions overruled.
  Not all moral convictions are based on religions. Many of my deeply 
held beliefs on human rights, including for the unborn, were first 
arrived at that belief that the unborn child should be protected as a 
matter of human rights and moral convictions, not religion. Religion 
inspires a belief in the value of persons but others can value life 
absent religion.
  Dr. Nathanson, I mentioned him earlier in the debate, was an atheist 
who came to his view concerning the value of an unborn child not based 
on religious beliefs. He did not believe in God. He had no religious 
beliefs. He came to that as a matter of moral conviction buttressed by 
science and logic.
  This is an imposition of the contraceptive, but more importantly, 
from my point of view, the abortifacient, chemicals used early in 
pregnancies or early after fertilization to destroy the growing embryo. 
That is a terrible, terrible precedent to be set.
  It is outrageous, I say to my colleagues. Where is the choice of 
those people who say no, I do not want to be involved with this? I 
think this is outrageous. To strike moral convictions, Mr. Chairman, 
would set us back in terms of conscience clauses.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that among the more recent 
conscience clauses enacted into law is legislation passed by Congress 
in 1996 to protect medical education programs from being required to 
provide abortion training. The exemption was provided regardless of 
whether their opposition was religiously or morally based. We recognize 
that abortion, the killing of an innocent human being, is simply not 
the kind of practice that should be forced on anyone.
  Let me also point out that some of our friends on the other side of 
the issue, including Senator Snowe, pointed out that institutions and 
individuals could be and should be protected.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that in addition to abortion 
training conscience protection that I just described, Congress has 
provided conscience clauses for plans under Medicare Plus Choice, if 
the sponsoring organization offering the plan objects on, and I quote, 
``Moral or religious grounds; not just religious ground, moral or 
religious grounds.
  Another section protects Medicaid managed care organizations from 
being required to provide reimbursement or provide for coverage of 
counseling and referral services if the organization objects to the 
provision of such service on moral and religious grounds. Moral and 
religious, they go hand-in-hand. But to just have one is to just have 
half a loaf.
  Also, in yet another section, Congress provided that the Legal 
Services Corporation fund could not be used to attempt to compel any 
individual or institution to perform an abortion or assist based on 
religious beliefs on moral convictions.
  I am amazed, I am shocked, I say to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey), that she wants to strike moral convictions. Why should 
she impose her views on those who would otherwise not want to do it?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the shock of my 
good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  I would like to make it very, very clear that what our provision does 
is allow an individual, a person, a group of people, a provider, to 
have a religious or moral conviction. I respect that. I want to make 
that very clear, that be it a doctor or a nurse or a provider, that 
person, in our provision, certainly may have a religious or a moral 
conviction.
  But I would like to remind my colleague what my provision does not do

[[Page H5656]]

is allow a plan to have a moral conviction. A Blue Cross-Blue Shield, 
or another plan, in our judgment, in my judgment, it cannot have a 
moral conviction. If it has a religious objection, if it is 
religiously-affiliated, there were five plans that were included. 
Again, I would like to repeat, any existing or future plan, if the plan 
objects to such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs, that plan 
can opt out. No one, not one plan in the past year, requested to opt 
out.
  So Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain again, we are willing to 
accept their provision which perfects the one from last year, which 
gives any provider the right on religious or moral convictions to opt 
out. That is just fine. But a plan does not have a conscience, and 
there is no plan that requested to be included in this opt out 
provision.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask my friend, 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a question, because I know 
of his very sincere beliefs, and do not question them at all. I agree 
that we should not question moral convictions, either.
  Is there a problem? Have we had some plan, an insurance company that 
deals with the FEHBP, i.e., a plan, come to us and say that they were 
being compelled to do something that they did not want to do?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the language in the amendment 
says ``Any existing or future plan.'' I think it wise and provided the 
future to anticipate.
  I know of no plan at the moment to carried a plan may spent nor have 
I surveyed every plan but that does not mean it has not happened. That 
does not mean that sitting in the boardrooms around the nation men and 
women who offer specific plans haven't grappled with this and said, we 
have to provide this no matter what conditions it violates.
  We have to provide maximum freedom in regard to a moral conviction 
for people who manifest opposition and dissent, and to opt out. And 
again, let me also point out that I did say with regard to the future 
plan. There could be plans that would love to participate in the 
Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan program but conclude wait a 
minute, there is a mandate there that violates our moral convictions.
  And that is why I would hope and believe this should be a totally 
noncontroversial amendment, unless its opponents have designs on using 
the coercive power of the state to force compliance not withstanding 
moral convictions.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I probably do not have 
much left, but I would say that the gentlewoman I think has tried to 
reach a resolution within the framework of what we know exists now.
  I asked the gentleman if there was a plan, because if there is a 
problem and we are compelling them to do something that they have a 
moral conviction against, we ought to look at that. I agree with the 
gentleman from New Jersey. He is absolutely right.
  On the other hand, apparently we do not at least now have a problem 
with respect to this. However, we may, as the gentlewoman from New York 
has pointed out, have a problem, and we want to make sure that not only 
do individuals not have to prescribe, but they do not have to involve 
themselves in providing.
  The gentlewoman's amendment deals with individuals' rights to 
certainly say, no, I have a moral conviction or religious belief, and I 
am not going to do that. I really do believe the gentlewoman has tried 
to reach a middle ground, if any such exists; and I do not know that 
that is the case, but if any such exists on this particular issue, 
because I think in the first instance that problem does not exist, but 
on the second instance, it may exist and she provides a protection 
against it.
  I would hope that we can adopt the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly will not use the 5 minutes, but it seems to 
me this really is much ado about nothing; not that the issue is a 
nothing issue, but the distinctions that should be made.
  Conscience and moral conviction are really facets of the same issue. 
Religious reasons may motivate a conviction, but ethical reasons, 
without any religious foundation, are of the same stripe. They are a 
nuanced way of expressing one's conscience.
  If we want to protect peoples conscience which flows from religious 
conviction, we want to similarly treat people's moral convictions that 
do not have a religious foundation but are just as strongly felt.
  Now, does a plan have a conscience? That should not bother anybody. 
Corporations can act immorally. They can dump toxic wastes in the 
ground. By continuing to do that, we say that corporation is immoral, 
is acting immorally.

                              {time}  2000

  Plans operate through people. It is not some sort of entity out 
there. It is an intangible. But people make decisions and have 
consciences and violate their conscience or protect their conscience or 
act pursuant to it. But there is nothing strange about a plan acting 
morally.
  We say the profits for this corporation were ``obscene.'' So 
corporations and these entities can have a conscience, can act pursuant 
to a conscience because they are run by directors and by people.
  So why do we not protect moral conviction just as strongly as we 
protect religious conscience? They are two sides of the same coin. And 
I do not understand why we are doing this.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York not just with 
pleasure, but with great pleasure.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) for yielding to me. We have been discussing this issue for many 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, a plan is a corporate entity, and it is organized often 
for profit. Its role is to write a check. I do not think that we want a 
plan to begin to claim a moral conviction, moral objection to writing a 
check.
  Now this is not about examining a patient, talking about patients, 
because we have already included in the language that any individual 
provider, a nurse or other provider, may opt out based on religious or 
moral conviction. But we are saying if a plan suddenly has 50 people 
outside protesting, they could develop a moral conscience and say, ``I 
do not want to write a check.''
  Now, I want to make it clear again that the provision which the 
gentleman and I negotiated very carefully last year listed all the 
religiously based plans that wanted to opt out. We gave other plans the 
option of opting out, but no one took that option.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, before my time lapses if I could recapture it 
briefly to say we do not suffer from too much moral conviction; perhaps 
too little. And where we find it, we ought to nurture it and protect 
it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier today this House voted down an attempt to 
strike the abortion restriction from this bill. And if Members oppose 
abortion, there is no better way to try to avoid it than to increase 
access to contraceptives. My colleagues are offbase with their 
amendment which is a transparent attempt to cut off access to birth 
control.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
already has a conscience clause that allows religious plans to opt out 
if they choose to. In fact, five plans have chosen to do just that.
  I also take issue with the contention that a health plan, a nonhuman 
entity, can have a moral objection to anything. Individual providers do 
not have to prescribe contraceptives if they do not choose to.
  Mr. Chairman, let us get to the base of this discussion. We know what 
this is about. We know that those offering this amendment do not 
believe in birth control. They have said this outright, that they 
believe that oral contraceptives used by tens of millions of American 
women every day are a form of abortion. And to imply that those women 
are abortionists is an affront to every American woman and shows how 
out of touch some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
really are.

[[Page H5657]]

  I ask again and again and again that they do not impose their 
personal agenda on others. If my colleagues want to reduce abortions in 
this country, and we all want to do that, there is no better way than 
to support contraceptives and to support birth control.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment and 
to oppose the Smith amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and 
all amendments thereto, close in 20 minutes, and that the time be 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the Smith 
amendment. I cannot imagine the Congress of the United States not 
allowing health plans in this Nation, the United States of America, to 
include such exceptions.
  All this amendment does, and it has been said here today already but 
let me reiterate two simple things to the current conscience clause in 
the contraceptive mandate. Number one, it expands conscience 
protections to plans which object on moral, not just religious grounds. 
Religion is not only the reason one would object to abortion. This 
should be accounted for.
  And number two, expands conscience protection to not only those who 
prescribe medication, as is the current law, but also to those who 
provide for the abortifacient drug. All this means is that a nurse who 
does not prescribe but might be asked to administer an abortifacient 
drug has a right to refuse it.
  I would simply ask my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to 
vote to protect the conscience of all women.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the amendment to the amendment. The example that my colleague just 
gave about a nurse having the right not to administer a contraceptive 
that they believed was abortifacient because they believed it was an 
abortion is a right that is protected under the underlying bill. The 
nurse, as a provider, has a right not to provide services to which she 
morally objects. Any provider and any entity has that right under this 
bill. No hospital has to provide abortions if they do not want to. No 
physician has to. That is a very important right that is protected in 
the law.
  It is also true that if an insurance company offers contraceptive 
coverage, every woman covered by that insurance policy has a right to 
use it or not. If they have moral objections to contraceptives, they do 
not have to use contraceptives. There is nothing in the insurance 
policy that mandates that they use any of the health care services that 
the health care plan provides. It is a menu of services that they have 
the option of choosing, depending on their personal conviction, their 
religious convictions, and their moral convictions.
  But to give to a plan the power to deny because the plan, which is a 
piece of paper, it is not a person, but because the plan decides that 
I, as a woman, do not have the right to take the common contraceptives 
that 90 percent of American women depend on so that they can have a 
healthy marriage and be a good mother, that is what family planning 
does. It spaces our children and limits the number so parents can 
support them and send them to college, so women can be a loving wife in 
a happy partnership. That is what family planning is about.
  It is about good healthy married sex. And I am proud to say that. And 
I think every woman in America has a right not only to limit the number 
of children, but to enjoy a healthy relationship with her husband.
  Mr. Chairman, one thing I wanted to add, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), my dear friend said that we do not suffer from too much 
morality. That is true. But there is no question that in America we 
suffer from too much government regulation. And the idea that 
government is going to regulate, give to a plan on a piece of paper the 
moral authority to dictate to me, a woman of religious integrity, 
whether or not I can choose to use a contraceptive is a level, frankly, 
of intrusiveness into personal freedom that I as a Republican object to 
and reject.
  I find it very hard to believe that Republicans who believe in less 
government and more freedom could endow a plan with the moral authority 
to limit my right not only to manage when I have children in accord 
with my good health and my family's ability to support them, but also 
regulate my right to have confidence, the confidence that frankly 
healthy sexual relationships among married couples demands, and that is 
just true.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all the gentlewoman from Connecticut, my good 
friend, is factually incorrect when she suggests that the underlying 
legislation which repeats language that has been in existence for a 
year, protects health care workers' right to conscience. Nothing could 
be further from the truth. The plan language that is in the bill, the 
plan language that has been on the books, for the last year, only says 
that the prescriber, the person that ``prescribes'' the contraceptives, 
or abortion chemicals--those drugs or devices that have the capacity to 
prevent implantation for example, have ``conscience'' protection. Every 
other health care worker--nurses, nurse practitioners and others--have 
absolutely no ``conscience'' protection whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) has said she supports, expands conscience protection to all 
health care workers. There has been a serious omission in the current 
law and the proposal that is before the House tonight that is remedied 
by my amendment.
  Now, when we talk about a plan, a plan and a provider of a plan, the 
carrier is a collection of people. These plans--BlueCross or BlueShield 
for example--have a board of directors, a chain of command. They are 
made up of people. People who have religious beliefs are protected. But 
there are also some and maybe many who do not have religious beliefs. 
They may be agnostics or atheists or people for whom religion carries 
little weight, but have a moral conviction, individually or 
collectively, who object on moral grounds to the provision of 
contraceptives. They may feel, as a matter of moral conviction, that 
abortion chemicals have no place in their provision of health care.
   Ironically, there is no right to choose here contemplated by the 
gentlelady from New York. It would be wrong to force them to say they 
have got to provide it. That is using the coercive power of the Federal 
Government to make them do something that is against their ``moral 
conviction.'' This is about moral conviction. I am amazed and really 
shocked and disappointed that the gentlewoman from New York has offered 
this amendment to strike the words ``moral conviction''. It trivializes 
people who oppose certain practices on a basis other than their 
religious belief.
  As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) pointed out so well, 
corporations do have consciences. There are mutual funds that are 
``green,'' in other words, pro-environment. They only invest in that 
which is environmentally protective. There are mutual funds that do not 
invest in corporations dealing with the weapons industry because they 
feel that is wrong. That is their choice. They can do it. And I respect 
it. Disinvestment from corporations doing business in South Africa in 
the 80's sharpened the ``conscience'' of many corporations.
  Carriers, health plans and the like do have a conscience expressed 
through their board of directors and expressed perhaps through their 
shareholders. Any attempt to stifle moral conviction

[[Page H5658]]

or repress it is absolutely wrong. And, again, I am really disappointed 
that some would force their moral convictions on those who want to say 
they have a moral objection to this.
  In terms of individual men and women who want to get abortion 
chemicals, there are a myriad of programs that provide that. Sadly. But 
it is not like there is a lack of provision of that kind of service. 
But do not tell everybody that they have to get in lockstep and provide 
this.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) for yielding me this time. She is my stalwart friend who 
introduced this legislation last year that passed that we spoke about 
earlier today. I also thank her for the work that she has done to make 
sure that Federal employees have an opportunity for coverage for 
contraception within the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. I 
consider it an equity provision containing the religious exemption that 
specifically exempts the five religious-based plans within the Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Plan.

                              {time}  2015

  I have talked to the Office of Personnel and Management, and they 
report that no other FEHB plan has requested any kind of an exemption, 
nor have they complained that the conscience language that is currently 
there is inadequate.
  So I do not know. We talk about a plan based on moral convictions. 
The Office of Personnel Management is the one that negotiates with the 
proposed planners for any kind of a plan that they would offer. None of 
them have asked for a plan based on moral convictions, that they want 
to be exempted. There are the five. They are specifically mentioned.
  Implementation of the policy has gone very well. No insurer, 
provider, or beneficiary has complained to the Office of Personnel 
Management about that provision. Additionally, the Congressional Budget 
Office has estimated that the cost of delivering contraceptive coverage 
is so minimal that the provision has no negligible budgetary effect.
  I think this coverage is necessary for families where contraception 
decisions are most often made. Women spend 80 percent of their 
productive years, or reproductive years, I should say, trying not to 
get pregnant.
  Actually, currently, women pay 68 percent more for out-of-pocket 
health care costs. The majority of these costs come from contraception. 
Providing prescription contraceptive coverage is important for our 
Federal employees. It is essential to setting a model for private 
insurance plans.
  Actually, this issue comes up because of abortion. The way to prevent 
abortion is to offer the opportunity for appropriate contraception. 
That is what we are now doing for Federal employees. Let us not change 
it on the basis of a plan based on moral convictions. We have a plan 
that does work.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
contraceptive coverage provisions in this bill.
  Last year, Congress got smart and voted to give women who work for 
the Federal Government access to contraceptives. But now it seems like 
the appropriations process is signalling the beginning of another 
hunting season on a woman's reproductive rights, particularly if that 
woman works for the Federal Government.
  Go figure it out. Unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates drop when 
women have access to preventive productive health care.
  I ask Members to look at their female employees. Look at the staff 
who work so hard for them to serve their district. Look at those women 
and tell them that we do not care about their reproductive health. Then 
look at the millions of Federal workers that work for the Federal 
Government, who work day in and day out to serve the people of this 
country. Go ahead. Tell them that we do want to deny them the rights 
that are made accessible to other women but not to them.
  Contraceptives give women and their families new choices and new 
hope. They increase child survival. They increase safe motherhood. 
Prohibiting Federal workers from using their health care coverage for 
prescription contraceptive coverage as they see fit discriminates 
against women just because they work for the Federal Government. This 
is a total disgrace.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support contraceptive coverage 
for our Federal employees.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises all Members that the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to 
close. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her leadership.
  Late into the night, let me simply say it is a crying shame. It is a 
crying shame that, in 1999, we would not address this question of 
dealing with the rights of women in the Federal employment in the way 
that it should be, giving them real reproductive rights.
  I respect the disagreement that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) has, and he has been strong on his disagreement. But we already 
have a religious exemption. We already allow for plans who, because of 
religious beliefs, do not want to engage in contraceptive education or 
prescription to opt out. We allow for those who are medical 
professionals and particular physicians to opt out.
  But now what we are being asked to do is to simply gut the right of 
women in the Federal employment to have the right for reproductive 
rights, to be protected, to be safe, to be secure. What we are 
suggesting now is a return to the coat hanger for those who work in the 
Federal employ.
  Our medical plans are a nonperson. They do not exist as a person. To 
give them a moral exemption does not seem to be realistic. This is a 
question of choice. It is a question of privacy. It is a question of 
their very personal decision.
  While we can respect the religious differences of those who wish to 
conspicuously opt out, whether it is a Catholic or a Baptist plan, how 
can we attribute to any plan the ability to rise up and say, ``I have a 
moral reason. Oh, it is not religion, but it just happens to be in the 
back of my mind. I do not want to do it.'' Therefore, we endanger the 
lives of women who are serving this country as Federal civil servants.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask my colleagues, can we make our 
Federal employees second-class citizens? Are women now to go to the 
back of the bus and be able to suffer under this unequal plan?
  I ask support for the Lowey amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this language. The 
contraceptive provision in this bill that has been very successfully 
implemented for the past year has not received any, any, any challenges 
from one plan. I believe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
agreed with that.
  We have given the individual the right to opt out before of a moral 
conscience. But, Mr. Chairman, a plan in my judgment does not have a 
moral conscience, and we do not want to give these plans the right to 
opt out from writing a check to cover basic health care for women.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just let me make a couple of points.
  I respect the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). We recently 
traveled to Macedonia and Albania, we talked going and coming, and I 
think we struck up a very good friendship during the course of that 
trip. Regrettably, I believe the gentlewoman engaged in some very real 
hyperbole on the floor tonight.
  First, the mandate that is in this bill, that is in existing law, 
remains the same.

[[Page H5659]]

  What I am offering is a conscience clause, a real, honest-to-goodness 
conscience clause. Frankly, I am amazed. I said it earlier. I am very, 
very disappointed that those who take the view that abortions are okay, 
but for purposes of this language we are talking about chemicals that 
induce an early abortion, they want carriers to jettison their 
conscience. A carrier, obviously, is a group of people who form a 
corporation. Say it is Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente, NYL 
Care. Name the carrier, and say it does not have people behind it, it 
does not have a board of directors, it does not have people who might 
have a very strong sense of conscience regarding these things that is 
not related to their religious beliefs.
  Moral convictions and religious beliefs, as I pointed out earlier in 
the U.S. Code, usually go hand in hand. Why the exception when it comes 
to abortion chemicals?
  I am truly dismayed by this, that the conscience of those people who 
have a moral objection that is not rooted in religious beliefs, they 
may not have any, religious faith, there are a lot of agnostics out 
there, and some atheists out there who might have strong beliefs based 
on moral conviction why they do not want to proceed with this. If they 
collectively say, through a vote of board of directors, that they do 
not want to have abortion chemicals being provided, they should be able 
to object as a matter of moral conviction.
  The amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), an 
imperfecting amendment, to use what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) said earlier, undermined that and suggests that moral 
convictions don't count. I would respectfully submit to all of my 
colleagues that moral convictions should count, and they should count 
equally with religious beliefs. Equally.
  Again, I think it trivializes those people who do not have religious 
beliefs to say their moral convictions should be thrown over the side 
simply because we do not happen to agree with them.
  Let me just also say once again, that my language comports with 
several existing statutes. It is very important. I will put all of them 
that I have compiled so far into the Record and ask my colleagues to 
take a look at it.
  Let me just read the language of my amendment just so everyone is 
very clear. It talks about a conscience clause for any existing or 
future plan if the carrier for the plan objects to such coverage on the 
basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.
  Very simple and straightforward. The Lowey amendment strikes moral 
convictions. Again, I think that is a very, very serious imposition on 
those who have moral convictions that are not based on religious 
beliefs.
  Again, we are not talking here about what our conscience would 
suggest in this. We are providing a framework for other people to 
exercise their consciences.
  Why this idea of forcing people to all march down the same road if 
they have a moral conviction and sense they should go in the other 
direction? Again, that is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the Lowey 
amendment.
  It is antithetical to the purported belief on choice on the other 
side. A man and woman, collectively as a plan, a carrier, does not have 
a choice anymore. Big brother in Washington is going to tell them they 
have to do this under pain of not being within the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program.
  So let me just conclude by saying this is a conscience clause. Let me 
say it again. It is a conscience clause that is good, solid. It is 
rooted in boilerplate language that we find in other parts of the U.S. 
Code. I urge a strong no vote on the Lowey amendment and a yes vote on 
the Smith amendment.

      Federal Statutes Protecting Moral and Religious Convictions

       8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(g). Bond and conditions for admission of 
     alien excludable on health-related grounds. The Attorney 
     General may waive the application of ... subsection 
     (a)(1)(A)(ii) of this section [requiring documentation of 
     having received vaccination against certain diseases] in the 
     case of any alien ... under such circumstances as the 
     Attorney General provides by regulation, with respect to whom 
     the requirement of such a vaccination would be contrary to 
     the alien's religious beliefs or moral convictions....
       18 U.S.C. Sec. 3597(b). Excuse of an employee on moral or 
     religious grounds. No employee of any State department of 
     corrections, the United States Department of Justice, the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons, or the United States Marshals 
     Service, and no employee providing services to that 
     department, bureau, or service under contract shall be 
     required, as a condition of that employment or contractual 
     obligation, to be in attendance at or to participate in any 
     prosecution or execution under this section if such 
     participation is contrary to the moral or religious 
     convictions of the employee. In this subsection, 
     ``participation in executions'' includes personal preparation 
     of the condemned individual and the apparatus used for 
     execution and supervision of the activities of other 
     personnel in carrying out such activities.
       21 U.S.C. Sec. 848(r). Refusal to participate by State and 
     Federal correctional employees. No employee of any State 
     department of corrections or the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
     and no employee providing services to that department or 
     bureau under contract shall be required, as a condition of 
     that employment, or contractual obligation to be in 
     attendance at or to participate in any execution carrier out 
     under this section if such participation is contrary to the 
     moral or religious convictions of the employee. For purposes 
     of this subsection, the term ``participation in executions'' 
     includes personal preparation of the condemned individual and 
     the apparatus used for execution and supervision of the 
     activities of other personnel in carrying out such 
     activities.
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7(b). Prohibition of public officials 
     and public authorities from imposition of certain 
     requirements contrary to religious beliefs or moral 
     convictions. The receipt of any grant, contract, loan, or 
     loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act 
     [42 U.S.C. Sec. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental 
     Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 
     U.S.C. Sec. 6000 et seq.] by any individual or entity does 
     not authorize any court or any public official or other 
     public authority to require--
       (1) such individual to perform or assist in the performance 
     of any sterilization procedure or abortion if his performance 
     or assistance in the performance of such procedure or 
     abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral 
     convictions; or
       (2) such entity to----
       (A) make its facilities available for the performance of 
     any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of 
     such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited 
     by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral 
     convictions, or
       (B) provide any personnel for the performance or assistance 
     in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion 
     if the performance or assistance in the performance of such 
     procedure or abortion by such personnel would be contrary to 
     the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel.
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7(c). Discrimination prohibition. (1) 
     No entity which receives a grant, contract, loan, or loan 
     guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act 
     [42 U.S.C. Sec. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental 
     Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 
     U.S.C. Sec. 6000 et seq.] after June 18, 1973 may----
       (A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or 
     termination of employment of any physician or other health 
     care personnel, or
       (B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other 
     privileges to any physician or other health care personnel,
     because he performed or assisted in the performance of a 
     lawful sterilization procedure or abortion, because he 
     refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a 
     procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or 
     assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion 
     would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral 
     convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral 
     convictions respecting sterilization procedures or abortions.
       (2) No entity which receives after July 12, 1974, a grant 
     or contract for biomedical or behavioral research under any 
     program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services may----
       (A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or 
     termination of employment of any physician or other health 
     care personnel, or
       (B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other 
     privileges to any physician or other health care personnel,
     because he performed or assisted in the performance of any 
     lawful health service or research activity, because he 
     refused to perform or assist in the performance of any such 
     service or activity on the grounds that his performance or 
     assistance in the performance of such service or activity 
     would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral 
     convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral 
     convictions respecting any such service or activity.
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7(d). Individual rights respecting 
     certain requirements contrary to religious] beliefs or moral 
     convictions. No individual shall be required to perform or 
     assist in the performance of any part of a health service 
     program or research activity funded in whole or in part under 
     a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services if his performance or assistance in the performance 
     of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to 
     his religious beliefs or moral convictions.

[[Page H5660]]

       42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7(e). Prohibition on entities receiving 
     Federal grant, etc., from discriminating against applicants 
     for training or study because of refusal of applicant to 
     participate on religious or moral grounds. No entity which 
     receives, after September 29, 1979, any grant, contract, 
     loan, loan guarantee, or interest subsidy under the Public 
     Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.], the 
     Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 2689 et 
     seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill 
     of Rights Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 6000 et seq.] may deny 
     admission or otherwise discriminate against any applicant 
     (including applicants for internships and residencies) for 
     training or study because of the applicant's reluctance, or 
     willingness, to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or in 
     any way participate in the performance of abortions or 
     sterilizations contrary to or consistent with the applicant's 
     religious beliefs or moral convictions.
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395w-22(j)(3)(B). Conscience protection. 
     Subparagraph (A) [prohibiting interference with provider 
     advice to enrollees] shall not be construed as requiring a 
     Medicare + Choice plan to provide, reimburse for, or provide 
     coverage of a counseling or referral service if the Medicare 
     + Choice organization offering the plan--(i) objects to the 
     provision of such service on moral or religious grounds; and 
     (ii) in the manner and through the written instrumentalities 
     such Medicare + Choice organization deems appropriate, makes 
     available information on its policies regarding such service 
     to prospective enrollees before or during enrollment and to 
     enrollees within 90 days after the date that the organization 
     or plan adopts a change in policy regarding such a counseling 
     or referral service.
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396u-2(b)(3). Construction. Subparagraph 
     (A) [protecting enrollee-provider communications] shall not 
     be construed as requiring a medicaid managed care 
     organization to provide, reimburse for, or provide coverage 
     of, a counseling or referral service if the organization (i) 
     objects to the provisions of such service on moral or 
     religious grounds; and (ii) in the manner and through the 
     written instrumentalities such organization deems 
     appropriate, makes available information on its policies 
     regarding such service to prospective enrollees before or 
     during enrollment and to enrollees within 90 days after the 
     date that the organization adopts a change in policy 
     regarding such a counseling or referral service.
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 2996f(b). Limitations on uses. No funds made 
     available by the [Legal Services] Corporation under this 
     subchapter, either by grant or contract, may be used . . . 
     (8) to provide legal assistance with respect to any 
     proceeding or litigation which seeks to procure a 
     nontherapeutic abortion or to compel any individual or 
     institution to perform an abortion, or assist in the 
     performance of an abortion, or provide facilities for the 
     performance of an abortion, contrary to the religious beliefs 
     or moral convictions of such individual or institution.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: The amendment offered by gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions), the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey), and the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered By Mr. Sessions

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 82, 
noes 334, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                                AYES--82

     Aderholt
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Chabot
     Combest
     Cook
     Crane
     Danner
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rogan
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Skeen
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Wu

                               NOES--334

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5661]]



                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Fattah
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Latham
     Luther
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Peterson (PA)
     Quinn
     Royce
     Thurman

                              {time}  2048

  Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi, ROGAN, RADANOVICH and KUCINICH changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


 Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith 
                             of New Jersey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated 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 217, 
noes 200, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 303]

                               AYES--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--200

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Latham
     Luther
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Peterson (PA)
     Royce
     Schaffer
     Thurman

                              {time}  2058

  Mr. BILBRAY and Mr. LAZIO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  Mr. UPTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 303, the Lowey amendment, 
I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''


        Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey, As Amended

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

                              {time}  2100

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


               customs commissioner's pay classification

       Sec. 645. (a) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, 
     as amended, is amended by deleting the position of 
     ``Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury''.
       (b) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, as 
     amended, is amended by adding the position of ``Commissioner 
     of Customs, Department of the Treasury'' after 
     ``Administrator, Research and Special Programs 
     Administration''.
       Sec. 646. Effective October 1, 1999, all personnel of the 
     General Accounting Office employed or maintained to carry out 
     functions of the Joint Financial Management Improvement 
     Program (JFMIP) shall be transferred to the General Services 
     Administration. The Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management shall provide to the General Services 
     Administration one permanent Senior Executive Service 
     allocation for the position of the Executive Director of the 
     JFMIP. Personnel transferred pursuant to this section shall 
     not be separated or reduced in classification or compensation 
     for one year after any such transfer, except for cause.
       Sec. 647. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be 
     obligated or expended for any new construction, renovation, 
     alteration to existing facilities, or other improvement, at 
     the Border Patrol Academy, located in Charleston, South 
     Carolina.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not prevent any obligation or 
     expenditure, approved in advance by the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, for minor 
     improvements.

[[Page H5662]]

       (c) No appropriated funds may be used to continue operating 
     the Border Patrol Academy, located in Charleston, South 
     Carolina, after September 30, 2004.
       Sec. 648. It is the sense of the Congress that there should 
     continue to be parity between the adjustments in the 
     compensation of members of the uniformed services and the 
     adjustments in the compensation of civilian employees of the 
     United States.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 2000''.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Page 101, after line 10, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 649. No funds made available by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended for offices, salaries, or expenses of 
     the Department of the Treasury in excess of the amounts made 
     available for such purposes for fiscal year 1999 until the 
     Secretary of the Treasury has, pursuant to section 1610(f) of 
     title 28, United States Code, released property described in 
     section 1610(f)(1)(A) of such title, to satisfy all pending 
     judgments for which such property is subject to execution or 
     attachment in aid of execution under section 1610(f) of such 
     title.

  Mr. ANDREWS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of a job that is only 
half done that needs to be completed. In the last few years, this 
Congress addressed the problem of American citizens who win civil 
judgments against foreign governments for acts of terrorism and find it 
impossible to recover money damages because of the protections of 
sovereign relations. Very wisely in recent years, this Congress made 
modifications to title XXVIII, section 1610, to provide for ways that 
American citizens who were wronged, who were able to prove that wrong 
in a court of competent jurisdiction, then could receive a judgment and 
who were then able to identify assets which are carefully delineated as 
assets that do not touch or concern or interfere with in any way the 
sovereign operations of foreign nations should be able to have their 
judgment satisfied, should be able to be made whole for the wrongs that 
they have suffered.
  Despite the good work of the Congress, it has been unfortunate that 
the administration has aggressively used its waiver authority to render 
this law to be effectively ineffective, to render it rather meaningless 
for people that have been successful in recovering these judgments.
  The purpose of my amendment is to compel the effective use of the law 
that we passed a few years ago. It is to make sure that when an 
American is injured by a terrorist act of a foreign state, pursues his 
or her injuries through a court of law, wins the case and goes to 
satisfy that judgment, the same way we would satisfy a judgement 
against General Motors in the suit involving a car that explodes or the 
same way that we would pursue a judgment and satisfy it against a bank 
or any other institution in American society, that people have the 
opportunity to satisfy the judgment against a foreign government.
  The purpose of this amendment is to compel the release of assets held 
by foreign powers under the terms of the statute that we passed a few 
years ago so that Americans who have been wronged may recover as is 
their right.
  Frankly, I believe that the administration has abused its waiver 
authority, and the purpose of this amendment is to restore that right 
under the statute to its rightful place so people can recover the 
judgments that are rightfully theirs.
  This is a matter, I think, of simple fairness and justice. I would 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment, because I believe that it 
will right the wrongs that I have described in my statement here and it 
will finish the job that the Congress wisely began just a few years 
ago.
  I have discussed this with both my friend the ranking subcommittee 
member and the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy first to yield to my friend from 
Maryland who is our ranking member.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding and want to congratulate 
him on the offering of this amendment and the pursuing of this very 
compelling case. Quite obviously the Flato family has suffered a very 
significant loss, has received a judgment which obviously cannot 
compensate for their loss but is a money judgement as we have in our 
system which is the best we can do. Clearly the Congress intended for 
an American citizen, as the gentleman has pointed out, to collect on 
this judgment.
  The only difference I would have with him, while it is a case of 
justice, quite obviously it is not as simple, and there are different 
perspectives on the ramifications beyond this case. But I congratulate 
the gentleman, and I have indicated to him and to others that I will 
work closely with the chairman to see if this matter can be resolved 
successfully.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the ranking member for his 
active cooperation and involvement and would point out that it is not 
simply one family, it is many that would be affected by the terms of 
this. This is a proposal that would be both prospective and 
retroactive, to cover the claims of any American family with that 
problem. I thank him for his help.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. I would just, if I might, Mr. Chairman, say I appreciate 
the gentleman's bringing this issue to our attention. We had a lot of 
discussion about this last year. I think we are all familiar with the 
plight of the Flato family. I certainly worked with him and with the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) last year on this issue. But I 
do have the concerns that I raised before and will at the appropriate 
time here raise my point of order if that is necessary.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, based on my 
discussions with the gentleman from Arizona, it is my understanding 
this is very likely a conferenceable item with the Senate.
  Mr. KOLBE. If the gentleman will yield further, yes. Because of the 
provisions that exist in the Senate legislation, this clearly will be 
an item for discussion in conference.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, given that action by the other body 
and given the very good faith representations by the chairman and the 
ranking member that they are aware of the concerns that we have raised 
tonight and will do their best to validate those concerns and serve our 
interests here, I would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment based upon the chairman's representation.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois:
       Page 101, after line 10, add the following:
       Sec. 649. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prepare and 
     submit to the Congress on an annual basis a report on the 
     conduct of strip searches by employees of the United States 
     Customs Service of individuals subject to such searches in 
     accordance with regulations established by the Customs 
     Service. The information contained in such report shall 
     include data on the ethnicity, gender, nationality, and race 
     of the individuals subject to such searches.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman I reserve a point of order against this 
amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for their cooperation with this 
amendment.
  The amendment that I am offering today is designed to assure 
travelers that they will be treated fairly when going through Customs. 
Recently, there have been numerous incidents of allegations of searches 
at airports throughout our country that have resulted in humiliation 
and pain for the individuals involved. Incidences of racial profiling 
and misconduct by law enforcement have shaken the faith of

[[Page H5663]]

many people with regard to our judicial system. The erosion of any 
segment of our population's confidence in law enforcement agencies can 
lead to anarchy.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States Customs Service has an important job 
to do in terms of keeping out illegal contraband as well as 
interdicting drugs. However, this job must be done with protection of 
human rights and civil rights intact. Strip searches and racial 
profiling are humiliating, dehumanizing and degrading. When these strip 
searches disproportionately effect Africans, African Americans, 
Hispanics, Asians, Asian Americans or any other segment of our society, 
then we must ask the question, why? Are African Americans more prone to 
be drug carriers or to smuggle in illegal contraband? I do not think 
so. However, we believe that it is important that the U.S. Customs be 
required to keep data on who is strip searched and that it be made 
available to Congress. We cannot and should not fund agencies that 
intimidate, degrade and dehumanize our citizens.
  Let me share with my colleagues a story of a few individuals who 
happened to be strip searched. After a long flight from Hong Kong, 
Amanda Baritca was just looking forward to getting a good night's 
sleep, but as she arrived at the San Francisco International Airport 
and prepared to pass through Customs she was subjected to the most 
humiliating, degrading experience of her life. Without any explanation 
she was subjected to an intensive strip search. She was told, ``Take 
off your clothes, bend over.'' The inspector found nothing. She was 
forced to take powerful laxatives. The inspector found nothing. She was 
x-rayed, and still Customs found nothing. Throughout such humiliation 
she was never even allowed a phone call. Twenty-four hours later, after 
finding no drugs, she was released.
  Amanda's story is just one of many stories that could be told, but 
the fact of the matter is, as these unfortunate stories are told, they 
are not isolated. More than 60 women were recently brought together to 
share their horror stories. One woman described the experience as 
feeling like she was raped. These 60 women all shared one thing in 
common. None of them had any drugs.
  At O'Hare and Atlanta's Hartsfield airports class action lawsuits 
have been filed by women who have alleged that they were illegally 
strip searched. The over 600 million passengers who go through Customs 
deserve to know that their rights will be protected while at the same 
time knowing that our vigilance is maintained in fighting drugs.
  I want to commend Commissioner Kelley for beginning to do something 
about this issue. However, I do believe that class action lawsuits have 
had something to do with it. I think it time that we make sure that 
every person traveling our airways and railways know that they will be 
treated fairly; and hopefully we can deal with this in such a way, Mr. 
Chairman, that it will not be necessary to go through with this 
amendment.
  And I would like to invite comment from the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) at this time and from the gentleman from Maryland Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this 
matter to our attention, and this is something the subcommittee is 
aware of, and we have heard about this not only from members of the 
subcommittee and the full committee, but we did inquire of the 
Commissioner of Customs about this problem, and I think the gentleman 
has raised a very valid point. We need to understand whether or not 
strip searches have been used in an inappropriate manner.
  Let me just share with my colleagues, if I might, a couple of things 
that Commissioner Kelley is doing. I think he is really making a real 
effort to address the concerns that have been raised about this problem 
of personal searches, and I would also note that this legislation that 
we are considering this evening includes $9 million to help put in 
place non-intrusive inspection technologies at airports and other 
locations which would reduce the need for such searches. This is non-
intrusive technology. That means one does not have to go through a 
strip search. It also includes $5 million in super surplus funding. It 
would go to Customs training initiative, some of which would support 
their inspectors training in this issue in not only the technology but 
in the procedures that are to be used.
  So I do believe that the Commissioner has a real concern about this.
  I will tell the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that we intend to 
follow this matter very closely in further hearings with Customs and in 
our regular appropriations hearings next year. The gentleman has raised 
a very valid point, and I appreciate the fact that he has brought this 
to our attention.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for 
raising this very important issue. I agree with the gentleman from 
Arizona. I want to say to my friend from Illinois that Commissioner 
Kelley is vigorously pursuing this and is very concerned. He agrees 
with the gentleman that incidents of this type have no place with 
respect to the Customs Service or in this country.
  So I am very pleased that the gentleman has introduced this. It is my 
understanding he is going to withdraw it, but I know that the chairman 
and I both committed to the gentleman that we are going to vigorously 
pursue this and work with him to make sure that we know exactly what is 
going on and that corrective action is taken that is effective and 
precludes these kind of incidents from happening at any time in the 
future.
  I will say to the gentleman once again that I think the gentleman 
from Arizona is right. Commissioner Kelley shares our concern and is 
going to, I think, therefore be an ally of ours in pursuing this very 
strongly; and I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Maryland as well as the gentleman from Arizona; and after 
listening to their comments and expressions of concern, I ask, Mr. 
Chairman, unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis) is withdrawn.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to submit an amendment to the floor, but 
the amendment deals with some of the same subject matters that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) did, and I just want to add on that 
the issues which Mr. Davis talked about which have recently been aired 
on NBC television a few weeks ago is an issue with reference to civil 
rights violations by the Customs Service at airports throughout the 
country.
  John F. Kennedy International Airport, what I believe is the world's 
premier international gateway located in the Sixth Congressional 
District of New York, was one of the airports cited by the NBC News 
report. Here and at other airports Customs agents are engaged in 
discriminatory practices on people of color.
  This simple amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Davis) is an amendment which ensures the integrity of civil rights 
laws passed by Congress. For too often at a great human expense many 
individuals who happen to be of color have been unfairly detained, 
examined and dehumanized at airports by Customs agents. African 
Americans and Latino women are asked by Customs agents to go into a 
room at an airport, strip naked and subject themselves to cavity 
searches and other dehumanizing tactics. Many times these searches on 
these women are done by males.
  This amendment would encourage the Customs Service to meet their 
obligation under existing civil rights laws and stop the practice of 
racial profiling and discrimination in our Nation's airports. Every 
American and every legal entrant into this country has a right to 
travel freely regardless of his or her race, nationality or ethnicity. 
It is the responsibility of this body to ensure

[[Page H5664]]

that the civil rights of all people are protected.
  Let us send a sound and loud message to the Customs Services that 
their practices and patterns of abuse against people of color will no 
longer be tolerated.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his action, I know the chairman 
does as well, and I look forward to his joining with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and ourselves in working on this issue.
  I know from having talked to Commissioner Kelley that he shares our 
concerns. As my colleagues know, he is relatively new as the 
commissioner, but he is going to, I am sure, vigorously pursue this, 
and working together I think we will get at this problem and make sure 
that we resolve it.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his efforts and for his 
interest.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceeding the short title) the following new section:


LIMITATION ON USE OF EXCHANGE STABILIZATION FUND FOR FOREIGN LOANS AND 
                                CREDITS

       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to make any loan or credit in excess of $1,000,000,000 
     to a foreign entity or government of a foreign country 
     through the exchange stabilization fund under section 5302 of 
     title 31, United States Code, except as otherwise provided by 
     law enacted by the Congress.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment. 
It prohibits loans in excess of $1 billion to foreign countries from 
the Treasury Department's exchange stabilization fund unless approved 
by Congress.
  Now this is an unusual amendment in that the sponsors come from a 
wide and broad spectrum of political life. This amendment is being 
cosponsored by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark). And not only are the Members who are endorsing this amendment 
from a wide spectrum of political life, so are the organizations who 
are endorsing this amendment. They include such unions as the United 
Steelworkers, the Atomic Chemical and Energy Workers, the United Union. 
They include the Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers 
Union, the Alliance for Global Justice, the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute and many other organizations.
  Now why are we all united on this issue? For a very simple reason, 
and that reason is that the great crisis in American society today is 
that the vast majority of our people are giving up on the political 
process.

                              {time}  2130

  They do not believe that it is worth their energy to vote. In the 
last election, 64 percent of the American people did not vote. Over 80 
percent of the young people did not vote.
  What this amendment tries to do right here in the United States 
Congress is to reinvigorate our democracy. It says that if the 
President of the United States wants to spend more than $1 billion as 
part of a loan or a bailout, he must come to the United States Congress 
to get approval.
  As all of us know, the Exchange Stabilization Fund was originally 
developed in the 1930s to stabilize our currency. That is what it has 
done. This amendment leaves that function untouched. The President of 
the United States can continue to do that. But what it does say is that 
if the President spends more than $1 billion, he must get the approval 
of the United States Congress.
  Once again, this amendment will not in any way restrict the Treasury 
Department's use of the ESF to stabilize currencies, because currencies 
stabilization is the purpose for which Congress established the ESF.
  The point here is that, as everybody Member of this body knows, that 
we on occasion spend hours debating how we are going to spend $1 
million here or $1 million there. Given that reality, some of us think 
that maybe we should participate in debates when billions of dollars 
are appropriated.
  Mr. Chairman, in recent years, whether it has been Mexico, whether it 
has been Asia, whether it has been Latin America, in Brazil, the 
President has acted unilaterally. I would argue that those of us who 
believe in the democratic process, those of us who get up here and 
argue about how we spend $1 million here or there, have a right to 
participate in how billions of taxpayer dollars are going.
  Mr. Chairman, our opponents in this amendment, and they are legion, 
they are all over the place, no doubt, from both political parties, 
they are going to say, well, the President has to act in an emergency. 
But take that argument to its logical extreme. What are we doing here? 
Are we chopped liver, or what? Is it not time that we revitalize 
American democracy and get involved in the process?
  Now, everybody knows that there are great concerns about the global 
economy, and honest people have differences of opinion about that 
economy. I have real fears. I have real fears that when a financial 
problem in Thailand develops, it spreads all over Asia and it affects 
the United States. It is amazing to me how little this Congress 
participates in that debate.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I may disagree, but he 
should not disagree that that debate should taken here on the floor of 
the House. Has the ESF program worked? Has the IMF program worked? 
Honest people have differences of opinion. Let us have that debate here 
on the floor of the House.
  Once again, let me inform Members of what this amendment does and 
what it does not do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hoyer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate, this amendment is 
similar to an amendment that was passed in 1995 under which the United 
States government functioned quite well, functioned quite well. This 
amendment recognizes the historical and traditional role of the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund, and allows the President to do what 
presidents have done since 1934.
  But this amendment says that when we are going to spend more than $1 
billion, come to the United States Congress for approval, so that the 
American people can be involved in that process.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise on behalf of this coalition, in support of 
this amendment, as one of the cosponsors to limit the use of the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund. Mr. Chairman, this sounds a little 
complicated, but it is not. It is basically that the President has the 
ability to spend money without Congress' approval.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, we offered a similar amendment, and we were 
accused at that time, you are trying to take advantage of the Asian 
economic crisis. The administration even felt threatened by it. Last 
year the former Treasury Secretary, Mr. Robert Rubin, sent us a letter 
saying that the President would veto the appropriations bill because of 
our efforts.
  We are back, and we think it is so important that I hope my 
colleagues will listen to this debate carefully. We are pushing this 
issue for one reason and only one reason: Each of us believes that the 
use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund by our president without 
congressional authorization is simply unconstitutional.
  The ESF was established in 1934 solely, solely, Mr. Chairman, to 
stabilize the exchange value of the U.S. dollar. That was it. The ESF's 
purpose was to give the U.S. adequate financial resources to counteract 
the activities of

[[Page H5665]]

the European fund. The fund was established essentially with $2 
billion, appropriated from profits realized from the reevaluation of 
U.S. gold holdings.
  But slowly, through history, the Exchange Stabilization Fund has been 
perverted and altered from protecting the U.S. dollar, which would be 
its proper use, to bailing out foreign currencies. The ESF's purpose 
was changed, just the same as the IMF's purpose and mission was 
unilaterally changed from being one that was used to ease temporary 
currency exchange rate problems to one that is used to bailing out 
foreign governments.
  By our last count, the ESF had about $30 billion in reserve, ready to 
be used as a presidential slush fund without congressional oversight. 
Tonight Members are going to hear the proponents of using the ESF fund 
and the IMF fund typically say, using these funds are risk-free, we are 
going to hear that argument time and time again, because borrowing 
nations always pay back these loans. We have heard that.
  The proponents also treat such funds as if they are surplus accounts, 
free to be used by benevolent administrations.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, the $30 billion in the ESF fund belongs 
to the American taxpayers, and only Congress, only Congress should have 
the power to disburse the ESF funds.
  Secondly, use of the funds is not risk-free to the American 
taxpayers. If a borrowing Nation defaults on a loan, it is the American 
taxpayers who lose, because it is their funds to begin with.
  There is also this myth that nations pay back such loans, when in 
fact they usually borrow more money from other sources in order to pay 
off the previous IMF or ESF fund, which simply increases their debt 
level again and again and again.
  Others will argue that we have only pursued this amendment because, 
well, this is a political shot. This is a bipartisan amendment that the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has offered, so that argument does 
not hold water.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the amendment had restricted the President 
from using ESF funds beyond $250 million without our approval. This 
year we have upped it to $1 billion, which is still a moderate and I 
think a sensible amount to put as a condition before the President can 
spend the money. Unilateral executive authority on international 
financial matters is not what our Founding Fathers intended when they 
drafted the unique concept of separation of powers in the Constitution.
  It is once again time to reassert, Mr. Chairman, reassert our 
constitutional prerogatives that give Congress the rightful authority 
to authorize and to appropriate these funds.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is one of a constitutional question. I ask all 
of the Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders). I think if all Members of this institution cared as much 
about working people as he does, that this country just might give 
everybody in this society an even shake. We have stood together on 
NAFTA, we have stood together on GATT, and we will stand again together 
tomorrow on another trade issue, I suspect, and I mean immediately, 
tomorrow.
  However, I simply want to say that I think this amendment is an 
absolute recipe for disaster. I am very much an economic populist, but 
I am also a committed internationalist. It seems to me that the use of 
the Economic Stabilization Fund should be determined by the merits of 
the case, and not how popular an individual country is within the 
United States Congress, or who happens to be lobbying the Congress if 
the country in question happens to be involved in foreign policy 
disputes which significant portions of our own society do not happen to 
like.
  The use of the Economic Stabilization Fund is not foreign aid. When 
the Exchange Stabilization Fund is used, it is used to try to stabilize 
the world economy, not to help another country but to defend our own 
country, to defend our own prosperity, to defend our own jobs.
  In 1929, the collapse of the world economy was not caused by the 
collapse of the stock market. That was just a very public event. It was 
started when we had a currency collapse in Austria and the 
CreditAnstalt bank collapsed. That was followed by a run on the German 
banking system, and their system collapsed. Then the crisis jumped to 
Britain, and after the British banks were mowed down in the crisis, 
then the crisis jumped across the Atlantic and it hit the United States 
economy. It went worldwide.
  We know the results. Not only did the economies collapse of the 
countries involved, we had tremendous political instability as a 
result. People like Adolph Hitler and Mussolini came to power, and 50 
million people died. That is why we have had actions taken to establish 
not just the Economic Stabilization Fund, but some of the other 
international economic institutions that some people in this 
institution love to chastise.
  It just it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a reason for the 
separation of powers. It seems to me that any administration needs to 
have the authority to deal with an economic crisis internationally in 
any way that it needs to deal, without having to be second-guessed by 
the Congress.
  We saw what happened just a year ago when we had a crisis in Korea 
that demanded that we marshal more resources to deal with the possible 
worldwide economic collapse. Disgracefully, it took almost a year and a 
half for this Congress to act. I would hate to God to think that that 
would be the pattern, but that would most certainly be the pattern if 
this amendment were adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say, should we give a president a blank check? 
Absolutely not. What this Congress ought to do is exercise its sharp 
oversight responsibility. It ought to critique administration actions 
whenever it differs. The executive needs to act, but the Congress also 
needs to, in my view, to skin the executive if he plays it wrong, or 
plays it incompetently.
  But do not handicap and do not hamstring the President of the United 
States, who is charged with being the steward of America's economic 
interest in the international arena. That is what this amendment does, 
and that is why it ought to be defeated.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak in strong support of this amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, what this amendment simply says is this: no multi-billion 
dollar loans of taxpayer money to foreign countries without 
congressional approval. Let me repeat that: no multi-billion dollar 
loans of taxpayer monies to foreign countries without congressional 
approval.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) spoke first. 
We are talking about billion dollar loans. Now hear me, we are not 
talking about million dollar loans, we are talking about billion dollar 
loans, a thousand million dollars. Is it not reasonable, is it not 
rational, that before the President or the Secretary of the Treasury 
writes a check or makes a loan to a foreign country for $1 billion, for 
a thousand million dollars, Congress ought to approve that, if it is 
for a loan? We are talking about for a loan.
  People have said the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which was started 
in 1934, has grown to $34 billion today. They have said that that money 
is necessary to stabilize currencies. There is absolutely nothing in 
this bill, and let me repeat, our amendment will not in any way 
restrict the Treasury Department's use of the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund to stabilize currencies, which is what the fund is designed to do, 
and what it was used for until 1995. That is what the fund was 
established for. It is what it is supposed to do.

                              {time}  2145

  It is not this type of transfers that we are trying to ask for 
congressional approval of. It is only loans to foreign governments. One 
reason that we ought to review these is when we have made these $5 
billion loans and $3 billion loans and $5 billion loans we have said to 
these foreign governments that they will start an austerity program 
where the recipient countries will increase their exports to the United 
States and decrease their imports from the United States. When they 
have done those, they have cost jobs in the United States.
  That is not free trade when we send billions of dollars to foreign 
countries

[[Page H5666]]

to prop up competition, companies that compete with us. That is not 
free trade. It has cost us thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs in 
this country. But we are not saying they cannot make these loans; we 
are saying come to Congress and get approval.
  We just spent 2 hours debating a $200,000 expenditure a year for the 
next few years. We are not talking about $200,000 here. We are talking 
about a $34 billion fund.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say in conclusion, we passed this measure in 
1995. In 1995, this Congress, most of the Members that will be voting 
tonight said it is prudent for us to approve these loans. And it is 
still prudent today. We have had a loan of $5 billion from this fund to 
Korea. We have had a loan of $5 billion or commitment from this fund to 
Brazil. We have had a commitment of $3 billion from this fund to 
Indonesia. There is an honest disagreement here.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have to take 
issue with a number of points that have been made. There is some 
question about the comments of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), the author of the amendment who is a friend, we do not always 
agree, and the comments of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary 
Policy of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services on 
which I serve.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the author of the amendment, 
would a loan or an extension of credit for the stabilization of 
currency apply under the gentleman's amendment, or would it be subject 
to oversight or subject to congressional approval?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it would not be subject to congressional 
approval. It would continue to do as the purpose of this program was 
meant to.
  Mr. BENTSEN. So, reclaiming my time then, to the extent an extension 
of credit was made to the Mexican Government to stabilize the peso, 
then that will be allowed apparently under this, and it would be up to 
the general counsel of the Treasury Department.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
he would have to define what currency stabilization means. But in the 
current sense of what currency stabilization means, and what has 
historically been done under this fund, this amendment would allow that 
to continue.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I think this 
amendment is fraught with uncertainty and problems. Back in 1995 when 
this amendment passed and we were in the midst of the crisis in Mexico, 
we were not sure what was going to happen. We now know that the Mexican 
economy did not collapse; and had it collapsed, it would have had broad 
ramifications for the United States.
  Certainly my State of Texas would have felt it a great deal since 
Mexico is our number one trading partner. We would have lost jobs. We 
would have lost exports to that country. We would have had an increase 
in the immigration problem as a result of it.
  But instead, Mr. Chairman, we have seen the Mexico bolsa coming back 
and the peso has stabilized some. Yes, they still have problems, but 
they would have been a lot worse out if we had not done anything. And 
in fact we have half a billion dollars more than the principal that was 
returned to the economic stabilization fund.
  With respect to South Korea, the commitment was made at a very 
delicate time when the South Korean won was going down; The South 
Korean market was going down. Rapid unemployment. And part of that 
commitment, which was a multinational multilateral commitment to defend 
the currency, the South Korean currency for the benefit of the United 
States currency, in a large export market where we actually run a trade 
surplus, and the fact that that opportunity, that we were able to 
participate in that and never actually spent the funds or lent the 
funds, no funds went from the Treasury, it has worked now because the 
South Korean economy has stabilized. Yes, they have to continue to make 
changes but it worked.
  In Brazil, where the commitment was made, we now see the real has 
stabilized and the Brazilian markets have stabilized because we have to 
do it. Why would we want to go and change something that works?
  I would argue to my colleague from Florida, who I think has left the 
floor, we exercise our constitutional prerogative every day we are in 
session. And every day we are in session we can look at this and say if 
this is not working, we want to change it. If we want, 218 Members can 
file a bill and go sign a discharge petition to get it on the floor, if 
we cannot get the leadership to do it.
  But this is something that works, and it has been to the benefit of 
the United States economy. If we had allowed the Mexican economy to go 
down in 1995, as it surely would had we not done this, or if we had 
allowed the Asian economy to go down as it was heading a year and a 
half ago, we would have felt it in the United States and we would have 
lost more jobs.
  And, yes, austerity programs come in. We have problems with how the 
IMF does some things. But the fact is if we had done nothing, they 
would have been worse off. A complete collapse of the economy would 
have brought anarchy in the countries and increased unemployment and 
what good would that be? Maybe philosophically my colleagues would have 
felt more pure, but more people would have been unemployed and not just 
in those countries but in the United States as well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a program that has worked. We have oversight 
quarterly. The Treasury reports to the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, which the gentleman from Vermont sits on along with 
myself and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul). Annually it reports to the entire Congress. We 
know what is going on there. We know how it is working. And if was not 
working, then it would be a problem and then we would have to address 
it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of my good friend. 
Is there anything in this amendment which would suggest that anybody 
here is not deeply concerned about what is happening around the world, 
that we do not want to see the economies of Mexico, Russia, Asia 
strong?
  All that we are saying is, for example, maybe if the Congress had 
been involved in the discussion over the bailout of Russia, maybe the 
Russian economy would not be in the pits that it is in now.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this has nothing to do 
with Russia.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for bringing this 
amendment to the floor.
  I would like to clarify one thing about the original intent of the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund. It was never meant to be used to support 
foreign currencies. It should not be so casually accepted that that is 
the proper function of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.
  The Exchange Stabilization Fund was set up, I think in error; but it 
was set up for the purpose of stabilizing the dollar in the Depression. 
How did that come about? Well, it started with an Executive order. It 
started with an Executive order to take gold forcefully from the 
people. And then our President then revalued gold from $20 an ounce to 
$35 an ounce, and there was a profit and they took this profit and used 
some of those profits to start the Exchange Stabilization Fund. They 
set it up with $200 million. It does not seem like a whole lot of money 
today.
  How did it come about over these many years that this fund has been 
allowed to exist without supervision of this Congress, and now has 
reached to the size of $34 billion and we give it no

[[Page H5667]]

oversight? It is supposed to send reports to us, very superficial 
reports to the Congress. We don't know how they got $34 billion. They 
earned interest on some of the loans, and all the loans are paid back 
because the countries who get the loans borrow more money.
  Mr. Chairman, the Mexico bailout did not solve the Mexico problem. It 
is ongoing. The peso is in trouble again. They are in more debt than 
before. We only encourage the financial bubble around the world. This 
is a dangerous notion that we can take something that was set up to 
stabilize the dollar, and now we are pretending we can stabilize all 
the currencies in the world and use it as foreign aid to boot without 
the congressional approval. There is something seriously flawed with 
this.
  It has also been suggested by many who know a lot more about the 
details of the Exchange Stabilization Fund than I do, and it has been 
suggested that possibly, quite possibly, what happens is Treasury deals 
in currencies all the time and there are profits to be made. And when 
there is a profit, it goes into the Exchange Stabilization Fund. When 
there is a loss. It is sent over to the Treasury and then recorded as a 
loss.
  This is a magnificent thing, but in a free society, in a democracy, 
in a republic where we are supposed to have the rule of law, we are not 
supposed to have a slush fund that is run by our Treasury without 
supervision to be doing things that was never intended. This is a 
serious problem. And I think economically it is serious because it is 
contributing to the bubble. It is contributing to a financial bubble.
  So, yes, we tide Mexico over for a year or two, but what are we going 
to say next year when there is another peso crisis? Are we going to 
close our eyes and say we will do whatever we want, it is a major 
crisis? Our obligation here in the Congress is to have a sound dollar, 
not to dilute the value of the dollar without our permission and for 
our President and our Treasury Department and the IMF and the World 
Bank and the internationalists to destroy the value of the dollar. That 
is not permissible under the rule of law, and yet we have casually 
permitted this to happen and we do not even ask the serious questions.
  We should make it certain that all loans, all use of that is reviewed 
by the Congress. This is a very, very modest request by the gentleman 
from Vermont. It should be absolutely approved. But then some day we 
ought to give a serious study about how we as a Congress allow these 
kind of things to happen without our supervision.
  What is the purpose of having a Congress? What is the purpose of the 
Constitution if we have an obligation to guarantee the value of the 
dollar and if we permit somebody not under our control to do whatever 
they want to the dollar under the pretense that we are going to protect 
the value of all the currencies of Asia?
  Mr. Chairman, are we going to protect the Euro now? The Euro is 
getting pretty weak. I guess we are going to bail out the Euro. When it 
drops down under a dollar, we will expect the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund to come and bail out the Euro. This has to be looked at. This is 
the first very modest, very minimal step that we are making tonight. It 
should be overwhelmingly supported.
  It is up to us to assume our responsibility to protect the dollar, 
have the rule of law, make sure that we assume the responsibilities 
that have been delegated to us and not close our eyes and let this 
slush fund of $34 billion that has existed for now these many decades 
and have allowed the Treasury Department to run it without us caring. 
So I plead with my colleagues, support the amendment.
  Mr.LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. So many things 
have been said that are so blatantly false. First of all, one of the 
distinguished gentlemen said that the actions of the executive branch 
under the Exchange Stabilization Fund are unconstitutional and this is, 
therefore, primarily a constitutional question. Well, we have used this 
now since the early 1930s and never has this been found 
unconstitutional. That is simply not before us.
  Other individuals have said we should not have these wasteful 
expenditures of government monies as if we were giving foreign aid or 
grants. And yet we are talking about loans or credits, money that 
absolutely must be repaid and in every instance has been repaid.
  Charges have been made, well, the chief executive acts in an 
unaccountable manner; and yet by law we have mandated monthly reports. 
Not simply annual reports, but monthly reports, as the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen) said. We know everything they do.
  A few days before he left office as Secretary of the Treasury, Bob 
Rubin had dinner with a number of Members of Congress and he did not 
talk about this issue. He talked about one of his concerns, perhaps his 
chief concern, and that was the ability of the United States Government 
to function in the future, given its cumbersome way of working.

                              {time}  2200

  Other governments have a parliamentary form of government so the 
prime minister can make a decision and act upon it. We have chosen our 
way with the separation of powers, et cetera. But Congress wisely 
realizes that there are certain times and certain events where we must 
delegate authority.
  We have delegated authority with respect to the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund, going back to the early 1930s. What has happened 
since the 1930s? Well, the world has become unbelievably smaller. We 
have had an integrated global economy involving trillions and trillions 
of dollars where what goes on in Korea or Brazil or Germany or Mexico 
profoundly impacts citizens of the United States.
  There has been a huge increase in technology, too. So trillions of 
dollars are transferred today every day in fractions of a second. We 
must be able to respond. We have the Exchange Stabilization Fund so 
that we can respond.
  If we were to say one cannot act with a loan or credit in excess of 
$1 billion, and very, very frequently when the Secretary of the 
Treasury and the President act, it must be in excess of a billion 
dollars, whether it is Mexico, Brazil, Korea, name it, it must be, if 
one must have the Congress of the United States work its will, one 
might as well say that the United States must abdicate its leadership, 
and not only abdicate its leadership, abdicate its role in dealing with 
any future international financial crisis.
  That is what the effect of this amendment would be if it were passed. 
That is why the past Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the 
Treasury before him and before him and the current Secretary of the 
Treasury has said any bill that contains such a provision should be 
vetoed.
  Please vote against this. My colleagues would not just abdicate the 
United States economic leadership, they would forfeit any United States 
role in dealing with any future international financial crisis.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the Exchange Stabilization Fund is being misused by 
Treasury to bail out foreign investment failures. When some aspects of 
corporate foreign investment policy fails, the Treasury taps the ESF to 
cover over the failure.
  Here is a recent example, Mr. Chairman. In Indonesia, the 
International Monetary Fund caused a run on Indonesian banks when it 
directed the closure of 16 banks there. A confidential internal IMF 
memo even acknowledged the failure. The IMF caused a panic by making a 
bad situation much worse. So what does this ``Foreign Investment 
Failure Fund'' do? Without congressional approval, Treasury dispatched 
a credit line of $3 billion to cover the mistake.
  NAFTA caused a flood of U.S. investors to abandon their investments 
in the U.S. for higher rates of return in Mexico. Then the already 
over-valued Mexican currency collapsed. Guess what? The ``Foreign 
Investment Failure Fund'' was used without congressional approval to 
cover the multi-billion dollar failure.
  Indeed, the ESF was used in this way because Congress refused to pass 
a $20 billion package to benefit the Mexican elite at the expense of 
the Mexican people. The use of the ESF by Treasury thwarted the will of 
the Congress.
  The ``Foreign Investment Failure Fund'' is used to accomplish policy

[[Page H5668]]

changes that often make international financial problems worse. In 
Korea, important consumer and labor standards and regulations were 
overturned as conditions for $5 billion in ``Foreign Investment 
Failure'' funds from the U.S.
  Koreans now talk about ``IMF suicides'' to characterize the wave of 
suicide among jobless and hopeless Koreans. Korean labor unions are 
conducting massive protests and strikes. Without Congress' approval or 
involvement, global economic policy is being forged for the benefit of 
the few with the funds of the American people as leverage.
  This amendment will correct the abuses, but it will not tie 
Treasury's hands. If Treasury needs to stabilize another country's 
currency, it will be able to use the ESF to do so unilaterally and 
without Congress' approval. The amendment allows Treasury to do 
currency swaps and other currency stabilization aids without 
Congressional approval.
  But if Treasury is making a large loan to another country, they will 
have to come to Congress, which is the only appropriate process, given 
the American system of checks and balances.
  This amendment is nearly identical to one that Congress passed in 
1995. Many of my fellow Democrats voted for that amendment then. 
Unfortunately, the authority of that provision lapsed in October of 
1997. Today, we need to repeat our correct action.
  So long as the Exchange Stabilization Fund is used to extend credit 
or give loans to foreign nations without Congress' approval, these 
foreign investment failures will get larger and will become more 
frequent. More of the U.S. Treasury will be exposed to paper over them, 
benefit foreign elites, bail out big banks, and underwrite austerity, 
joblessness and hopelessness for the majority of people around the 
globe.
  Let us stabilize the power of Congress by voting yes on this 
amendment.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 
world is going through one of the most fundamental changes in its 
economy in history. As we move from the industrial age to the 
information age, we are moving to an economy that is based much more on 
speed, whether it be the speed of commerce, the speed of innovation, 
the speed of communication.
  As we move into this information-based economy, we are seeing the 
world shrink. We are seeing national borders are becoming increasingly 
porous to the flows of information as well as capital. It is leading to 
the integration of our economies.
  The United States can no longer insulate itself from the affairs and 
the impacts of other countries and the financial situations and crises 
that occur there. So it is becoming increasingly important that the 
administration have the ability and the flexibility to use most 
effectively the Exchange Stabilization Fund.
  We can look back at how effectively it has been used to stabilize 
some crises in Asia, in South America, which is in the interest of 
United States' working people and the interest of United States' 
businesses.
  When we want people to advocate that this is something that Congress 
ought to take a role in to approve almost every loan that the United 
States might participate in through the Exchange Stabilization Fund, it 
certainly would be something that would almost render this inoperable, 
because in Congress, quite honestly, it almost takes us a year to name 
a Federal Post Office. To have Congress coming in and trying to okay 
and approve every loan is certainly going to be too cumbersome. That 
would render the effectiveness of the Exchange Stabilization Fund 
almost obsolete.
  This is a tool that is benefiting not other countries so much, it is 
a tool which is benefiting working men and women in the United States, 
and we should oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. We have 
heard arguments on both sides tonight. But I would ask people to use 
their common sense. I would ask the people at home to listen very 
carefully to the arguments, those reading the Congressional Record to 
read the words very carefully.
  The proposition is very simple. If there is a $1 billion transaction 
or more from the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which means American tax 
dollars, the American people's money, there should be approval by 
Congress. It is almost nonsensical for us to suggest that the American 
people do not deserve accountability for expenditures of over $1 
billion. I do not understand it.
  I hope the people listening to this debate, I hope those people 
reading the Congressional Record begin asking themselves, why is it 
that we have such heavy debates on issues, for example, of whether we 
should increase spending for veterans benefits by $100 million or $50 
million, yet we have people that are going to the floor defending a 
policy of having unelected officials, shadowy figures, who we do not 
know who exactly is making the decision, spending billions of dollars 
of American tax dollars to help foreign currencies?

  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) made a very important point 
tonight. The original purpose of the Exchange Stabilization Fund was to 
stabilize the American currency. At least, there is some justification, 
or perhaps there was at that time, that we were watching out for the 
interest of the American people.
  Now, what we have here is yet another example, and I hope people look 
at this example, of American liberty being sacrificed on the alter of 
globalism: America has to come second. The interest of the American 
people should not be considered. We cannot hold ourselves accountable 
to the American people, even though it is billions of dollars of their 
money.
  Count me out on that, please. I came here to Congress to be held 
accountable.
  Now, we disagree on a lot of things. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) and I, we disagree on a lot of things. The gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the author of this amendment, and I disagree. We 
debate about them on the floor.
  I happen to believe that less expenditures are good. That is a good 
policy for the United States. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
thinks that we should have more government intervention here at home. 
But that is an honest debate. We are held accountable for that.
  To have people here say that, for the government of Brazil or 
Indonesia or some crooked regime in some other country, far-off country 
of the world, we have to give the power to some unelected officials to 
spend billions of dollars of our money without a vote of Congress, talk 
about undermining the democratic principles on which this country is 
founded.
  I think this is very clear. I hope everyone pays attention to the 
debate. Unfortunately, it is happening at 10 o'clock at night. But I 
hope the American people pay attention to who is making the arguments 
and who is on their side.
  Unfortunately, when one gives the power to an unelected elite to 
spend the money without any approval of Congress, and that is what we 
are talking about, billions of dollars being spent by an unelected 
elite, sometimes that money does not go to people who really share our 
values. Sometimes it goes to people like in Indonesia when it was being 
controlled by an autocratic regime. Sometimes it goes to people who are 
just part of the same international country club, the guys making the 
decisions, these Ivy Leaguers who get hired to make these decisions.
  Now, after all, we Members of Congress cannot be trusted to make 
decisions like that. We have to leave it up to these guys from the Ivy 
League schools who are not elected by anybody to watch out for the 
American people.
  No, I am sorry. That is not the way it works here in America. What 
works here in America is we have trust in the people. We have trust 
that, if we make the wrong decision, we are going to get kicked out. 
But everything is supposed to be up front.
  Unfortunately, over the decades, we have permitted the freedom and 
the accountability of the democratic system to be eroded, and this is 
perhaps the best example in our government today.
  My hat is off to the gentleman from Vermont, again a man who I 
disagree

[[Page H5669]]

with philosophically on a number of issues, but who stands for 
democracy, stands for accountability, stands for liberty. And under 
those concepts, we can disagree on what the government should do.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we have gone for an hour on this issue, and 
I have a proposal so that we can bring this debate on this issue to a 
close.
  I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all the 
amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, the time to be equally divided 
between the sponsor and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
The Exchange Stabilization Fund has never been more important than now. 
We are in an interlinked global economy where currency is transferred 
in the blink of an eye over an electronic infrastructure.

                              {time}  2215

  Capital flows can cause a national treasury to hemorrhage. And let me 
tell my colleagues how this works, briefly. If there is great investor 
uncertainty, money is pulled out. Without the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund able to assist for a brief period of time in shoring up currency, 
providing investor, stabilizing investor confidence, we literally have 
a run on the bank situation which can lead to catastrophic national 
bankruptcy.
  I read from a letter that I will introduce for the Record from 
Secretary Larry Summers, who played such a critical role in stabilizing 
Korea that was teetering on the very brink of bankruptcy. On Christmas 
Eve, the ESF permitted the United States to participate in a critical 
time-sensitive effort to forestall financial default in Korea, where 
37,000 American troops are stationed. The economic and national 
security consequences of default were clearly unacceptable to the 
United States.
  That was on December 24, 1997. Do my colleagues know when Congress 
went home that year? November 13. And when did the Congress come back? 
January 27. Congress was missing in action for nearly 3 months, and in 
the middle of this period we had almost an Asia financial meltdown, 
forestalled just barely by the extraordinary work of Secretary Summers, 
using as an integral part of his effort the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund.
  It would not have worked, it would not have been there if the 
congressional requirement the amendment seeks would have been in place. 
Congress was home. We must defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the letter from Secretary Summers I earlier referred to 
follows for the Record:


                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
         Government, Washington, DC.
       Dear Steny: I am extremely concerned that an amendment to 
     restrict severely the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund 
     (ESF) may be considered during House action on the Treasury, 
     Postal Appropriations bill. Such an amendment would 
     constitute an unacceptable limitation on the executive 
     branch's ability to protect critical U.S. economic interests, 
     and I would be forced to recommend a Presidential veto if the 
     final bill contained such restrictions.
       The original ESF statute deliberately provided the 
     executive branch with the flexibility needed to respond 
     expeditiously and effectively when justified by important 
     national economic interests. Because the nature of financial 
     crises sometimes requires urgent action to stabilize markets 
     and protect the U.S. economy, it is necessary to act more 
     quickly than is permitted by the deliberative procedures of 
     the legislative branch. This is particularly true in today's 
     large, fast-moving financial markets.
       Two recent examples illustrate how the ESF works to protect 
     American interests. On Christmas Eve, 1997, the ESF permitted 
     the United States--with broad international cooperation--to 
     participate in a critical, highly time-sensitive effort to 
     forestall financial default in Korea, where 37,000 American 
     troops are stationed. The economic and national security 
     consequences of Korean default were clearly unacceptable 
     risks for the U.S., and the availability and flexibility of 
     ESF resources were indispensable to our stabilization 
     efforts. Similarly, the ESF and bilateral resources from 
     other countries were essential to the international effort 
     last year to help Brazil avert the kind of financial collapse 
     that could have had very severe consequences in our own 
     hemisphere, with obvious implications for the U.S. economy.
       Let me make clear that we fully accept our responsibility 
     to account to Congress for our actions under the ESF statute. 
     Treasury submits detailed monthly reports on ESF transactions 
     to the Banking Committees, and the President submits an 
     annual report to the Congress. We believe strongly that our 
     use of the ESF has been prudent and consistent with the 
     spirit and letter of the law.
       We simply cannot afford to compromise our nation's vital 
     economic and financial interests by limiting our ability to 
     act responsibly and expeditiously during times of urgent 
     crises, and I urge the Congress to preserve the ESF statute 
     in its current form.
           Sincerely,
                                              Lawrence H. Summers,

                                                        Secretary.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. The issue here is not the Exchange Stabilization Fund as set up 
by President Roosevelt. I believe there is broad agreement among 
Members of the House and others about the value of that fund to defend 
the American dollar and to intervene in currency stabilization around 
the world which would have a dramatic impact on our dollar or on the 
American economy.
  The issue is should unsecured loans to foreign nations, most of the 
time being made to bail out extraordinary speculation, sometimes by 
U.S., sometimes by U.S. multinational, and sometimes by foreign 
interests, be made in excess of $1 billion of our taxpayers' money by a 
Cabinet member, with or without the consent of the President of the 
United States and without any consultation or consent of the elected 
representatives of the people?
  Now, I think most people would have to raise a question about that. 
We are not talking about the reasons for which the fund was 
established, which was to shore up or defend the dollars against 
attacks. We are not talking about currency stabilization generally. We 
are talking about unsecured loans to foreign governments, foreign 
interests, to bail out failed speculative activities.
  Now, some have gone to the floor to talk about the great success of 
bailing out these failed speculative activities. Guess what? If we do 
not have market discipline, if we bail out the speculators every time 
their 50 and 100 percent loans go sour, and give them back their 
capital after they have already gained it two or three times over in 
interest, then they will go out and do it again and again and again. 
And now they are doing it with the support of U.S. taxpayers' money and 
at the risk of U.S. taxpayers' money.
  Oh, yes, the speculation has worked out pretty well so far, as far as 
we know, since the fund is not fully accountable. In fact, in the past, 
and we have heard accounts of that earlier this evening, the fund was 
used to buy rugs and special trips and all sorts of things. Yes, it was 
cleaned up a number of years ago. But, still, it is not fully 
accountable to the American people. No full accounting is rendered. And 
it continues in these activities.
  Now, I think we as the elected representatives of the people have got 
to question. Maybe $1 billion is the right figure. Maybe we should let 
them do $2 billion. I do not know. I do not know exactly what it is. 
But I can say that before we extend a loan without security of 
taxpayers' dollars, which is not in direct defense of the interests of 
the United States of America, of our economy, of our currency, of our 
people, of our taxpayers, of our workers, yes, maybe in defense of a 
few bankers who made some really stupid loans at extraordinary rates of 
interest, then we have to question whether it should continue in that 
vein.
  For 2 years this amendment stood. Were there any international crises 
during that time to which the United States could not respond? No. 
There are other tools. We can go to the World Bank, which basically is 
an arm of the U.S. Treasury, or the International Monetary Fund, 
another arm of the U.S. Treasury. At least, though, it would be diluted 
by other countries' money and other taxpayers' from other countries' 
money. It was not directly

[[Page H5670]]

funds allocated from our taxpayers to foreign governments. 
Interventions took place during those 2 years that this amendment was 
in effect to bail out speculators.
  Now, if we think it should be the policy of the United States to bail 
out speculators so all their investments are always guaranteed, then we 
should vote against this amendment. That will be a fine day for some 
people, but not for the American people. Not a proud day for me as a 
representative of the American people. And I urge my colleagues to 
think long and hard and remember this amendment was in effect for 2 
years and none of these horrible things happened, because other tools 
are available that do not put our taxpayers' dollars at risk.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I listened to my good friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), who, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
cares a great deal about the policies of this government, a great deal 
about the working men and women of this country and is one of our 
finest Members. I also listened to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), who I also believe is a very fine Member. We happen, however, 
to disagree on this particular issue.
  I understand what is being said. I understand about the 
multinationals and those who have extended credit wisely. I agree with 
all that, and that angers us. But the fact of the matter is the real 
adverse ramifications are not to those necessarily who have acted so 
irresponsibly. Destabilization impact is not on those rich guys who did 
things speculatively that may have made them a lot of money and at 
great risk, and when the deal went bad they maybe either expect to bail 
out or just bail out themselves and leave others holding the bag.
  The real problem, from my perspective, is that the destabilization 
that occurs if they are not bailed out is to those working men and 
women in this country and in other countries; and they are the ones who 
suffer, from my perspective, unfortunately.
  It is like bailing out the savings and loans that was so 
controversial. Yes, we bailed out some big guys who were bad people, 
but the fact is what we tried to do really was to save harmless, an 
awful lot of depositors who had relatively small amounts of money 
invested.
  I believe he has been quoted of course, and there are some people who 
obviously disagree, but Secretary Summers has been very much involved 
in the utilization of this fund over recent months, to, in my opinion, 
the great benefit not only of the governments of Korea and Brazil and 
of Mexico but also this government and our people as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It seems to me that this important and interesting debate is 
primarily about two fundamental issues, both of great importance. The 
first is the issue of democracy, which I hold to be the most important 
issue.
  I want to reiterate the fact that I believe the great crisis facing 
this country is that we are losing our Democratic traditions. Every 
Member of this body should be terribly frightened that in the last 
election over 80 percent of the people 24 years of age or younger did 
not vote. And every poll that is taken shows the young people are not 
interested about what is going on in government or are extremely 
alienated from the process. With big money controlling both political 
parties, many, many people have given up on the political process.
  One of the reasons they have given up is they do not see the Members 
who they send to Congress, who supposedly represent them, fighting for 
their interests and participating in the important issues facing their 
lives. How can we stand to defend democracy when we say, oh, yes, we 
will have no say when the President, Democrat, Republican, liberal, 
conservative, can put at risk billions and billions of dollars and we 
have no say about that. And then we go home and we tell our 
constituents, get involved in the political process. They are not going 
to do that. That is issue number one and the most important issue.
  But the second issue we hear about is the global economy. Well, if 
these ideas are so good, then let the President of the United States 
come to the Congress. He will get support if the ideas are good. What a 
statement it is to say that we are incapable of responding to a crisis. 
What a terrible and awful thing to say. If the President feels that it 
is necessary to appropriate or to lend substantial sums of money to a 
foreign government, he can come to the United States Congress, make his 
case; and if it is a good case, the American people will support him 
and the Congress will support him.
  But when we talk about the global economy and all the glowing 
accords, I would mention to my friends go and tell that to the average 
American worker, whose wages today are 12 percent less than they were 
in 1973. Tell that to the average American worker today, who in the 
midst of this great global economy is working 160 hours more than he or 
she worked 20 years ago. Tell that to the people of Mexico, whose 
standard of living has declined. Tell that to the people of Russia, who 
have almost descended into Third World living standards.
  Now, people have honest disagreements about the global economy. That 
is what we should be debating on the floor of the House. That is a good 
debate. And maybe if we do that our constituents would know that we are 
involved in the important issues of their lives. Is the global economy 
working for the steelworker, for the textile worker, for the family 
farmer in my State of Vermont? Some think it is, some think it is not. 
Let us debate that issue.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue for strong support for this 
amendment. Let us restore the democratic traditions of this country. 
Let us get the Congress involved on the most important issues.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I understand the good intentions of my colleague, but the fact of the 
matter is in our global economy, our economies are all more 
interrelated. This, in fact, is of course an authority. Although it is 
referred to as the exchange stabilization rate, it has evolved to be 
used, and used very effectively, in terms of preventing the type of 
economies in many countries from spinning out of control and to go back 
to economic ground zero.
  The fact we do not have a perfectly functioning economy on a global 
basis is self-evident. But to deny our Nation and our leadership the 
type of tools that need to be used essentially in a crisis, whether 
that crisis is occurring in Korea or whether it is occurring in Mexico 
or whether it is occurring in Russia is a fundamental mistake, not only 
because it would devastate the economies of those countries but 
invariably that type of contagion and those types of impacts would be 
felt by the workers in this country and in our total global economy.
  So the fact of the matter is we need to have these tools, and in fact 
they have evolved and we have oversight responsibilities. And there are 
plenty of mistakes to go around in terms of what happens in these 
economies, why they are not functioning; but in fact we have and 
continue to work for the type of transparency, the type of market 
forces that, in fact, will provide, I think, for a better working 
global economy.

                              {time}  2230

  I am an interventionist. I believe that we ought to intervene at home 
when we have problems in our economy and respond to people, and I 
believe we ought to do so internationally when we can to try and 
mitigate the adverse impacts that that has on people around this globe.
  In fact, this type of crisis, these types of tools are absolutely 
essential. We have not lost money with this program I would underline 
to my colleagues. That money is fungible and that money was spent in 
Russia or spent in other countries improperly is not even debatable or 
that mistakes are made in these economies. If they were perfect, we 
would not need these

[[Page H5671]]

types of tools. But we need the resources, we need these tools in the 
hands of our decisionmakers so they can exercise responsible policy and 
economic action.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly sum up two things.
  First of all, the Sanders-Bachus amendment was passed in 1995 and was 
in effect from 1996 and 1997 in the midst of this global crisis. The 
idea that if this were passed by the Congress it would be a recipe for 
disaster, it was in effect for 2 years and it was not.
  It does not restrict transfers of funds in any amount to stabilize 
currencies, which is the statutory use of the fund. What it does limit 
is loans to foreign countries of a billion dollars plus.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe I would be among the first to 
acknowledge there were problems arising out of globalization, and we 
need to attend to them. But the worst thing we can do is kind of take a 
sledgehammer and somewhat blindly whack at them. They are more serious 
than that.
  It is true there was a 2-year moratorium. It expired. And since then 
this fund has been used. It has been used in several instances. I think 
there is evidence it has been used constructively and effectively in 
the interest of U.S. workers and families. If that is not true, let us 
have a full debate about it.
  There needs to be oversight. Those on the Committee on House 
Oversight should be diligent. But let us not come here somewhat out of 
the blue and make a major change in policy when the evidence of the 
last couple of years is that this may well be a useful fund. It is not 
giving a billion dollars to another country. These are loans that are 
guaranteed that have been invariably, or almost so, paid back.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I plead with my fellow Republicans, 
and I say ``plead'' with them, to pay attention to what is happening 
here.
  How can we claim the mantle of being responsible in the budget 
process, in the budget decisions we have to make, when we are providing 
the President of the United States with a slush fund to spend billions 
and billions of dollars on foreign interests?
  How can we look our people in the face, the veterans in the face that 
we have to sometimes, or the jobless or the seniors and say we cannot 
spend $10 million more here or $100 million more here because we are 
trying to be responsible?.
  If we do not vote for the Sanders amendment to say there must be a 
vote in Congress to spend these billions of dollars overseas, we are 
betraying these citizens of our country. How can we look at them in the 
face and say we are being responsible at home when we prevent 
unaccountable spending overseas?
  Please support this amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, it just popped into my mind when I heard 
the word ``budget,'' this body spent all last year and never passed a 
budget, and we spent 1 trillion, 700 billion dollars of the taxpayers' 
money.
  But here is the point I wanted to make in this 1 minute. There has 
been some I am sure unintentional but some very misrepresentational 
statements made concerning congressional oversight.
  There are monthly reports submitted to the Congress regarding all of 
the expenditures from the Economic Stable Stabilization Fund, monthly 
reports, annual reports to the Congress in which we have ample 
opportunity to oversee.
  If anyone had the problems that we have heard in the overuse of the 
English language tonight about what has happened, we can certainly have 
that debate. And we will have that debate, and we should have that 
debate. But for us to take away the flexibility that an administration 
might need in order to meet with an international crisis, if we do not 
have that flexibility, I would submit to my colleagues that we are 
literally taking the jobs of millions of men and women and putting them 
in our hands and in a situation in which we will be almost totally 
incapable of acting.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by thanking the chairman for this 
interesting debate. This amendment is endorsed by progressitives, 
conservatives, and many people in between, by the United Steelworkers, 
by Unite, some of the great unions in this country, by the National 
Taxpayers Union, by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
  I would ask for the support of all Members for this amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in opposition to the 
amendment which is being considered here. But I agree with the 
gentleman from Vermont, this has been a good debate. It has not been 
enough of a debate with the right kinds of people in the right kind of 
forum, and that means we should have had this debate in the Committee 
on Banking and Financial Services and then here on the floor as a 
separate bill. Because the issue of what we should do with the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund and the levels of its loan authority, of its 
guarantee authority, is clearly an issue that this body should debate.
  But surely we ought to at least have pause to consider the fact that 
the Secretary of Treasury has said that this amendment alone would be a 
reason that he would recommend a veto to the President. Now, that is 
not a reason for us to vote for or against it. But it certainly ought 
to give us pause.
  And it ought to give us pause that the chairman of the Federal 
Reserve Board, somebody who I think most Members of this body respect 
very greatly, has said: ``I also believe it is important to have 
mechanisms such as the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization 
Fund that permit the United States in exceptional circumstances to 
provide temporary bilateral financial support, often on short notice 
and under appropriate conditions and on occasion in cooperation with 
other countries.''
  That ought to at least give us pause when somebody like Alan 
Greenspan says that.
  Now, the question was raised here earlier, somebody said, well, we 
are going to claim that it is risk free. No, of course it is not risk 
free. But it is also not a hundred percent risk. Just as a bank does 
not have to reserve a hundred percent of all of its loans in reserve, 
we do not reserve a hundred percent of this either. It is a credit 
issue, and that is how it is scored appropriately.
  We have other kinds of funds like this. We have the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance that we provide these funds in-ready when it is needed for 
workers. We have FEMA's Diaster Fund.
  It is not we come to Congress every time there is a disaster in order 
to get a fund. We have a fund in order to provide that. And that is 
exactly what I think we have here.
  We live in a world where these kinds of economic crises are becoming 
more and more real. I believe very strongly that we should give this 
kind of flexibility for economic crises, just as we do for the kinds of 
fiscal disasters which can afflict our country.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is 
wrong policy. It is not the right thing to be doing on this 
legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund (ESF) amendment to the Treasury Dept. Appropriations 
bill. Congress is the only body of this government that is legally able 
to authorize the treasury to spend any money. That is why I support 
this amendment, it returns control of US funds to the Congress, where 
it belongs.
  Our Constitution states that the government spending is restricted in 
that ``No payment (shall be made) from the Treasury except under 
appropriations made by law''. The Constitution shows no concern whether 
the funds in the Treasury come from taxes, or sales of assets, or even 
investment and trading of foreign currency. Therefore Congress, not the

[[Page H5672]]

Executive or some Agency of the Government, is the only body that can 
allocate funds from the Treasury for any purpose.
  I understand some concerns that this body may not be swift enough to 
react to the rapidly changing international economy, however some 
compromise weighing the importance of the Constitution with the rapidly 
changing nature of the economy must be made. This amendment does not 
stop the Treasury from reacting to an emerging financial crisis, it 
simply allows the Congress to live up to its Constitutional 
responsibility to make sure that America's money is spent in a manner 
that promotes American interests. In 1997 a provision similar to the 
amendment we are debating today expired. In the year following this 
expiration, the Treasury provided $3 billion to Indonesia, $5 billion 
to South Korea, and $5 billion to Brazil, through the ESF. Which means 
that $13 billion of the American citizen's money was spent at the 
discretion of the Treasury with no need to consult representatives of 
the American people.
  The Exchange Stabilization Fund was established in order to stabilize 
the US dollar. Some may argue that the stability of foreign governments 
is vital to the stability of the international economy, and therefore 
the American currency. That may even be true, but no member of Congress 
was able to make that argument. It was simply a decision handed down to 
us by some officials in the Department of the Treasury.
  Passing this amendment will restore the power of this body to control 
how the American citizen's dollars are spent. I urge all members who 
understand the Constitution and believe that they are responsible to 
their constituents, to vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  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 House Resolution 246, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois:
       Page 101, after line 10, add the following:
       Sec. 649. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act in title 1 under the heading ``United 
     States Customs Service'' may be made available for the 
     conduct of strip searches by employees of the Customs Service 
     of individuals subject to such searches in accordance with 
     regulations established by the Customs Service unless the 
     employee who conducts the strip search is of the same gender 
     as the individual subject to the strip search.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically requires that no funds under 
this bill be used for male employees at the United States Customs 
Service to strip search women or for women employees to strip search 
males.
  It is my understanding that the Customs Service currently prohibits 
such searches. However, there have been allegations by several 
complainants who have stated that men have participated or been present 
during strip searches of women.
  Therefore, this amendment simply underscores what is already the 
policy at the U.S. Customs Service to prohibit men from strip searching 
women and vice versa.
  I believe it is important to speak to this issue because Federal 
funds are involved and because of the allegations which are being made. 
In addition, what is agency policy may not be adhered to by individual 
employees. Therefore, we simply want to underscore that it should not 
be tolerated.
  Now, I would hope that I could work again with the chairman and 
ranking member to ensure that this important policy is adhered to by 
all employees of the U.S. Customs Service.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman for comment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Again, the gentleman from Illinois has raised a very important policy 
issue. I might just add that it is now the policy of the Customs 
Service to require that a strip search of an individual must be 
conducted by an individual of the same gender. But this is certainly 
something that we would want to monitor very closely.
  We intend to do that. We intend to gather the statistics to make sure 
that they are doing that. I will work with the gentleman from Illinois 
to share that information. And if he is not satisfied, we will make 
other inquiries in our hearings of the Customs Service and can pursue 
this in another way if it is not to the satisfaction of the gentleman 
from Illinois.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman very much for his comments.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and 
concur with the chairman.
  Obviously, this is now, as the gentleman from Illinois has pointed 
out, the policy. What we need to ensure is that the policy is being 
followed so that no American or no foreign visitor is subjected to 
unwarranted and inappropriate processing by Customs or searches by 
Customs.
  I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue and look forward to 
working with him on it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any prohibition 
     on women breastfeeding their children in Federal buildings or 
     on Federal property.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank 
the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this 
committee and in so many ways and particularly Mr. Hoyer for his 
assistance on this particular amendment. I am pleased to offer it on 
behalf of myself, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) and many, many others.
  Our amendment is very simple and family friendly, as American as 
motherhood. Our amendment will protect a woman from being escorted off 
of Federal property when she is breast-feeding her child. We originally 
put forward our right to breast-feed legislation because our offices 
were contacted by women across this country who are ashamed or 
ridiculed or ordered off of Federal property merely because they choose 
to breast-feed their child.

                              {time}  2245

  We have many, many examples from across the country. In one 
particular case, a woman in Virginia was ordered to stop breast feeding 
and the incident led to the passage of Virginia's legislation exempting 
breast feeding mothers from indecent exposure statutes. Thirteen other 
States have enacted similar laws.
  Instead of citing all these examples and the State legislation and 
the medical reports, it is my understanding that the gentleman from 
Arizona will be accepting this amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. If the gentlewoman will yield, I would urge that the 
committee adopt this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman.
  Our amendment is very simple, and is as American as motherhood.
  The language of the amendment states:

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     implement, administer, or enforce any prohibition on women 
     breastfeeding their children in Federal buildings or on 
     Federal property.

  Our amendment will protect a woman from being escorted off of federal 
property when she is breastfeeding her child.

[[Page H5673]]

  As you may know, a similar amendment was adopted by the full 
Appropriations Committee on the Interior Appropriations bill, allowing 
breastfeeding at federal parks and in the Smithsonian and other federal 
museums. I would like to point out that the amendment on Interior 
passed unanimously by voice vote.
  Our amendment, which was also introduced as a stand-alone bill (H.R. 
1848, the Right to Breastfeed Act), would extend this policy to all 
federal property covered by the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
  We initially introduced H.R. 1848 because we have heard from many 
women across the country who have been shamed and ridiculed when they 
have chosen to breastfeed their children in federal buildings, and 
other federal property. Often, the are simply asked or told to leave a 
federal building, park, or office.
  We would like to share with you a few of these examples:
  A New York woman was to leave a Post Office while she was 
breastfeeding her child.
  A New Jersey woman was stopped from breastfeeding when she visited a 
federal park in New Jersey. She was ordered by a tour guide to go 
outside to continue breastfeeding.
  Another woman was waiting for several hours in a court house to 
present her case when she began to nurse her son and was told to leave 
the holding room.
  Another woman was asked to stop nursing in Yosemite by a park ranger. 
Her husband, a pediatrician, cited all of the medical benefits to 
breastfeeding, and eventually the ranger backed down. Many other women 
would have simply backed down and decided that breastfeeding was not 
``acceptable'' in public.
  A Delaware woman was visiting a Washington, D.C., museum and began 
nursing her son in the back corner of the bookstore. She was harassed 
by the bookstore clerk and 4 security guards before being allowed to 
leave.
  A Virginia woman visited Wolf Trap Farm Park's Theatre-in-the-woods 
(a federal park) in the summer of 1993 with her children. She began 
nursing her then 10-month-old daughter, Amy, and was approached by park 
rangers who told her to stop breastfeeding because the breast milk 
``attracts bees.'' This incident led to the passage of Virginia's 1994 
legislation exempting breastfeeding mothers from indecent exposure 
statutes. Thirteen other states have enacted similar laws.

  Another woman was visiting the U.S. Capitol where she was observing a 
session of Congress with her 3 daughters. When the youngest daughter 
became hungry, she began to nurse her discreetly. A guard approached 
her and asked her to ``do that somewhere else.'' The same thing 
happened outside in the hallway.
  While visiting the National Museum of Natural History, a guard 
instructed a Maryland woman who was breastfeeding her child to leave 
because there is ``No food or drink'' allowed in the museum. A woman 
nearby was feeding a child with a bottle.
  When public breastfeeding is restricted, so is a breastfeeding 
woman's access to public facilities and functions.
  Many states have already enacted similar legislation. They include: 
Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, 
and Wisconsin. Others are still working to pass such legislation.
  Why is this such an important issue? Many of you are aware that 
breastmilk is the first line of immunization defense for infants and 
enhances the effectiveness of vaccines they receive.
  Research studies show that breastfeeding can reduce the risk of 
allergies, meningitis, some types of cancers, juvenile diabetes, asthma 
and other respiratory illnesses, and ear infections.
  And the benefits flow both ways. Breastfeeding has been shown to 
reduce the mother's risk of breast and ovarian cancer, hip fractures, 
and osteoporosis.
  In fact, in 1997, the United States had one of the lowest 
breastfeeding rates of all industrialized nations and one of the 
highest rates of infant mortality.
  I would like to point out that while there are no laws specifically 
against breastfeeding, a woman asked to leave federal property has no 
recourse, and that is why we hope this Congress will send the message 
to women in America:
  Breastfeeding is an important choice that many women make.
  Breastfeeding is natural.
  And breastfeeding is welcome on federal property.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this common-sense, bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend the gentlewoman for the work 
that she has done on this issue. I also want to mention the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) who has also in the Committee on 
Appropriations worked on this issue. Obviously this is, we think, a 
very fundamental and appropriate policy. The Federal Government ought 
to be encouraging this healthy activity on behalf of families in 
America and would hope that we would adopt it.
  Ms. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney 
amendment. This amendment will ensure that women have the right to 
breast-feed on any federal property where a woman and her child are 
otherwise authorized to be.
  As you know, breastmilk contains all the nutrients a child needs for 
ideal growth and development, promotes closeness between mother and 
child, and is easy to digest. It is the first line of immunization 
defense and enhances the effectiveness of vaccines given to infants. 
Research studies show that children who are not breast-fed have higher 
rates of mortality, meningitis, some types of cancers, asthma and other 
respiratory illnesses, bacterial and viral infections, allergies, and 
obesity. Additionally, breastmilk and breast-feeding have protective 
effects against the development of a number of chronic diseases, 
including juvenile diabetes and lymphomas.
  In 1997, the United States had one of the lowest breast-feeding rates 
of all industrialized nations and one of the highest rates of infant 
mortality. While there are no laws specifically against breast-feeding, 
a woman asked to leave federal property has no recourse.
  Twenty-three states have already enacted similar legislation and it 
is time to set a federal example by ensuring a woman's right to breast-
feed.
  Women should not encounter obstacles or be made to feel embarrassed 
when attempting to breast-feed on federal property. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney-Shays-
Morella amendment to ensure a woman's right to breastfeed her child in 
federal buildings and on federal property.
  As an original cosponsor of the Right to Breastfeed Act, I strongly 
support this common-sense reform.
  Breastfeeding is a natural and healthy choice. Breast milk helps 
protect against a number of childhood diseases, including ear 
infections, juvenile diabetes, lymphoma, some chronic liver diseases, 
and allergies.
  In addition to containing all the nutrients a child needs for ideal 
growth and development, breastfeeding promotes closeness between a 
mother and child, and is easy to digest.
  While not all mothers choose to breastfeed, those who do should be 
able to feed their child on federal government property without fear of 
harassment.
  It is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary. Women across the 
country--indeed in the U.S. Capitol where we stand today--have been 
asked or told to leave a federal building park or office because they 
were breastfeeding.
  Examples include the story of a woman who was visiting the U.S. 
capitol to observe a session of Congress with her three daughters, and 
began to nurse her youngest daughter discreetly. A guard approached her 
and asked her to ``do that somewhere else.'' The same thing happened 
outside in the hallway.
  A New York woman was asked to leave a Post Office while she was 
breastfeeding her child and another woman was waiting for several hours 
in a court house to present her case was told to leave the holding room 
when she began to nurse her son.
  While visiting the Nation Museum of Natural History, a guard 
instructed a Maryland woman who was breastfteeding her child to leave 
because there is ``no food or drink'' allowed in the museum.
  These examples sound crazy, I know, but they reflect the very real 
problem women are having when breastfeeding their children on federal 
property.
  While there are no laws specifically against breastfeeding, a woman 
asked to leave federal property often has no recourse. When public 
breastfeeding is restricted, so is a breastfeeding woman's access to 
public facilities and functions.
  I am pleased the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act 
included a similar amendment to allow breastfeeding at federal parks, 
the Smithsonian and other federal museums.
  Let's close the loop and preserve a woman's right to breastfeed on 
all federal property.
  I urge you to support this common-sense amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support 
Representative Maloney, Shays, and Morella's amendment regarding 
breastfeeding on federal property.
  The amendment will protect a woman who chooses to breastfeed her 
child while she is visiting federal property.
  Although there are no laws specifically prohibiting breastfeeding, 
this amendment will ensure that women are welcome on federal property 
when they are breastfeeding, and that they will never be turned away 
from federal buildings.

[[Page H5674]]

  Many women across the country who have been shamed and ridiculed when 
they have chosen to breastfeed their children in federal buildings, and 
other federal property. Often, they are simply asked or told to leave a 
federal building, park, or office.
  For example: A New York woman was asked to leave a Post Office while 
she was breastfeeding her child. A New Jersey woman was stopped from 
breastfeeding in July, 1998, when she visited the Edison National 
Historic Site (a federal park in NJ).
  A woman was waiting for several hours in a court house to present her 
case when she began to nurse her son and was told to leave the holding 
room. A woman was asked to stop nursing in Yosemite by a park ranger. A 
Virginia woman was told to stop breastfeeding at the Wolf Trap Farm 
Park's Theatre-in-the-Woods (a federal park) in the summer of 1993 
because, she was told, ``it attracts bees.''
  Another woman was visiting the U.S. Capitol where she was observing a 
session of Congress with her 3 daughters. When her youngest daughter 
became hungry, she began to nurse her discreetly. A guard approached 
her and asked her to ``do that somewhere else.'' The same thing 
happened outside in the hallway.
  While visiting the National Museum of Natural History, a guard 
instructed a Maryland woman who was breastfeeding her child to leave 
because there is ``no food or drink'' allowed in the museum. When 
public breastfeeding is restricted, so is a breastfeeding woman's 
access to public facilities and functions.
  Many states have already enacted similar legislation. They include: 
Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin 
including my state of Texas. Many others are working to pass similar 
legislation.
  A similar amendment was adopted by the full Appropriations Committee 
on the Interior Appropriations bill, allowing breastfeeding at federal 
parks and in the Smithsonian and other federal museums. The amendment 
on Interior passed unanimously by voice vote.
  Breastmilk contains all the nutrients a child needs for ideal growth 
and development, promotes closeness between mother and child, and is 
easy to digest. It is the first line of immunization defense and 
enhances the effectiveness of vaccines given to infants.
  Research studies have also shown that breastmilk and breastfeeding 
have protective effects against the development of a number of chronic 
diseases, including juvenile diabetes, lymphomas, Crohn's disease, 
celiac disease, some chronic liver diseases, and ulcerative colitis.
  Breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the mother's risk of breast 
and ovarian cancer, hip fractures, and osteoporosis. I ask my 
colleagues to support this very vital and important amendment.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by our colleague, Carolyn Maloney, to permit breast-feeding in 
federal buildings or on federal property.
  Congresswoman Maloney has been a leader in promoting the importance 
of breast-feeding and in removing the obstacles facing nursing mothers.
  Based on legislation Ms. Maloney introduced, I offered an amendment 
to the Interior Appropriations bill permitting breast-feeding in our 
national parks and Washington-based museums and cultural attractions.
  Unfortunately, there had been a series of anecdotes where mothers 
were confronted by museum guards or park rangers while nursing their 
babies.
  I was pleased that the full appropriations committee unanimously 
accepted the amendment, and it was part of the bill that we passed last 
night.
  The amendment in front of us today would expand that same concept to 
federal buildings and federal property. Some colleagues have asked me: 
is this really a problem?
  That question goes to the real importance of this amendment. The fact 
is, we all know the benefits of breast-feeding. And this amendment 
ensures that women can continue to live the active lives that American 
society requires of them in the 1990's.
  It means women can be mothers and be all the other things we expect 
them to be. Who knows what daily activities will bring mothers and 
their nursing children in contact with the 8400 federal buildings 
nation-wide. For example, maybe a farm family is visting U-S-D-A to put 
the farm's crop insurance package together.
  Or maybe a new American is visiting the I-N-S to obtain visas for 
family members. Or maybe a small businesswoman has an appointment to 
receive technical advice from the S-B-A. Or maybe she and her child are 
mailing letters and packages at the post office. Or maybe a military 
family is going about its day-to-day activities on a military base.
  The undeniable fact of life is that hungry babies demand to be fed no 
matter where they are. And in 1999, American mothers and their children 
are everywhere. Unfortunately, breast-feeding obstacles are a fact of 
daily life. La Leche League International, the well-known breast-
feeding organization, reports that up to 60 mothers a month contact 
them to inquire about their legal rights after being asked to stop 
breast-feeding by a security guard, a store manager, or someone else in 
authority.
  We can't transform the sensibilities of everyone overnight, but we 
can send a positive message to mothers and families trying to fulfill 
their responsibilities of everyday life in our increasingly complex 
society. The Maloney amendment is a positive step forward, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this strong signal of support to American 
mothers and families.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of women, children and Barbara Lee, 
I thank my colleague from New York for her leadership. I rise in strong 
support of the Maloney, Shays, Morella, Lee amendment.
  It is a shame that women who breast-feed their babies have to worry 
about being told to leave federal property or that they are engaging in 
inappropriate behavior while breast-feeding on federal property. 
Children should not have to be uncomfortable with hunger because their 
mother cannot breast-feed them while on federal property. Breast-
feeding reduces the risks of many diseases and promotes a child healthy 
development. We should not penalize women and babies by refusing to be 
clear that it is not a crime to breast-feed on federal property.
  I am proud to say that in 1997 a bill was signed into law in 
California that authorizes a mother to breast-feed her child in any 
location, public or private except in the private home or residence of 
another. This law has heightened public awareness of the need of 
breast-feeding. It is time that now in 1999, the federal government 
sends a strong message that no longer women can be asked or told to 
leave federal property if they are breast-feeding. This is an amendment 
that will go a long way in reassuring women that they have a right to 
breast-feed on federal property, that we support the healthy 
development of babies and in no way will allow mothers and children to 
be subject to harassment and intimidation any more for doing what is 
natural and necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the United States Customs Service to admit for 
     importation into the United States any item of children's 
     sleepwear that does not have affixed to it the label required 
     by the flammability standards issued by the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission under the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1191 et seq.) and in effect on September 9, 1996.

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to right what I believe 
is a shameful abandonment of consumer protection here in the United 
States.
  In 1972, the Consumer Product Safety Commission adopted a rule with 
respect to sleepwear, pajamas, for infants and toddlers. That rule said 
that if the sleepwear was not treated with flammable-resistant 
material, that is to say, if it was not put together in such a way that 
it was flame retardant, you had to put a clear label on it that 
explained that to the buyer of the sleepwear. Nurses, firefighters, 
emergency service personnel, emergency room technicians, doctors 
understood and supported this standard for 24 years. It resulted in a 
dramatic reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries 
suffered by children and infants as a result of burns.
  Inexplicably, in 1996, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, by a 2 
to 1 vote, changed that standard and weakened it, created a standard 
for disclosure and labeling on children's sleepwear that is frankly 
baffling. If you go into a store in this country and try to figure out 
which of the little pajamas are flammable and which are not, it is 
virtually impossible to tell

[[Page H5675]]

 because of the confusion that has been created.
  Last year, thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro), we were successful in getting the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission to reconsider this decision. In June of this year, the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission made a decision, and I believe 
fervently they made the wrong decision, because they kept in place the 
new standard that is a weaker standard, that does not protect the 
children of this country. Therefore, this amendment.
  This amendment would prohibit the importation into this country of 
infant and children's sleepwear that does not have the disclosure 
standards that were in effect prior to the 1996 change. In other words, 
if you are going to import infant sleepwear or pajamas, as the vast 
majority of pajamas are imported, you could not import them into this 
country unless they had that real and strong consumer protection 
standard which I believe was a serious and egregious mistake to 
abandon.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I had understood there were some members of the 
Committee on Ways and Means that might object to this, but they have 
not shown up and I am prepared to accept this amendment if we can move 
it along as quickly as possible.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would gratefully accept. I thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for her participation and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I would be delighted.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the gentleman's 
amendment and the gentlewoman from Connecticut's amendment and would 
hope that we would adopt it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield briefly to my coauthor the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New Jersey 
for offering the amendment. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and myself were 
as, as has been pointed out, shocked and dismayed with what happened 
with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have had a strong 
standard for two decades. The interest here is to make sure that our 
infants and children are protected and that the clothing that they wear 
has the fire-resistant material that for so many years has made a real 
difference in the lives and well-being of children in this country.
  I want to commend my colleague Rob Andrews for offering this very 
important amendment today and I thank him for his hard work on this 
issue which is so important to the safety of our nation's children.
  I know Congressman Andrews and Congressman Weldon shared my shock and 
dismay at the Consumer Product Safety Commission's actions in weakening 
the fire safety standard which governed children's pajamas.
  For more than two decades, children's sleepwear has been held to a 
more stringent standard of fire safety than any other type of clothing. 
The National Fire Protection Association estimates that without this 
strict standard, there would have been ten times as many deaths and 
significantly more burn injuries relating to children's sleepwear.
  Yet for reasons I can not understand, the CPSC has weakened that 
standard, so that now there is no fire safety standard for infants up 
to nine months, and no fire safety standard for ``tight fitting'' 
clothes up to children's size 14. This action leaves children in grave 
danger of being burned or killed in a fire. Infants are completely 
defenseless in this type of situation. If we don't act, the numbers of 
children burned in these types of incidents will only rise.
  This amendment will make sure that only sleepwear which conforms to 
the fire safety standard passed in the Flammable Fabrics Act more than 
two decades ago is imported into our country. As the CPSC has again 
decided--for reasons which quite frankly mystify me--to stay with the 
weaker standard, this is a step in the right direction. It will also 
send a strong message to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
letting them know that the Congress is extremely concerned about this 
issue and is not content to let it drop.
  Congress has the responsibility to do all that we can to protect the 
health and safety of our nation's children. This amendment will help us 
to do just that. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment 
and help to ensure that children are kept safe from burn injuries and 
even death. Support the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I want to express my deep 
appreciation to the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Andrews, Weldon, 
Towns, Farr, English, Capuano, Luther, Hoyer, DeLauro, Morella, 
Kilpatrick amendment. This provision would prohibit the importation of 
any item of children's sleepwear without a label as required by the 
flammability standards issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(CPSC).
  Our children are precious and we must make every effort to keep them 
safe. But there are so many hidden hazards in the world, and parenting 
doesn't come with an instruction manual. It's strictly on-the-job 
training.
  When my children were little, we didn't know that we had to worry 
about keeping them safe in their pajamas. For more than 25 years, with 
passage of the Flammable Standards Act in 1972, children in America 
were protected from the risk of fire from their sleepwear. The CPSC, in 
1996, voted to relax the fire safety standard for children's sleepwear. 
The new standard exempts all sleepwear for infants aged nine months and 
younger, and tight-fitting sleepwear for children sizes 7-14. I have 
been particularly concerned about the exemption from flammability 
standards for infants. As any parent or grandparent knows, children 
under 9 months of age often are active and may come in contact with 
ignition sources.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 329, which directs the CPSC to 
return to stricter flammability standards that were in effect for two 
decades prior to 1996. If we allow children's sleepwear products to be 
imported without any safety standards, we will be sending a message to 
the CPSC that their relaxed standards are acceptable.
  You know, unintentional injury is the number one killer of children 
ages 14 and under. Each year, unintentional injuries kill 7,200 kids 
and leave an additional 50,000 disabled.
  This year approximately 14 million children will require emergency 
treatment for preventable injury and will cost this country an 
estimated $13.8 million. Fortunately, we know that prevention saves 
lives and money. If we allow sleepwear to be imported from other 
countries that is not flame resistant, we will be putting our children 
at great risk. This amendment is a Measure of Prevention to protect our 
children from harm.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Andrews Children's Sleepwear Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment 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 designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 228, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 304]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Clay
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins

[[Page H5676]]


     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Lee
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Owens
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                               NOES--228

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Latham
     Luther
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Peterson (PA)
     Thurman

                              {time}  2313

  Messrs. MOAKLEY, TIERNEY, and GARY MILLER of California, Ms. DUNN, 
Mrs. KELLY, Mr. BARCIA, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. RILEY, SWEENEY, LEWIS, TIAHRT, BLUNT, and WELDON of Florida, 
Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. MICA, Mr. BUYER, Mrs. FOWLER, and Mr. 
LARGENT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman 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. 2490) making 
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal 
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent 
Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 246, 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.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HOYER. I am, Mr. Speaker, opposed to the bill in its present 
form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2490, to the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, 
nays 209, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               YEAS--210

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5677]]



                               NAYS--209

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Latham
     Luther
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Peterson (PA)
     Sanford
     Thurman

                              {time}  2335

  Messrs. BERMAN, HALL of Ohio, STENHOLM, DINGELL, Ms. BROWN of 
Florida, and Messrs. DIXON, BOYD and LAMPSON changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GOODLATTE, WATKINS, and METCALF changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________