[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Pursuant to House
Resolution 447 and rule XXIII, 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. 4539.
{time} 1030
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. 4539) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S.
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain
independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995,
and for other purposes, with Mr. Studds in the chair.
{time} 1030
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 Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor the
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. I wanted to
thank at the outset the ranking member, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Lightfoot], other members of my committee, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and the staff,
both for Mr. Lightfoot and for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade] who, of course, is the ranking member of our committee. I also
want to thank all of the Members on our side who have worked diligently
as we have held hearings over the past 4 months on the legislation
before us.
Mr. Chairman, the bill that we bring before you is $530 million
under, in budget authority, the 602(b) allocation. In mandatory budget
authority, it is $249 million under the allocation, and in total budget
authority, it is $779 million under the budget authority.
In discretionary outlays, we are $6 million under our 602(b)
allocation. In mandatory outlays, this bill is $245 million under the
allocation. This bill is a total of $251 million dollars under the
allocation. With respect to discretionary spending, this bill is $994
million, 6 million dollars short of 1 billion dollars, under the
President's request in budget authority and $295 million in outlays.
It is over the 1994 enacted in discretionary budgeted authority by
$206 million, and $615 million in outlays. I will explain why in just a
second.
The total in the bill is, discretionary spending, $11.519 billion. I
will point out during the course of debate, that figure includes $405
million in budget authority and outlays which are provided by the
Committee on the Budget in a nonpartisan basis for the purposes of
beefing up tax compliance.
We have over $100 billion of taxes that are due and owing to the
Federal Government which are not, however, collected. That fact
obviously places a greater burden on those who conscientiously and
legally pay their taxes.
This sum of $405 million, to be spent this year and over the next 4
years, a sum of over $2 billion, is scored by CBO to raise over $9
billion. As a result, this money being expended pays itself back 4\1/2\
fold.
The resources available, therefore, for regular operations, taking
out the $405 million, are $11.312 billion. This is important because to
continue programs, it would cost $198 million more. That, I think,
gives you an idea of how tight a budget this actually is.
The 1994 President's request is, without the tax compliance $405
million in there, $12,513 billion. If you add the tax bill you get to
the President's request of $12.918 billion.
The total in the bill, however, is $11.519 billion. As a result, a
correct analysis of the bill shows you that this is a reduction from
the President's request of $1.399 billion, a $1.4 billion decrease,
approximately 10 percent.
Members on both sides of the aisle have reviewed this bill and said
it is a very fiscally responsible bill. I think that is accurate.
I will tell you, however, Mr. Chairman, that I believe this bill
underfunds a very important aspect of expenditures in this bill, and
that is tax systems modernization. In fact, that item alone was cut
over one-half billion dollars. The President's request was $1.7
billion. We have been only able to give $1.2 billion.
Tax systems modernization goes to the ability of the Federal
Government to collect the revenues and to give refunds in a timely
fashion and to make sure that taxpayers' information is secure and
accurate. We need to address this issue. We simply did not have the
money to address this issue.
The total in the bill is $12.254 billion in outlays. However, if you
take off tax compliance, if you subtract prior year authorized outlays,
which will be made in 1995 of $213 million, and you subtract the net
loss in GSA rent receipts, what happens is the public building fund is
funded out of rent receipts. The administration properly has noted that
the fair market value for rents in the United States has decreased. As
a result, it has decreased the payments to be paid made by the
individual agencies to GSA for their rent. This has had the net result
of reducing receipts to the GSA building fund, and, therefore, a
reduction in the receipts available to our committee, of a net $134
million.
As a result, the resources available for regular operations are $11.5
billion for this committee, 1994's enacted was $11.639 billion.
In other words, if you discount the three items of which I have just
spoken, the tax compliance initiative of $405 million, the outlays
resulting from prior year authorizations, and the net loss of GSA
rents, you have a shortfall of $137 million in outlays. As a result, we
are under 1994 expenditures.
The 1994 President's request was $12.549 billion. Again, if you add
to the President's request the $405 million of which I have spoken, and
the loss of the user fees, which were included in our bill as revenues,
but which do not fall within the jurisdiction of this committee and
were, therefore, deleted, you have, necessary to fund the President's
request, $13.195 billion. Again, I would repeat, what we have in the
bill is $12.254 billion, and as a result, a reduction from the
President's request of $941 million, almost a $1 billion reduction from
what the President requested in outlays.
Let me very briefly go over, Mr. Chairman, those reductions.
First of all, the President asked for a $999 million item, which was
scored as a $500 million outlay, for a program which would allow the
Federal Government to make opportunity purchases when leases expire,
because of the market's status, where we need Federal space, but where
we could purchase Federal space at far less in this market than we
could build or purchase at some time in the future.
The committee believed that was a good idea. But it is also a good
idea that the committee did not have revenues to fund. As a result, the
entire program was deleted.
We also made a 30-percent reduction, as I indicated, in the IRS
information systems, of $517 million. That reduction is very
unfortunate and, in my opinion, from a policy standpoint not
justifiable. The bottom line, however, is from an economic standpoint,
we did not have the money to fund it. And that was the only large
discretionary pot that we had, and, therefore, that had to be cut.
{time} 1040
For all other agencies we put them at a hard freeze. In fact, more
than a hard freeze, because for most agencies, Mr. Chairman, in this
budget, we took either the lower of 1994 expenditures or the
President's request, whichever was the lower figure. We had to
eliminate, as I have explained, the user fee proposals which were
approximately $240 million in revenues, because of the fact they were
not within the jurisdiction of our committee.
There have been, however, a few small increases. Americans are very
concerned about crime. The committee shares that concern and the
commitment to confront it. Furthermore, the committee shares the
American public concerns with the interdiction of drugs, a
responsibility of the Customs Service and other agencies within our
purview.
We are also concerned about the proliferation of gangs and street
crime in our urban as well as our rural areas.
As a result of these concerns, we have increased, relatively small
increases, but we have increased various law enforcement agencies. The
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was increased by $9.7 million,
specifically for fingerprinting, computer upgrades and new ballistic
technology so that we can assist local, State and Federal agencies in
identifying crimes better, so that we can prosecute and incarcerate
perpetrators of crime in this country.
I want to say, with respect to that money, that no additional
computer money will be used to computerize any data that BATF does not
collect already. I know there was some concern about that.
In Customs, we have included a net increase of $18 million.
Essentially, Mr. Chairman, that $18 million is an increase so that we
can fund the commitment that this House made as well as the Congress
made when we passed NAFTA to make sure that the Customs Department
would be able to properly identify country of origin for goods coming
into the United States so that no country can use the North American
free trade area as a way to get goods into the United States which are
not in fact produced either with parts, labor or manufacturing
capability located within the free trade zone.
With respect to the Secret Service, Mr. Chairman, we have included
$8.5 million in additional dollars to train state and locals in
Presidential nominee protection. That last item is $6.5 million to
combat counterfeiting overseas. Both the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Lightfoot] and myself and other members of the committee have been
very, very concerned about the growing international threat that
counterfeiting of the American dollar poses to the stability of our own
currency and the stability of the international marketplace. As the
Chairman knows, as the Members of this House know, the dollar is in
fact the standard currency in the world. Therefore, it is the currency
most targeted for counterfeiting in the international marketplace. This
committee believes and has information to base that belief on, that in
fact, nations are getting into counterfeiting the American dollar. We
believe the Secret Service needs the additional resources to combat
that problem.
With respect to the IRS, the bill also includes, as I have said, the
$405 million initiative to beef up tax compliance. That will be about a
$2 billion expenditure over the next 5 years, and CBO says will result
in an additional $9 billion in revenues; again, a 4\1/2\ to 1 payoff.
We believe, the Committee believes that is a good investment and, in a
nonpartisan, bipartisan way, the Committee on the Budget agreed and the
committee agreed.
Now, we have major decreases. The tax system modernization has been
decreased too much. We need to look at that in the future; $33 million
is transferred out of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to the General Fund.
The transfer produces savings that will be applied to other Treasury
law enforcement programs. We hope to replenish that, Mr. Chairman, when
the Crime bill is passed. And we expect to get some additional revenues
for the law enforcement agencies in our bill.
The Postal Service, we kept at last year's level, consistent with the
reform package that was adopted and our commitment to the Postal
Service. The Executive Office of the President, I would call to the
attention of the House, I have historically been and continue to be
opposed to reducing the White House request for its own budget. Just as
I believe the White House ought not to involve itself in the
legislative budget, I believe the Congress, with comity and respecting
the separation of powers, ought to stay out of the White House budget.
Notwithstanding that, because we have imposed in every agency,
almost, in our budget very stringent fiscal constraints, we have
adopted the White House budget at 1994 levels, approximately $2.7
million below their request.
That is the first time ever that this committee has reported out a
cut in the White House budget's request for itself. I have discussed
this matter with the White House, and I am hopeful that at some point
in time we can restore that.
We have various independent agencies within our budget as well. Most
of them, as I said, Mr. Chairman, have been kept at last year's levels.
I believe that explains pretty much the fiscal picture. I know that
there will be a lot of debate with reference to the White House
operations, we will confront when that comes up.
Lastly, I know there will also be amendments with respect to the
authorization for new public buildings. I might say that the committee
has included one of the lowest increases in the Public Buildings Fund
of any year since I have been on this committee.
Furthermore, every one of those projects is subject to authorization
by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation prior to
expenditures being made thereon.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the Treasury, Postal
Service, and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year
1995.
The bill is under the 602(b) allocation by $530 million in
discretionary budget authority and $249 million in mandatory budget
authority. In outlays, the bill is $6 million below the discretionary
outlay allocation and $245 million below the mandatory allocation.
The bill is below the President's budget, by $994 million in
discretionary budget authority and $295 million in discretionary
outlays.
Finally, the bill is over 1994 enacted levels by $206 million in
discretionary budget authority and $615 million in discretionary
outlays.
The comparison that I just made with fiscal year 1994, while
factually correct, does not give an accurate portrait of how really
tight this bill is. The 1995 bill includes $12.254 billion in
discretionary outlays. This includes $213 million in prior year
outlays--expenditures resulting from projects initiated in previous
years. It also includes $450 million for a tax compliance initiative--a
revenue generating effort that will yield $9 billion in additional
taxes for a $2 billion investment. Finally, that amount includes a $134
million loss from lower GSA rent receipts.
The committee had no choice but to include these outlays. If one were
to subtract them from the bill, we would be left with only $11.502
billion in outlays from continuing operations, $137 million less than
the 1994 level.
A similar analysis will show significant cuts from the President's
request. The initial request was for $12.549 billion, but did not
include the subsequent addition of $405 million for tax compliance. The
request did, however, include a $241 million offset provided from tax
increases--an item not under this committee's jurisdiction.
Taking into account these adjustments, the committee would have
needed $13.195 billion to fund the President's request. We were able to
fund only $12.254 billion, $941 million below that which we would have
needed to comply with the President.
The committee undertook three major steps to achieve these savings:
It eliminated a $999 million GSA lease acquisition program.
It reduced the IRS information systems request by $517 million, a 30
percent cut from the $1.757 billion request.
It applied a hard freeze for most agencies--the lower of the 1994
enacted level or the 1995 President's request.
The committee did, however, provide a few select, small increase for
some law enforcement agencies and particularly important initiatives
that I will outline.
title I--treasury
Most Treasury Department Bureaus are funded at the hard freeze--the
lower of the 1994 enacted or the 1995 request.
The first significant increase relative to 1994 provides $9.7 million
to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for fingerprinting,
computer upgrades, and new ballistics technology. This inclues $2.6
million to fingerprint applicants for firearms retail licenses, $2.1
million to automate existing reports on individuals buying multiple
handguns, $1.1 million to computerize indices for out-of-business
firearms dealer records, and $3.9 million to promote ballistics
technology--CEASEFIRE--buy better bullet-proof vests, and hire
additional agents. Not a penny of the computer money will be used to
computerize any data that the agency does not collect already.
For Customs, the bill includes a net increase of $18 million for
NAFTA and service modernization, partially offset by a reduction in the
air and marine program. This is composed of $18 million for NAFTA, $26
million for its Automated Commercial System, $10 million for a Western
Hemispheric Trade Study, $2.1 million for additional customs
inspectors, $1.4 million for financial management improvements, and a
reduction of $39 million from the air and marine program.
The bill provides a $15 million increase for the Secret Service to
train State and locals in Presidential nominee protection--$8.5
million--and to combat counterfeiting overseas--$6.5 million.
For the IRS, the bill includes the $405 million tax compliance
initiative mentioned earlier and included in the budget resolution. A
$2 billion expenditure for this initiative over 5 years should raise $9
billion in more revenue.
The bill includes a major cut to IRS information systems of $517
million below the budget request and $231 million below the 1994
appropriation.
The committee also generated savings by transferring $33 million out
of the Treasury forfeiture fund to the general fund. The savings from
this transfer were applied to other treasury law enforcement programs.
The committee intends to replenish the forfeiture fund with moneys
derived from the forthcoming crime trust fund.
title ii--postal service
The committee fully funded the President's budget request of $92.3
million, consistent with the Revenue Foregone Act. This includes $63
million for free mail for the blind and overseas voters and $29 million
to reimburse the postal service to make up for not funding the full
revenue forgone appropriation for several years.
title iii--executive office of the president
Almost all accounts within the Executive Office of the President are
funded at a hard freeze--the 1994 appropriation or the 1995 President's
budget, whichever is lower. The only exceptions lie in the area of drug
control programs. The bill provides an additional $12 million for high
intensity drug trafficking areas and reduces the special forfeiture
fund by $37.7 million.
This is an unusual mark for this committee. For the past 13 years,
this committee has almost fully funded the Executive Office at the
level requested by the President; this reduction results only from our
low 602(b) ceiling.
title iv--independent agencies general services administration
The bill provides no funding for the request of $999 million for the
lease acquisition program. In addition, it reduces new construction and
acquisition of facilities from $925 million in 1994 to $508 million, a
reduction of $417 million.
It includes $28 million in new construction projects and $11 million
in repair and alteration projects not included in the President's
request. Those projects not currently authorized will require
authorization before funds can be obligated.
To partially fund these increases, the bill includes a rescission of
$78.2 million not requested by the President--$30 million of this
rescission is for a building in my district.
In the rental of space account, because rental costs throughout the
country have been going down, the amount that GSA pays to lessors has
been reduced by $45 million. However, since GSA charges rent to tenant
agencies based on fair market value, the revenue accruing GSA will be
lower in 1995. A reduction in revenue to offset GSA expenditures,
increased outlays in our bill by $134 million:
Million
Loss in rental income.............................................-$236
Savings in rent costs for TPS agencies.............................+$57
Reduced rent paid by GSA...........................................+$45
________
Net loss to TPS bill..........................................-$134
other independent agencies
The bill provides a hard freeze for all other agencies except: $7
million for the National Historical Publications and Records
Commission--$3 million above request; National Archives at the
President's request of $195 million, $4 million over 1994 enacted;
Federal Elections Commission at the President's request of $27.1
million, $3.5 million above 1994, and administrative expense
limitations for OPM and MSPB were increased by $5 million to cover
increased retirement costs.
The bill includes mandatory increases in payments for annuitants.
general provisions
Title V and VI contain general provisions applying to this act and
Governmentwide. I have continued the mandatory use language for
FTS2000. Chairman Brooks, Conyers, and Sabo as well as GSA and OMB
recommended that this language be continued.
The general provisions include a 2 percent across-the-board increase
for executive branch employees and language that would provide for one-
half of the locality pay adjustments authorized under current law. This
is above the President's request, which proposed the equivalent of a
1.6 percent across-the-board increase for Federal workers. These
employees received no adjustment last year to reflect private sector
wage increases. OPM's last pay survey showed an average pay disparity
of 26 percent between the public and private sector, reaching as high
as 39 percent.
reinventing government
The bill includes a number of funding increases and provisions
designed to help improve service delivery and reinvent Government.
The report has language mandating the implementation of performance
measures for all agencies.
The bill allows agencies to keep 50 percent of their end-of-year
unobligated balances, providing an incentive to prevent wasteful end-
of-year spending.
It includes appropriations for computer modernization at Customs and
ATF, and funds innovative ballistics technology for ATF--CEASEFIRE.
It mandates the Financial Management Service to use electronic funds
transfer rather than the Postal Service to provide checks and mandates
that Customs explore new inspection technologies.
It supports the Customs reorganization, which will move staff from
headquarters to field, and provides resources for Customs to address
serious financial management problems.
closing
Mr. Chairman, this bill does not provide adequate funding for the
Internal Revenue Service's tax systems modernization program. It does
not provide all of the funding that the law enforcement agencies need.
But, as I explained earlier, the 602(b) allocation simply did not
provide a ceiling that made it possible to fund everything.
I commend the ranking minority member, Mr. Lightfoot, for the great
jobs that he has done, and I appreciate the conscientious and faithful
service of all the members of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Republican on the
Subcommittee on Treasury--Postal Service--General Government, I am very
pleased that we are bringing this bill to the floor today. It is, I
think, a very fiscally responsible bill. The chairman has very ably
gone through the various parts of the bill and explained what we are
doing with the funding there.
Quite frankly, I do not think we could be more fiscally responsible
than we have been in this particular package.
We are looking at a roughly $23 billion package, somewhere in the
neighborhood of 2 percent of the total Federal budget. But playing on
an old line that someone else said in this Chamber years ago, a billion
here and a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money. I think
our subcommittee has gone a long way toward fiscal responsibility in
the bill.
Most of the accounts, as the chairman has explained, with the
exception of law enforcement, have been frozen at a hard freeze or
lower. At the lower of last year's level or the administration's
request, whichever number was the bottom one, was the one we took,
except, as I mentioned, in law enforcement. So in terms of the budget,
I think it will be hard to argue that this is anything but a good bill.
It is not often one can come down here and say that.
I also agreed with the decision to provide a little higher level of
funding for law enforcement agencies. Quite frankly, we must be
consistent. If we are going to be tough on crime, we have to put our
money where our mouth is and be sure that those agencies responsible
for criminal activities, monitoring those activities, making arrests
and so on, are not hog-tied in their effort to do the job that we have
given them to do.
The bill contains, as the chairman has previously pointed out, an
historically low level of new construction funding. At the same time,
it rescinds over $78 million in construction projects that were
recommended canceled by GSA's time out and review. Another feature of
the bill that I support very strongly was the decision of the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to reject the Treasury Department's request
for $244 million in new user fees. These, quite frankly, were not
authorized, and it would have had to go through the process. But these
were figures that they brought to our subcommittee in presenting their
budget, and the chairman, I think, made a very wise decision. And I
support him 100 percent on not implementing those new user fees.
{time} 1050
Mr. Chairman, I guess if they had been authorized I would have
opposed them that way anyway, but I think that whatever the reasoning
was behind excluding them, it is a good decision, and I think it is one
that we are seeing in other subcommittees as well.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we had a group in from Iowa. One of the
things they were very concerned about was the potential of new user
fees coming down the road. I think it is an issue that out in the
country, at least, people do not want to see happen.
Mr. Chairman, I have to admit it did make the funding decisions more
difficult, because there is $244 million that essentially was not
there, because the Treasury's requests were predicated on approval of
those user fees.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, we face a very tight budget constraint. It
is one of those things--we have to learn to live within our means, and
I think under the leadership of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer], this committee very adequately did so.
That is not to say we do not have some concerns with the bill that we
are bringing to the floor today. As Members are going to hear later,
there are numerous amendments that were offered to both the bill and
report, by Republicans in both subcommittee and full committee markup,
affecting the White House operations.
All these amendments were rejected on party line votes. Numerous
requests to make such amendments in order on the floor today were
rejected by the Committee on Rules.
I think it is unfortunate and sends, in my opinion, a very bad
signal. We in Congress, I think, have a responsibility to provide
oversight over the executive branch, regardless of what we may hear. We
fund their budget and we are appropriating taxpayer dollars.
Another thing that makes us rather unique, the executive branch is a
permanently authorized entity within the Federal Government, so this is
the only opportunity that the Congress has to have any say-so on White
House or executive branch activities.
It is a bit of an awkward situation, in that if we want to do things
that deal with the way things are run, that becomes legislation, and we
have a prohibition against legislating on an appropriations package,
but since this is the only opportunity that the executive branch is
discussed on the House floor, obviously it will become the target point
for a number of amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out, and the chairman has
said this several times, and I applaud him for it, he has always been
personally very fair in his treatment of the White House, and anything
that we are talking about today certainly is not aimed at Chairman
Hoyer. It is more of a majority-minority argument that it is anything
of a personal nature.
Mr. Chairman, we have had in the previous 12 years of Republican
administrations no less than 36 oversight hearings. They were held on
matters involving the executive branch. Six of them were by a
Republican-controlled majority in the Senate, and how many have we held
here? Our chairman did agree to one, and we had it, and I appreciate
that. We asked him for the hearing, and we had it last fall. I do not
know if other committees can say the same. I kind of doubt it.
Mr. Chairman, some are issues that we have seen raised in the press,
and I think that we are failing to provide adequate oversight on,
and some are press accounts, for the most part. Some of it is from GAO
investigations and so on, but just to list a few:
Mismanagement of the White House travel office and conflicts of
interest, Whitewater and Madison Guaranty matters, improper contacts
between White House and RTC officials, the First Lady's commodity
trades, conflicts of interest by political consultants, White House
security pass delays, drug testing delays for White House employees,
White House travel funds for nonofficial purposes, millions of
telephone computer procurements purchased through unlimited or sole-
source contracting, double-dipping by the White House staff in
transition accounts, access to classified materials by staff without
security clearances. There are others, but these are the ones, I think,
that have received the most attention as far as the press is concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagues on this side of the aisle are
justifiably frustrated that we do not have anywhere that we can go and
discuss these matters. I am sure these issues and the ability to fully
air them will affect the decision of many Members on this side of the
aisle on final passage of the bill.
That is regrettable in one sense, because as the Chairman and I both
have pointed out, fiscally I think this is probably one of the soundest
bills that has come to the floor, at least since I have been in
Congress, and we certainly want to discharge our fiscal
responsibilities in the right way.
I would also be remiss if I did not thank the staff on both sides.
The minority and majority staff, at least on this subcommittee, worked
together. They are friends, and it really makes it a lot easier to do a
difficult kind of job where we had to tell a lot of people ``no'' this
time, including a lot of our colleagues who came in with projects and
so on.
Again, fiscally it is a very sound bill. I think that we do have some
problems with the operation down at the White House, which will be
aired before the day is through.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the ranking member for his
comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who was my predecessor on this subcommittee, and
now is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Transportation of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending both the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
We have had a good relationship, and I have a feeling of fondness for
both individuals, and I want the Record to show that.
Mr. Chairman, I will not support this bill unless several amendments
that I will offer are accepted. There are other problems that I have
with this bill.
I think this bill will lead to RIF's. I think the way the pay raise
has been dealt with is inappropriate. I think the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] offered the appropriate way that will not
lead to RIF's.
I know it got tied up in peacekeeping, But I think the approach we
take in this bill will lead to RIF's, and the amendment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] should have been accepted in
the full committee. Reasonable men and women can differ in that, but I
think the gentleman from Pennsylvania had the right approach.
The two fundamental issues that I would like to address to the
Members of the Congress and to anyone who is listening are these two
issues. We have found out, and it is very painful, and I know people
think it is partisan, but there have been some fundamental problems in
the operation of the White House.
Mr. Chairman, we have been, over and over, hammering and trying to
get the White House on their own to change the question with regard to
the number of passes that they have had out. They have had four
prominent people, James Carville, Mandy Grunwald, Paul Begala, and Stan
Greenberg, who have been representing outside groups, and at the same
time have White House passes whereby they can roam the White House 24
hours a day,7 days a week, and if members read Bob Woodward's book,
``The Agenda'', they are giving absolutely critical advice to the
President.
I made the comment when the rule came in that the White House would
have to cave in on this, and that I thought it would have been good if
it could have been done in a spirit of bipartisanship, whereby we could
have offered language which would have not only bound this
administration but also future administrations. It was not done.
Mr. Chairman, I plan on offering that amendment today which would
require, and again, I thank the administration and Mr. McLarty for
suggesting the regs, there is some debate as to what form they should
file, but I am not sure the committee ought to get bogged down in that
today.
Mr. Chairman, this ought to be codified, whereby in every
administration, this administration and future administrations, that
prominent, big-time people who are representing outside groups and
foreign interests have to file a financial disclosure statement so the
American people can know if there is a conflict of interest. Mr.
Chairman, this bill is deficient because it does not do that.
Enough said. I have talked about that other times. Let me speak to
the other fundamental issue, which, frankly, the administration will be
embarrassed on if they do not deal with the issue.
{time} 1100
Mr. Chairman, we have found that there are a large number of high-
level people in the administration who, as of a certain date, had not
even filed their national security background papers. All the Members
that have constituents who work for NSA, CIA, DIA, Honeywell, big
companies and high-tech companies like this, all have to file these
background checks to make sure that the person does not have a
background whereby they would give information to a foreign power.
Mr. Chairman, the White House operation bordered on being sloppy and
some people would even call it much, much worse than that. We found out
about it, we pleaded with them, we had an exchange of communications
with Mr. McLarty at the time, who told us that the same process was
already being done as they did in other administrations, and at that
time Mr. McLarty, who is the chief of staff and who is a good person,
let the Record state, did not even have his White House pass after
almost a year. I mean,it borders on being a scandal.
Mr. Chairman, we found out that Dee Dee Myers, who everyone sees on
the press every day as the White House spokesman, had not even filed
her FBI background check after being on the staff for 1 year and 2
months. Dee Myers said she did not have time. Mr. Chairman, it takes
about 3 hours to do. Can my colleagues imagine the number of small
businessmen that would tell the IRS they did not file because they did
not have time, they did not file with OSHA because they did not have
time? It is just absolutely crazy.
The Members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would
tell me, they would go down to the White House and would be discussing
the most secret, top secret information with regard to North Korea,
Bosnia, Somalia, and Dee Dee Myers would be their listening and
listening and listening and she had not even filed the papers when all
the people that live in my district that work for the CIA and the DIA
and the private contractors all have to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Helsinki Committee and I want to commend
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], for his leadership on that
committee, whose job has been to look at what is taking place in regard
to Eastern Europe. Several years ago before the Berlin Wall fell and
before communism was over, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]
and I took a trip to the Soviet Union and we went into Gulag 35, Perm
Camp 35. It is the last gulag in the Soviet Union. It is the gulag that
Scharansky was in. It is a tortuous place. In the month of August it
was brutal. I can see in the month of January when it snows, it is
absolutely brutal. If one has read Solzhenitsyn's book Gulag
Archipelago, we had seen the Gulag Archipelago. We had been there. The
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I with the State Department
representative brought in a cam recorder, went in and said, ``We are
United States Congressmen,'' and the place went wild. They could not
believe that two Congressmen had visited the gulag and the men insisted
to meet with us and said they were going to go on a sitdown strike
unless they could see us. We brought out video cam recorder, and any
man who wanted to see us, and we found men in machisos, in the torture
chamber, and I cannot give the feeling of that torture chamber here to
the body, but it was a terrible place. As we began to video the men,
well into the night, as darkness came, and this is in the Ural
Mountains, three of the men came forward and said that they had worked
for our government, for the U.S. Government, and because they had
helped our government, they were in prison in Gulag 35.
Mr. Chairman, I did not believe it. It did not seem possible that
these prisoners in this camp could have done it.
To make a very long story short, I came back and checked with our
intelligence agency, and it was true.
Three of the men, three of the men who went through living hell, who
suffered, who worked for our government to bring about the demise of
communism, were in this terrible place. Why were they in this place?
They were in the place because Aldrich Ames who worked at the CIA and
who, it has now come out, told on them. He told. He said to the KGB,
``These men are working for the U.S. Government'' and they were
arrested.
Mr. Chairman, while we cannot talk about this too much on the floor,
we also know that a number were killed. They were killed. These men
were killed. This is real stuff. This is not ``LeCarre,'' a James Bond
book that ends happily ever after on the Riviera. These men were
killed.
Mr. Chairman, right here I have the picture of one of them. This is
Vladimir Potashov. He has been by my office since then. He lives in the
United States We have worked with our government to help him, and he
has contacted me and offered to be a witness, a witness in the Aldrich
Ames case. He worked for us. I wish I could tell more. I wish I could
tell Members everything I knew. I just feel frustrated that I cannot
get it all out. But I cannot tell some things. I cannot tell who in our
government had him do this.
Look at the barbed wire and look at the men. This man here was
Scharansky's roommate. Call Scharansky up in Israel and ask him who his
roommate is. I sent Scharansky the tape. This is Scharansky's roommate.
These men suffered for the United States in the defeat of communism.
I go to the next photo, and there is Vladimir. Here is the Soviet
thing and this young man who wanted to emigrate to Israel, he gave us
the ``V.'' He gave us the ``V.'' Members can talk to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and he will tell them. He gave us the ``V.'' It
took a lot of courage.
Look at the KGB and the forces there. They were going to go after
these guys when we left. There is Vladimir. Look at the face.
Mr. Chairman, what does this have to do with the amendment that I
have to offer that I begged the chairman to let us take in a bipartisan
way? What does it do?
When Patsy Thomasson from the White House came, we asked her and
raised these questions and Patsy Thomasson has stated before our
committee, ``I don't think we have any Aldrich Ames at the White House,
but we certainly could.''
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make sure that we do not. We can
call this the Vladimir Potashov amendment, we can call it the
Scharansky amendment, we can call it the common-sense amendment, but I
would call it the right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the committee would not accept this
amendment. We are going to offer it later on, it will probably be ruled
out of order. I for one having been in the gulag, having met with these
men, could never, ever support a bill that I think would jeopardize the
security of the United States. Why should not Dee Dee Myers file her
papers with the FBI? Why should not these people do it? All our
amendment says, in 30 days they have to file their applications and the
FBI background check has to be done in 6 months. Every other
administration says they can do it in 2 months. We also have a proviso
to allow the President to exempt if there is a particular case.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the committee to accept this amendment
when it comes up, because I am going to offer this until the cows come
home. I am writing every Senator on the Senate side of this, with
pictures. I will never, ever, ever let this issue go as long as the
blood flows through my brains and my body and I have an opportunity to
speak on this floor, because, frankly, that is why I was elected to
Congress, to do what I think is important. I am embarrassed that the
committee will not take a fundamental national security amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I hear we want to have major investigations of this and
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rightfully so is doing
that.
But here we have a fundamental potential leak and we are doing
absolutely nothing.
I strongly rise in support of this amendment and urge when it comes
up that hopefully we will adopt it in a bipartisan, noncontroversial
manner. We will throw bouquets to the administration, bouquets to the
committee and bouquets to everybody. Not to adopt this amendment would
be a terrible mistake for our national security and for the integrity
of this committee.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 1995
Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill. Voting to support this
bill without allowing for important amendments will limit White House
accountability and abdicate our role in proper oversight. We should not
ignore the lax procedures that this White House has exhibited in a
number of areas.
In addition, the manner in which the Federal pay rise is addressed in
this bill threatens to result in many RIF's. In full committee, Mr.
McDade had offered an amendment that would have paid for the raises
without making the agencies absorb the cost as is the current language
in the bill. I believe Mr. McDade's language was preferable in terms of
protecting current Federal employees from layoffs.
proposed amendments
Asking for financial disclosure by those with 24-hour-a-day White
House access passes is a reasonable measure for this administration and
all future administrations, both Democrat and Republican. This
amendment should be allowed.
Last week, the White House said it would require political
consultants with White House passes to provide information like that
filed by special Government employees in a directive from Chief of
Staff Mack McLarty. While this is a start, I believe it is important
that we memorialize this policy in this bill so that it applies to this
Administration and all future administrations.
I had hoped this amendment would be accepted as a friendly amendment.
It merely requires that the political consultants who appear to be
permanently, not temporarily, ensconced in the White House will file
the same SF-278 as the other senior aides with whom they regularly
work. The form referred to in the recent White House directive is the
SF-450, which is usually used for temporary employees. In addition, the
SF-450 does not provide for listing of gifts and travel from outside
sources. Finally, the directive does not even require the filling out
of the actual SF-450 form--with the attendant legal consequences for
not providing accurate information--but merely requires providing the
same information required from the form.
Expediting the White House pass process also is a reasonable measure
that would apply to this and all future administrations. We recently
learned that the White House had radically departed from previous
practice in obtaining background investigations on White House
employees and had let hundred of employees work for months on only a
temporary pass.
My concerns prompting these amendments focus largely on
accountability. Nowhere is accountability more important than in the
White House, no matter who is occupying the position. I do not mean for
these amendments to be a partisan issue. I raised these concerns in the
previous administration when there were appearance problems with
lobbyists, but even then, those individuals did not have 24-hour-a-day
White House access passes.
financial disclosure by political consultants with white house passes
The recent GAO Travelgate report noted that the access that Hollywood
producer and Clinton friend, Harry Thomason, had to the White House
during the White House travel office debacle conveyed ``the appearance
of influence and authority * * * unrestricted access of nongovernment
employees creates an opportunity for influence without the
accountability * * *.'' The recent directive issued by the Chief of
Staff makes a start at revealing the clients of political consultants
with White House passes but this amendment sets this policy into law
permanently.
The White House informed us, in response to our committee questions,
that the outside consultants work on ``whatever issues on which the
President, the Vice President, the First lady, or members of their
staffs request them to consult.'' As detailed in the new book by Bob
Woodward, ``The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House,'' these outside
consultants were constantly at war with many of the President's
economic advisers and tried to reshape their work on numerous
occasions. The Washington Post just last week pointed out that the
consultants had understated ``to the point of distortion their own
roles inside the White House, as well as understate somewhat their
various connections with the outside world * * * It's well known that
these four particularly have played such a hands-on, staff-like role in
this administration * * * many outside clients hire them precisely
because of the inside influence they are presumed to have.'' Given
their integral involvement, why not apply the same rules to them?
Mr. Woodward reveals that this potential for problems did not go
unnoticed at the White House. Howard Paster, until recently the White
House's liaison with Congress, had this to say about the consultants:
It was outrageous that the outside consultants were
providing the President with major policy option papers in
confidential memos that Paster often never saw or saw only
too late. If lobbyists with business clients had this kind of
relationship with the President, it would be a giant scandal.
The consultants had clients, some businesses, some
politicians like Senator Moynihan, who paid big fees for
their work. Paster wasn't sure the political consultants were
that different from other outside businesses. He resented
their influence and was sure they presented Clinton with a
potentially serious liability. Valuable inside information
and conflicts abounded.
Mr. Paster filed a financial disclosure form. So did the economic
advisers that Carville and company were constantly doing battle with.
What is wrong with applying the same rules to them as apply to those
they are working with day after day? In fact, in a letter to me, Lloyd
Cutler wrote that a background investigation--the only step the
consultants have agreed to--is ``only one of the steps that a person
must go through to get a permanent pass. Other steps include attending
training in ethics and security matters, completed financial disclosure
forms, and undergoing IRS and other checks.''
In hearings before our subcommittee in March, White House witness,
Patsy Thomasson stated that the consultants would ``be required to file
all necessary paperwork as if they were an employee of the White
House.'' The financial disclosure amendment would make this commitment
permanent for this and all future administrations.
Unlike other issues where a Member can go to an authorizing committee
to address the matter, this bill is our only vehicle to address
systemic problems at the White House. There are only approximately 50
legislative days left this year to address issues. If we don't address
this problem here and now, it will not be solved. If you care about
ethics, now is the time to stand and deliver on this issue.
white house passes
In addition to this financial disclosure problem I had also wanted to
offer an amendment providing for a timely processing of White House
passes. As we learned earlier this year, after repeated denials from
the White House, the White House pass process was in disarray. Hundreds
of staffers did not have permanent passes and many had not even filled
out the paperwork to begin the background investigation process.
Security clearances were not even in place for senior officials such as
Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers. Chief of Staff Mack McLarty didn't even
get his permanent pass until March of this year.
In the past, permanent passes were issued within 2 to 3 months or
maybe even 4 months at the outer limits, according to those we have
spoken with who conducted this process in the past. The amendment that
I seek would provide for 6 months to complete the entire process, and
it also uses the White House provided guideline to submit SF-86 forms
within 30 days of commencing employment.
When I discussed these matters with those who handled White House
passes in previous administrations, I was told that the delay in
obtaining passes for over a year was ``unprecedented.'' This amendment
would provide for an orderly process and prevent this situation from
happening again either in this administration or in any future
administrations.
The White House pass process affects national security in an
important way too. It is important that we follow the rules because
even when we do follow the rules, there will be problems that slip
through. When I visited the Soviet Union in 1989, I was in the last
gulag there: Perm Camp 35. Some of the men there told me that they
worked for our Government and it now has come out that they had been
sentenced to the gulag because of Aldrich Ames giving information about
them to the Russian Government. As numerous security experts have
noted, it is the mission of counterintelligence agents to obtain
information about such holes in security so that they might take
advantage of such lax procedures in some manner. If Aldrich Ames, with
a background investigation and security clearance can do what he did,
what kind of potential problems are we creating when we don't follow
any of the necessary procedures?
As Patsy Thomasson stated before our committee, ``We don't think we
have any Aldrich Ameses at the White House * * * but we certainly
could.'' This amendment to provide for timely processing of White House
passes would lower the likelihood of Aldrich Ameses.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Darden], a member of the committee.
(Mr. DARDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding 3
minutes to me to discuss this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4539, the Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Bill. I want to
commend Chairman Hoyer, Mr. Lightfoot, and other members of the
subcommittee for their hard work and efforts in fashioning this bill.
As Chairman Hoyer and the ranking member have pointed out, this is a
fiscally responsible bill with hard freezes in the funding levels for
most accounts. I would like to highlight several aspects of H.R. 4539
mentioned by the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Chairman, under the Department of the Treasury budget, the
committee has provided funding for the important activities of the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center [FLETC]. As the Members well
know, FLETC conducts more than 200 different training programs for law
enforcement personnel from over 70 Federal agencies and many State
police groups. These programs range from basic, entry-level law
enforcement to antiterrorism techniques and financial fraud
investigation. In 1993, FLETC's three sites graduated over 23,000
students. From experience, I can tell you that FLETC and FLETC
personnel are a source of pride to their States and community.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to FLETC, this bill provides funding for
several other important law enforcement agencies including the Secret
service, the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, and Firearms [BATF], and the
financial crimes enforcement network [FinCEN].
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that within the U.S.
Customs Service budget, the committee has provided $18 million and 186
agents to enforce the provisions of NAFTA. This NAFTA enforcement
initiative will establish teams of law enforcement, trade, and
inspection personnel to prevent transshipping, country of origin, and
foreign subsidy violations.
Mr. Chairman, this funding and personnel level for NAFTA enforcement
honors the enforcement commitment made to many Members of this body who
were concerned about the possible effect of NAFTA on American
industries, particularly textiles. As a member of the Textile Caucus, I
strongly support this enforcement initiative and believe that it will
help revitalize American textile-related industries.
Again, I commend the chairman, ranking member, and committee staff on
their efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor today.
{time} 1110
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], a member of the subcommittee and a very able
Member of Congress.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I, as a member of the subcommittee, think
it is important to share some thoughts on this particular piece of
legislation.
Much has been said, and rightfully so, about the open attitude that
has been taken by the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], which I very much appreciate. Even though we have
not always agreed upon different matters in the bill, I think it is
important to the process that disagreements have been handled in an
orderly and respectful fashion, and there have been many difficult
decisions taken in the bill.
I recognize the spending freeze for White House personnel is one that
has political difficulty, especially for a member of the President's
own party, and I appreciate the fact that a decision such as that
nevertheless was made. But there are some factors that are not included
in this bill that are of concern to many of us.
Part of it has to do with the White House compensation, the fact that
members of the President's staff are not held to public account as to
how much they are being paid.
If you look at a staff member, someone who works for a Member of
Congress, there is public disclosure of how much is being paid to them
and how much it costs the taxpayers. The White House holds itself
exempt, and will continue to hold itself exempt, so long as we in
Congress do not require that there be public disclosure of the amounts
that the White House spends on its personnel person by person.
An amendment that I had for that was not made in order to be
presented here on the floor.
In a similar fashion, there is difficulty with White House travel.
The President is a political official both in the sense of being a
holder of public office and a political figure within his party. He
does work that is campaign work as well as work that is Presidential.
He has people that travel with him for those purposes, and if they
travel on official aircraft but for a campaign-type purpose or a
nonoffice purpose, they are supposed to make reimbursement to the
taxpayers for that. The White House tells us that is being done, but
they refuse to provide specifics to us as to who has made how much
reimbursement or been billed through the White House travel office,
which itself has become controversial.
The public has a right to know, but again, unless we defeat the
motion to rise, my amendment on that cannot be offered on this floor.
However, there are other amendments which I do intend to offer.
One of the features of this bill is that it expends $508 million for
construction of new Federal court houses. Now, there is need to plan
ahead in construction of office space for use by the judiciary, but
there is also tremendous controversy.
The General Services Administration, which oversees this
construction, when through a review process last year, and they cut
down the size of different buildings that they planned to construct.
However, little attention seems to be paid to how much we are spending
per square foot. Even if you make a building smaller, if you still
expend an exorbitant amount per square foot of construction space, you
are not doing right by the taxpayers.
Let me give you some examples: Across the country, to build a public
building, or private building, for that matter, generally construction
costs do not usually exceed $90 to $100 a square foot. The State of
Arizona built a new facility for its State supreme court recently. They
paid less than $100 per square foot. They paid $93 a square foot.
Yet to build a new Federal courthouse in Tucson, AZ, it is now
proposed that we spend $181 per square foot, twice as much as it cost
to build a State courthouse, and that ratio seems to hold true all
across the country. If you are building a State courthouse or a local
courthouse, it costs about half as much as if the Federal Government
builds a courthouse. That is wrong.
I have an amendment to provide proportional cuts in construction
costs for new Federal courthouses and Federal office buildings.
Frankly, the amendment is rather modest. It only tries to cut about a
fourth of the amount by which the cost exceeds $100 per square foot,
and yet I anticipate there will be opposition.
But this amendment would save the taxpayers $32 million out of this
$508 million that is to be spent under this piece of legislation, and I
commend that amendment to the other Members of Congress.
I also will offer amendments to cut two very minor Federal agencies.
These two small agencies, the Administrative Conference of the United
States, and the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, costs
the taxpayers about $3 million a year. To do what? One of them is
supposed to be coordinating the communication between Federal, State,
and local government.
Mr. Chairman, we have dozens of groups that already do that, public
groups and private groups as well. We do not need to spend millions of
dollars more just to give a few more people a job on the Federal
payroll.
And in a similar fashion, the Administrative Conference is supposed
to give advisories to the thousands of other Federal bureaucrats who
write Federal regulations. As I say, we have thousands of people who
are doing that already. Do we need just a handful more people to give
them advice, again at the expense of taxpayers?
We have difficulty, it seems, cutting amounts of spending, whether
they be large amounts such as Federal construction or small amounts
such as small Federal agencies.
I think that if we are serious about saving the taxpayers money, we
need to pass the amendments to take on all of those.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a colloquy with the gentleman on
several key points. The first point would be the overall spending level
in this bill compared to the spending level in last year's Treasury and
Postal Service appropriations bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I explained in my opening statement, if
you discount the $405 million that the Budget Committee authorized as
``off budget'' we are approximately $200 hundred million under fiscal
year 1994 enacted.
Mr. PENNY. Under last year's appropriated level?
Mr. HOYER. Yes; under. I want to give you an exact figure.
Mr. PENNY. I appreciate that.
Mr. HOYER. In gross discretionary budget authority, we are $206
million over fiscal year 1994; in terms of discretionary outlays, $615
million over, and again, if you take the $405 million and back that
out, we are about $200 million below 1994.
Mr. PENNY. On outlays?
Mr. HOYER. In budget authority, but $6 million below the 602(b)
allocation in outlays, and substantially under the President's request
in outlays, as I explained in my opening statement.
Mr. PENNY. If I might proceed on a related matter, and that is the
level of the pay increase for Federal workers for the coming fiscal
year. Did the President request in this budget any pay increase of any
sort for fiscal year 1995?
{time} 1120
Mr. HOYER. the answer to the gentleman's question is yes to the
extent that the President included within his budget request $1.1
billion which anticipated a 1.6-percent raise for Federal employees.
That was not delineated as to whether it was a comparability adjustment
or a locality adjustment. It was just $1.1 billion.
Mr. PENNY. And the amount that would be authorized under the
committee proposal?
Mr. HOYER. The committee bill provides a similar pay increase for
civilians as the defense authorization bill provides for military
personnel. That would be a 2-percent across-the-board, rather than 1.6
percent, and one-half of the locality pay that is provided by law. That
would be an additional $700 million, $300 million to be absorbed by
defense and $400 million to be absorbed by all the rest.
Mr. PENNY. Again, if I could reclaim my time, is that an additional
amount? Is that an additional amount beyond the amount necessary to
finance the 1.6 percent the President requested?
Mr. HOYER. Yes, it is. It is $1.1 billion plus $700 million.
Mr. PENNY. And how is that amount accommodated within the budget? Is
this an amount that has to be eaten by the agencies, or is this a new
appropriated level?
Mr. HOYER. One point one billion dollars is provided in the budget.
Seven hundred million dollars would be absorbed.
Mr. PENNY. So essentially the amount above the President's request is
going to be absorbed----
Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
Mr. PENNY. By the departments and agencies involved.
Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those responses.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp]
(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for a
provision in the report language accompanying H.R. 4539. It regards the
taxation of associate member dues paid to agricultural organizations.
My distinguished colleague, Mr. Lightfoot of Iowa, and I have worked
together on this critical issue and hope to make it a concern of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, this issue affects people in all 50 States and is a
concern to many tax-exempt associations outside the agricultural
community as well. It is my hope the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]
will conduct a full analysis of the impact their ruling will have on
farmers and farm groups, and in so doing, choose not to implement its
recent Technical Advice Memorandums which reverse longstanding IRS
policy.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
this bill and its current form. I went before the Committee on Rules
and attempted to amend this bill to take care of what I consider a
gross injustice to over 99 percent of Federal employees.
We have two pay rates in Federal Government. Of the 3,000,000 Federal
employees, we pay those 3,000 at the RTC on a much more lucrative pay
scale. We not only pay them a base pay 10 percent more than all other
Federal employees, but then we add a geographical adjuster which in
Washington is 14 percent more than other Federal employees make. In San
Francisco an RTC employee not only makes 10 percent more than Federal
employees in every other Federal agency, but tacked onto this they get
a 31-percent cost-of-living increase where other Federal employees get
an 8-percent increase. As a result of this, Mr. Chairman, RTC employees
are being paid anywhere from 24 to 30 percent more than employees at
Social Security.
Not only is this unfair to Federal employees, Mr. Chairman, but let
me end by saying this:
My son is working this summer. He is a junior in high school. He pays
$40 each week in Federal taxes. It takes his salary this summer, every
dime of Federal income tax that he will pay this summer, and 9 other of
his fellow workers; it takes all 10 of those this summer to pay what
one RTC employee makes, the additional amount that employee makes over
another Federal employee doing the same job. So, Mr. Chairman, my
teenager and nine other employees will work all summer, and every dime
of Federal income tax that they pay will be used to pay someone at the
RTC to do a job and will pay them an additional amount more than
employees at all other Federal agencies.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is not only an outrage to other Federal
employees in pay discrimination and inequity, it is an inequity to the
American taxpayer. This ought to be ended.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer] for yielding, and I rise in strong support of a bill which I
think should be called the Hoyer compromise. The gentlemen deserves
great credit for having wrought much out of very little. This is a very
frugal bill, more than a billion dollars less than the President asked,
and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has managed a modest
Federal pay raise, more than would otherwise have been possible. But it
is a raise that is considerably less than the statutory raise that
Federal workers expected. The administration underfunded the statutory
raise by more than $1.6 billion. A raise that equates civilian and
military employees seems to me to be the kind of artful compromise for
which the gentleman has become noted. I was concerned that, with
unusually harsh budget mechanisms in place, there might not have been
the flexibility to, in fact, pay for this raise. But I bow to the
experience of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that there has
usually been enough flexibility in agency budgets to absorb modest
raises. With lower allocations this year as well as budget caps, I
feared that this might not be the case this year and wrote an amendment
that would have cut less than 1 percent from service contracts. The
procedures for transferring the savings to Federal raises would have
been difficult to put in place this year, but I do intend to revisit
the $105 billion service contract issue because, so far as I can tell,
that is the only item that has been immune from cuts. The OMB says that
service contracts are out of control but has not yet put in place a
mechanism to get them back under control. Service contracts too, should
make some contribution to deficit reduction, even as Federal employees
have had to make contributions year after year. I looked at the data
and found that every year since 1978, and that is as far back as I
went, Federal workers have not received the entire statutory raise that
we told them they would get. I believe that this is bad management
practice.
Mr. Chairman, I served on the board of three Fortune 500 companies
before I came to Congress, and the collective wisdom of the private
sector is that if you have to make your cuts, you make your cuts once
and for all, get your savings, and then give the remaining labor force
at least the expected small increments that you can afford. Repeated
givebacks gives us back a demoralized work force and the productivity
that inevitably comes with it. It is a particularly bad practice in the
Federal Government where we are now involved in a 10-year period of
locality pay make-up in order to eliminate a large gap between Federal
and private sector wages.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, I accept the judgment of the chairman of the
subcommittee that there has been historically the flexibility to
accommodate raises, and I compliment him for the compromise he
achieved.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia for her comments, and if the gentlewoman will yield, let me
simply observe that we have expressed the concern the gentlewoman had
and that the gentleman from Virginia had, and we have discussed it with
OMB in terms of whether this would require additional risk. We have
been told that it will not, and we are relying on that. We are
certainly going to look at that between now and the time of conference.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say in summary that from a fiscal
perspective this is, I think, one of the most responsible pieces of
legislation we have brought to the floor in quite some time. We have
cut the White House budget 9.3 percent. We have put some money back in
for law enforcement where, in the opinion of a number of the members of
the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, the cuts had gone much
further than they should have gone and basically would debilitate law
enforcement and keep them from doing the job we have given them to do.
Again, obviously, there are going to be a number of disagreements
over the issues concerning the operation of the White House. As I
mentioned earlier, this is the lightning rod because it is the only
place where we have an opportunity to talk about White House operations
here on the floor. Again I would like to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for his cooperation. It was a tough bill, but I think,
when all is said and done, from a fiscal perspective, we did a very
good job. I am not much at bragging on things we do, but I really think
in this case we did a good job. One always would like to find somewhere
else where we could cut a little more, but we really got to the bottom
line, and as was mentioned earlier, we took the lower of the budget
figure or the President's request, whichever was the lowest, and that
seemed to be the fairest way we could approach the subject, because it
involved input from a lot of different sources in that respect.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman of
the subcommittee, and as we go through the bill title by title, I am
sure some of the other things Members are disagreeing about will be
addressed and we will have a good debate on these issues today.
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just make this observation: The gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Penny] asked a question about how much money we had to
spend and how much we were over 1994. The ranking member, the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], and others, have said that this is a
fiscally responsible bill. Let me tell the Members why it is and why we
have had such a crunch.
Just to reiterate, in 1994 the President's request was $12,549
million in outlays. If you take out tax compliance, if you take out the
revenues added in the President's budget from $241 million in
additional fees, you would have needed $13,195 million to fund the
President's bill. The total in the bill is $12,254 million. That is
$941 million under the President's figure. Looked at in another way,
with that total of $12,254 million, if you subtract tax compliance and
prior year outlays which were obligated and had to be spent this year
and the net loss of GSA rents, the resources available to our
committee--and this is the key--were at $11,502 million.
In order to fund the 1994 enactment, which is essentially what the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] was asking, we would have needed
$137 million more, so that we are in fact discounting those three, the
two losses of revenues and the tax compliance initiative, and we would
have needed $137 million more to fund at 1994 levels.
Mr. Chairman, we will be debating some issues regarding the White
House. The White House has certainly made mistakes. The Dee Dee Myers
incident was inappropriate, to say the least. That has been corrected.
We will have a number of amendments, and we will discuss them.
We will discuss passes. I want to say that passes, as was testified
to by the Secret Service, are for maintaining a secure and safe
environment for the President and the Vice President. That is what the
passes are for. We do not have passes to come into our offices because
there is not a perceived need to keep Members of Congress safe because
they have not been threatened, at least physically. As a result, we do
not have passes. We do have passes to come generally into the building,
but there are no background checks for that. It is simply to make sure
there is nothing on the person of somebody who comes into the building,
a bomb or a weapon which may be threatening. This is what our passes
are for.
Second, there is a necessity for security clearances for people in
the White House. However, as was already testified to, secure secret
documents are not made available to people whether or not they have a
White House pass, whether or not they have access to the White House,
unless they have in fact a security clearance. This did not happen.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is correct in the instance of
Ms. Myers. But Mr. Wolf also mentioned the Aldrich Ames cases. The
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] feels very strongly about the danger
to which our employees overseas were put by the traitorous action of
Aldrich Ames. Let me point out that Aldrich Ames worked for the CIA,
Aldrich Ames went through all the security clearances, Aldrich Ames was
repeatedly checked by the CIA, and not withstanding that, these
incidents occurred.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good bill. I hope that we do pass
it. There is not enough money in it, but it has what we think we
fiscally can afford.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 4539,
the bill providing for Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriations for fiscal year 1995. This bill is the product of many
hours of hard work, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I want to congratulate Chairman Hoyer and thank him for his
outstanding work in putting together a very balanced bill. Mr. Hoyer
was asked to do more this year with less. I believe that he has
succeeded in that mandate.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address one specific matter of concern
throughout the western United States, but of special concern to
municipal electric utilities in the Pacific Northwest. Pages seven and
eight of House Report 103-534 note that the Bonneville Power
Administration [BPA] 3 years ago requested the Treasury Department to
develop a revised methodology under Section 9(f) of Public Law 96-501
to implement Congress' original intent that electric resources financed
by public entities and acquired by BPA for BPA's use in meeting public
entities' loads be treated the same as if the resources were taken
directly into public entities systems. I understand that BPA and many
municipal utilities fear that the Treasury Department's existing
methodology may fail to implement this original intent.
The apparent lack of clear rules threatens to undermine the
development and financing of important public power projects in the
Pacific Northwest. As a long-time supporter of public power, I am
greatly concerned about the impact on municipalities. For example, on
June 30, 1993, the IRS was requested to approve tax-exempt financing
under Section 9(f) of Public Law 96-501 for an electric conservation
project sponsored by a public utility district in the State of Oregon.
On January 18, 1994, a similar request was submitted in connection with
electric conservation projects sponsored by eight public utility
districts in the State of Washington. A third request for IRS ruling
was submitted on March 15, 1994, in connection with another
conservation project sponsored by another State of Washington municipal
utility.
Although the Internal Revenue Service's existing methodology calls
for rulings to be issued within 60 days, to date the IRS has failed to
respond in any substantive way to any of these three important ruling
requests. Clearly, there is a problem when a ruling required within 60
days has not been made some 10 months later.
On page 8 of House Report 103-534, the Committee requests the
Secretary of the Treasury to provide a report by January 1, 1995, on
the need for a revised methodology implementing Section 9(f) of Public
Law 96-501. I understand that the Committee intends that the Secretary
will report that a revised methodology is needed if he finds that the
existing methodology fails to treat electric resources financed by
public entities and acquired by BPA for BPA's use in meeting public
entities' loads the same as if the resources were taken directly into
the public entities' systems.
I also understand that the Committee intends the Secretary of the
Treasury will report a revised methodology is needed if he finds that
the IRS consistently has failed to issue rulings under Section 9(f) of
Public Law 92-501 within 60 days after receiving written requests, as
called for under the existing methodology. However, I understand that
the Committee intends that no report is necessary if the Secretary of
the Treasury adopts a revised methodology consistent with these
principles and submits that revised methodology to the Committee by
November 1, 1994. Finally, I appreciate the Chairman's commitment to
continue working with me on this important matter.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a balanced approach that advances
important policies while recognizing current fiscal realities. The bill
is the product of hard work and tough choices. We have been asked to do
more with less. The Committee and the Chairman have met that mandate. I
strongly urge a yes vote.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4539, the
Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
I want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee and
particularly to Chairman Hoyer for funding an initiative in this bill
that is vitally important to the American textile and apparel industry.
H.R. 4539 includes $18 million earmarked to the Customs Service for
enforcement of textile and apparel trade laws, along with other trade
enforcement measures. Customs is to use these funds to hire an
additional 186 full-time-equivalent employees. Of the 186 additional
employees, 100 are to be dedicated to the enforcement of textile and
apparel trade laws.
This funding keeps faith with a pledge the Clinton administration
made to a number of Members during the NAFTA debate. We asked the
President to commit these resources because textile and apparel trade
restrictions seem to be honored more in the breach than in the
enforcement. For example, Customs has estimated that as much as $4
billion in textile/apparel imports may enter this country each year
illegally, as a result of transshipping. And as serious as that problem
is today, it could become even more widespread if NAFTA is not
diligently policed.
President Clinton pledged in his letter of November 16, 1993, that
Customs will hire 50 additional employees to work ``exclusively, to the
extent practical'' on non-NAFTA textile enforcement and 50 employees to
work on NAFTA-related textile enforcement. The President also pledged
that Customs' commercial program, associated with both the enforcement
of NAFTA and other textile and apparel enforcement, ``will be held
harmless from our government-wide effort to reduce employment levels.''
The Government Operations Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and
Monetary Affairs, which I chair, has held hearings to assess Customs'
resources to deal with the textile transshipment problem, and to
enforce in particular NAFTA's rule of origin with respect to textile
and apparel products. Our hearing record shows that as many as 33.5
million textile articles are transshipped to this country each year.
Our record also shows that Customs lacks the manpower and resources to
combat effectively this sort of fraud and evasion.
NAFTA could make the problem worse. NAFTA means that the United
States will sell more American-made textile products to Mexico and
Canada. But it also means that more Mexican and Canadian textile
imports will enter our markets. Without adequate enforcement, NAFTA
will create a major opportunity for countries like China to transship
goods into the United States. The Customs Service will be required to
inspect those products by enforcing a strict but complicated textile
rule of origin. With inadequate resources to police existing laws,
Customs can hardly be expected to take on this additional burden. That
is why this initiative is so important.
I am aware of the tight funding constraints in which the
Appropriations Committee operated this year. But I believe that the
committee has made a wise long-term investment. If past experience is
any guide, this small increment of extra money will more than pay for
itself in additional tariffs, fees, penalties, and other revenues for
the government.
These extra resources will not put an end to the problems of evasion,
circumvention, and transshipment in textile and apparel trade, but they
will help. I urge support for this initiative and passage of this bill.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, as we take up the Transportation
appropriations bill, I would like to express my gratitude to
subcommittee Chairman Carr and ranking member Wolf for their leadership
on this important legislation. Their efforts to institute a strict
level of criteria to fund Transportation projects signals their
commitment to fiscal responsibility.
I will certainly miss working with Bob Carr in the House. He has
always been most cooperative and helpful and the residents of southern
California are indebted to him for his attention to their
transportation requirements.
I especially appreciate the consideration of southern California's
transportation needs with the inclusion of the Eastern Transportation
Corridor, the Orange County Transitway Project, the Bristol Street
Improvement Project in Santa Ana, the Interstate 5 Capacity
Enhancement, and the State Route 71 planning and design project in
Riverside, CA.
The inclusion of these and other important projects in San Diego,
Orange, and Riverside counties will help the region meet its
challenging transportation needs. I believe that this legislation takes
a new approach to highway and transit programs, and reorients the
direction of this Nation's transportation policy.
Congestion on southern California roadways has been a bane to the
continued growth of this area. This legislation will be a first step
toward alleviating the traffic congestion that southern California
motorists face every day.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank members and staff
of the Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee on Transportation for
their hard work on this bill. Your hard work paves the way for meeting
our Nation's transportation needs.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend Chairman Hoyer,
Representative Lightfoot, and the other members of the Treasury, Postal
Service Subcommittee for producing such a good bill under extremely
tough circumstances. As a former member of the subcommittee, I
understand how important the programs funded in this bill are, and how
difficult it must have been for the Subcommittee to do so much with so
little.
I'd like to thank the subcommittee for two items of particular
interest to me. First, the report accompanying the bill contains
language building upon the classification-cost reform effort I
initiated last year through this and other appropriations bills. As
required by last year's bills, the Office of Management and Budget
[OMB] produced this spring the first-ever overall accounting of how
much Federal agencies are spending to classify and protect secret
information. OMB found that the government directly spends roughly
$2.28 billion on secrecy-related activities. Another $13.8 billion is
estimated to go to reimburse defense, state, and intelligence
contractors for compliance with security procedures. The OMB report
also calculated that 32,400 workers are employed to safeguard a growing
stockpile of secrets--including some at agencies like the Department of
Education that would appear to have little need for doing so.
Getting these estimates from OMB was the first step towards knocking
this system off of autopilot. The language included in the report
before us today takes the next step, by directing OMB to track how
these government classification funds are actually spent. Once we know
where the money is going, we can begin targeting inefficiencies and
producing savings. Since President Clinton is expected to issue shortly
a new executive order revising government classification policies, the
report language also directs OMB to submit to Congress its plans for
reducing expenditures based on that new executive order.
``Reinventing'' the secrecy system should save money and restore
accountability--both key principles in a democratic society.
Second, the report accompanying the bill also contains language
directing the United States Postal Service to complete design work on
the new post office in Breckenridge, Colorado in fiscal year 1995, so
that construction can begin the following year. This is very important
to the people of Breckenridge, whose current temporary post office has
very limited parking and limited lobby and mail-dock facilities. Since
there is no home or business delivery of mail in Breckenridge, this
makes it very difficult for the town's rapidly growing number of
residents and businesses to get their mail. It's especially a problem
during the ski season, when the town's population can reach over
25,000.
To alleviate this problem, the Postal Service spent $1 million
several years ago to buy land just north of town, where there would be
room for a post office with parking. However, because the present
facility is still structurally sound, and because Postal Service
criteria give little weight to factors like a lack of accessibility,
it's unlikely that the Postal Service will soon fund work on the new
facility. Yet the need for a new facility in Breckenridge is just as
great as anywhere, and the language included in the report is very
welcome.
Again, I'd like to commend and thank the members of the Subcommittee,
and I urge all of my colleagues to support this well thought out
legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4539
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, 1995, 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 $100,000 for official reception and
representation expenses, of which $75,000 is for such
expenses of the international affairs function of the
Offices; not to exceed $3,101,000 to remain available until
September 30, 1997, shall be available for information
technology modernization requirements; 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; not to exceed $490,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1997, for repairs and improvements to the
Main Treasury Building and Annex; $105,150,000: Provided,
That of the offsetting collections credited to this account,
$79,000 are permanently canceled.
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, hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to
exceed $2,000,000 for official travel expenses; 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; $28,897,000.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to
exceed $4,000 for official reception and representation
expenses; $18,280,000: Provided, That of the offsetting
collections credited to this account, $1,000 are permanently
canceled.
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
(limitation of availability of deposits)
For necessary expenses of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, as
authorized by Public Law 102-393, not to exceed $15,000,000,
to be derived from deposits in the Fund: Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 9703, no later than September 30,
1995, the Secretary shall transfer $32,960,000 from deposits
in the Fund to the General Fund of the Treasury.
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
fifty-two for police-type use) 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 $9,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; room and
board for student interns; and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That the Center is authorized to
accept and use gifts of property, both real and personal, and
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 for training
United States Postal Service law enforcement personnel and
Postal police officers, at the discretion of the Director;
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; training of private
sector security officials on a space-available basis with
reimbursement of actual costs to this appropriation; travel
expenses of non-Federal personnel to attend State and local
course development meetings at the Center: Provided further,
That the Center is authorized to obligate funds in
anticipation of reimbursements from agencies receiving
training at 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
short term medical services for students undergoing training
at the Center; $46,713,000, of which $8,821,000 for materials
and support costs of Federal law enforcement basic training
shall remain available until September 30, 1997.
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, $9,815,000, to remain
available until expended.
Financial Management Service
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service,
$185,389,000, of which not to exceed $13,459,000 shall remain
available until expended for systems modernization
initiatives. In addition, $90,000, to be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund, to reimburse the Service for
administrative and personnel ex penses for financial
management of the Fund, as authorized by section 1012 of
Public Law 101-380: Provided, That of the offsetting
collections credited to this account, $192,000 are
permanently canceled.
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 six hundred
and fifty vehicles for police-type use for replacement only
and hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire of aircraft; and
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 $10,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; for training of State and local
law enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement;
provision of laboratory assistance to State and local
agencies, with or without reimbursement; of which $22,000,000
shall be available solely for the enforcement of the Federal
Alcohol Administration Act during fiscal year 1995;
$376,181,000, 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 drug-related joint law enforcement operations with
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and for the
payment of overtime salaries, travel, fuel, training,
equipment, and other similar costs of State and local law
enforcement officers that are incurred in joint operations
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Provided,
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.
section 925(c): Provided further, That no funds made
available by this or any other Act may be used to implement
any reorganization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms or transfer of the Bureau's functions, missions, or
activities to other agencies or Departments in the fiscal
year ending on September 30, 1995: 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, That of the offsetting collections
credited to this account, $4,000 are permanently canceled.
United States Customs Service
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Customs
Service, including purchase of up to 1,000 motor vehicles of
which 960 are for replacement only, including 990 for police-
type use and commercial operations; hire of motor vehicles;
not to exceed $20,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; and awards of compensation to
informers, as authorized by any Act enforced by the United
States Customs Service; $1,391,700,000, 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
Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that Account; of the total, not to
exceed $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental
space in connection with preclearance operations, and not to
exceed $4,000,000 shall be available until expended for
research: Provided, That uniforms may be purchased without
regard to the general purchase price limitation for the
current fiscal year: Provided further, That $750,000 shall be
available for additional part-time and temporary positions
in the Honolulu Customs District: Provided further, That
$10,000,000 shall be available for the Center for Study of
Western Hemispheric Trade as authorized by Public Law 103-
182: Provided further, That of the offsetting collections
credited to this account, $410,000 are permanently
canceled.
Operation and Maintenance, 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;
$78,991,000, of which $7,233,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 1997.
customs services at small airports
(to be derived from fees collected)
Such sums as may be necessary, not to exceed $1,406,000,
for expenses for the provision of Customs services at certain
small airports or other facilities when authorized by law and
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, including
expenditures for the salary and expenses of individuals
employed to provide such services, to be derived from fees
collected by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to
section 236 of Public Law 98-573 for each of these airports
or other facilities when authorized by law and designated by
the Secretary of the Treasury, and to remain available until
expended.
United States Mint
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Mint;
$54,770,000, of which $1,540,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 1997, for expansion and improvements.
Bureau of the Public Debt
Administering the Public Debt
For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt
issues of the United States; $183,458,000: Provided, That in
fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, the Secretary is authorized
to collect fees of not less than $46 for each definitive
security issue provided to customers, and an annual
maintenance fee of not less than $25 for each Treasury Direct
Investor Account exceeding $100,000 in par value: Provided
further, That in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, of the
definitive security fees collected, not to exceed $600,000,
and of the annual maintenance fees for Treasury Direct
Investor Account collected, not to exceed $2,500,000, shall
be retained and used in the current fiscal year for the
specific purpose of offsetting costs of Bureau of the Public
Debt's marketable security activities, and any fees collected
in excess of said amounts shall be deposited as miscellaneous
receipts in the Treasury: Provided further, That the sum
appropriated herein from the General Fund for fiscal year
1995 shall be reduced by not more than $600,000 as definitive
security issue fees are collected and not more than
$2,500,000 as Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance
fees are collected, so as to result in a final fiscal year
1995 appropriation from the General Fund estimated at
$180,358,000.
payment of government losses in shipment
Beginning in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, there are
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to make payments
for the replacement of valuables, or the value thereof, lost,
destroyed, or damaged in the course of shipments effected
pursuant to section 1 of the Government Losses in Shipment
Act, as amended.
Internal Revenue Service
Administration and Management
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, not
otherwise provided for; management services, and inspection;
including purchase (not to exceed 125 for replacement only,
for police-type use) 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;
$225,632,000, of which not to exceed $25,000 for official
reception and representation expenses.
processing tax returns and assistance
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, not
otherwise provided for; including processing tax returns;
revenue accounting; providing assistance to taxpayers; 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; $1,616,295,000, of which
$3,500,000 shall be for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly
Program, no amount of which shall be available for IRS
administrative costs.
tax law enforcement
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
determining and establishing tax liabilities; tax and
enforcement litigation; technical rulings; examining employee
plans and exempt organizations; investigation and enforcement
activities; securing unfiled tax returns; collecting unpaid
accounts; statistics of income and compliance research; the
purchase (for police-type use, not to exceed 600, of which
not to exceed 450 shall be for replacement only), 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: Provided, That additional
amounts above fiscal year 1994 levels for international tax
enforcement shall be used for the continued operation of a
task force comprised of senior Internal Revenue Service
Attorneys, accountants, and economists dedicated to
enforcement activities related to United States subsidiaries
of foreign-controlled corporations that are in non-compliance
with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; $4,412,580,000, of
which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 1997.
information systems
For necessary expenses for data processing and
telecommunications support for Internal Revenue Service
activities, including: tax systems modernization (modernized
developmental systems), modernized operational systems,
services and compliance, and support systems; and for 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: $1,240,357,000 of which
$185,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1997:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated for tax systems
modernization may be obligated until the Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service reports to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate on the implementation
of Tax Systems Modernization.
administrative provisions--internal revenue service
Section 1. Not to exceed 4 per centum of any appropriation
made available to the Internal Revenue Service for the
current fiscal year by this Act may be transferred to any
other Internal Revenue Service appropriation upon the
approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 2. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and
maintain a training program to insure that Internal Revenue
Service employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in
dealing courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural
relations.
United States Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
including purchase (not to exceed three hundred and forty-
three vehicles for police-type use 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; and for travel of Secret Service employees on
protective missions without regard to the limitations on
such expenditures in this or any other Act: Provided, That
approval is obtained in advance from the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations; for repairs, alterations,
and minor construction at the James J. Rowley Secret
Service Training Center; for research and development; for
making grants to conduct behavioral research in support of
protective research and operations; not to exceed $12,500
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; $476,931,000: Provided further, That of the
offsetting collections credited to this account, $43,000
are permanently canceled.
General Provisions--Department of the Treasury
Section 101. Of the funds appropriated by this or any other
Act to the Internal Revenue Service, amounts attributable to
efficiency savings for fiscal year 1995 shall be identified
as such by the Commissioner during that fiscal year:
Provided, That in the fiscal year when the savings are
realized, the amount of efficiency savings shall be non-
recurred from the Internal Revenue Service budget base:
Provided further, That on an annual basis, the Internal
Revenue Service shall report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on the status of the program.
Sec. 102. Any obligation or expenditure by the Secretary 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,
1995, shall be made in compliance with the reprogramming
guidelines contained in the House and Senate reports
accompanying this Act.
Sec. 103. Appropriations to the Treasury Department 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
limitation 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. 104. Not to exceed 2 per centum of any appropriations
in this Act for the Department of the Treasury may be
transferred between such appropriations. Notwithstanding any
authority to transfer funds between appropriations contained
in this or any other Act, no transfer may increase or
decrease any appropriation in this Act by more than 2 per
centum and any such proposed transfers shall be approved in
advance by the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
Senate.
Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
beginning in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, the Financial
Management Service (FMS) shall be reimbursed, for postage
incurred by FMS to make check payments on their behalf, by:
the Department of Veterans Affairs, for the mailing of
Compensation and Pension benefit payments; the Department of
Health and Human Services, for the mailing of Supplemental
Security Income payments; and the Office of Personnel
Management, for the mailing of Retirement payments. Such
reimbursement shall be due beginning with checks mailed on
October 1, 1994, and such reimbursement shall occur on a
monthly basis.
Sec. 106. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the
Department of the Treasury during fiscal year 1995,
$33,437,000 are permanently canceled.
(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall allocate the amount
of budgetary resources canceled among the Department's
accounts available for procurement and procurement-related
expenses. Amounts available for procurement and procurement-
related expenses in each such account shall be reduced by the
amount allocated to such account.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of
``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of
acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of
determining a need for a product or services and ending with
contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C.
403(2).
Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be used in connection with the collection of any
underpayment of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 unless the conduct of officers and employees of the
Internal Revenue Service in connection with such collection
complies with subsection (a) of section 805 (relating to
communications in connection with debt collection), and
section 806 (relating to harassment or abuse), of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692).
Sec. 108. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute
policies and procedures which will safeguard the
confidentiality of taxpayer information.
Sec. 109. The funds provided to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms for fiscal year 1995 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.
This title may be cited as the ``Treasury Department
Appropriations Act, 1995''.
Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that title I of the bill 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
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title I?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, prior to going to additional points of
order, I wish to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Matsui] or his designee or any representative of the
Committee on Ways and Means be able to make at the end of the bill
points of order with reference to two items in the bill, one dealing
with the forfeiture fund and another dealing with a tax provision.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished subcommittee
chairman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I am deeply concerned about the
impact of the IRS' reorganization on Philadelphia and the precedent it
sets for how ``reinventing government'' should be applied to urban
areas. While I support the overall goals of the reorganization, I have
serious concerns about the criteria used by the IRS in its decision to
eliminate the processing function at the Philadelphia service center.
As the gentleman knows, Mr. Chairman, differences in locality pay
played a decisive factor in the selection process used by the IRS. The
criteria were so narrowly drawn that cities where locality pay is high
could not possibly be selected as final sites. I am sure that, as an
architect and strong supporter of the locality pay system, the
subcommittee chairman would not want to see locality pay used in this
way.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, vital urban and social policy
considerations were completely absent from the IRS decisionmaking
process. Absolutely no consideration was given to unemployment rates,
which are highest in the cities that lose processing sites. And,
remarkably, the impact on minority employment in the Federal work force
was given no weight in the selection process.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the IRS selection process sets a dangerous
and misguided precedent for the way we go about ``reinventing
government.'' Does the gentleman plan to address the issue of the use
of locality pay and urban criteria in ``reinventing government''
initiatives through your subcommittee?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for raising this very important question.
I will answer by saying that the subcommittee will in fact review the
issues the gentleman has raised regarding the use of locality pay and
urban criteria in ``reinventing government'' initiatives. I share many
of the gentleman's concerns, and I assure him they will be given very
careful consideration.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman, and I
support and applaud his efforts and the efforts of the administration
to make our Government operate more efficiently. I hope the gentleman
will continue to work with me to ensure that our Nation's urban areas
are given full consideration and equal treatment in ``reinventing
government'' initiatives.
{time} 1140
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I? If not, the Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--POSTAL SERVICE
Payments to the 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;
$92,317,000: Provided, That mail for overseas voting and mail
for the blind shall continue to be free: Provided further,
That six-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 the fiscal year ending on September 30, 1995.
Payment to the Postal Service Fund for Nonfunded Liabilities
For payment to the Postal Service Fund for meeting the
liabilities of the former Post Office Department to the
Employees' Compensation Fund pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 2004,
$37,776,000.
This title may be cited as the ``Postal Service
Appropriations Act, 1995''.
Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that title II of the bill 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
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title II? If not, are
there any amendments to title II?
amendment offered by mr. coppersmith
Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coppersmith: Page 20, line 25,
strike ``$92,317,000'' and insert ``$85,717,000''.
Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, my horoscope today says, ``Accomplish
goal through unorthodox procedures,'' and that is what I hope to do
here today.
Mr. Chairman, this simple amendment cuts $6.6 million in funds for
the U.S. Postal Service. As the U.S. Postal Service still plans to
install its ``new bird'' logo on buildings, uniforms, and trucks, the
amendment reduces the revenue forgone subsidy by $6.6 million, the
exact amount the Postal Service still plans to spend on the ``new
bird.''
Opponents of this amendment will say that it is flawed because it
violates the agreement Congress reached with the Postal Service
concerning revenue forgone. They are correct. Cutting this bill's
appropriation for the Postal Service is problematic. However, this
amendment is the only chance Congress will have to address the issue
this year.
Opponents of this amendment will say that it hurts mailings for the
blind or overseas mailing or nonprofit mailers. That argument, however,
is a perfect example of what Charles Peters of the Washington Monthly
magazine calls ``The Washington Monument Syndrome.'' Instead of
trimming its toenails, the agency insists that any cut must invariably
come right out of its heart. Thus, a cut to the Park Service budget
means laying off the elevator operators at the Washington Monument on
the 4th of July, hence the name of the syndrome.
Now, I do not intend, and surely this House does not intend, to cut
those specially valued programs for the blind or overseas voting or for
nonprofit mailers. In fact, however, it will be the Postal Service
itself that makes any such misguided cut or misbegotten price hike.
Instead, the service can choose to target operating expenses or do a
better job of curbing postal meter fraud, or, let us not forget the
point of the amendment, to drop the ``new bird'' logo idea.
The point of the amendment is not that the Postal Service should
recoup the $6.6 million by preserving the new logo and increasing any
rates or cutting services or salaries and benefits for rank-and-file
employees who had nothing to do with this decision. The Postal Service
should make up this cut by doing what it should have done already, by
dropping its plans to change the logo, and then to use those savings to
preserve its subsidy in its entire amount.
Likewise, this cut should not come from this year's payment for
unfunded Postal Service liabilities. Disabled former employees did not
decide to change the logo. Current management did, and the cuts should
affect them.
The Postal Service will say, and solely from an accounting
perspective I can agree, that our constituents will pay for the new
logo only through stamp purchases. However, the Postal Service has a
monopoly on the delivery of first class mail. Our constituents cannot
express dissatisfaction by using some other postal service. The only
way our constituents can express their frustration with this bone-
headed logo idea is through this vote on the floor today.
Sometimes like even good people, even good quasi-public corporations
make bad choices. The Postal Service made a bad choice by deciding to
spend $6.6 million on a unneeded cosmetic change, especially at a time
when the public's cynicism about superficial change is so high.
This amendment sends a message that Congress understands and can seek
out wasteful or just misguided spending by public or quasi-governmental
agencies. This amendment sends a message that Congress recognizes the
need to reinvent Government and achieve substantive and meaningful
reform, not just eyewash designed to fool the public.
Finally, opponents will say this amendment is symbolic. But the whole
point of the logo is symbolism. And if the Postal Service wants public
funding, for whatever purpose, it should not waste $6.6 million,
whether from the taxpayers or from its customers, our constituents.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, as
the gentleman anticipated. First, obviously, this is an attempt to do
on the appropriation bill what apparently is not happening in the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, which has jurisdiction over
this particular matter. In fact, there is legislation pending in the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to effect the objective that
the gentleman seeks.
Let me now speak to the specifics of this particular bill. This bill
has $92 million in it for the Postal Service. That money is for two
objectives: First of all, it is to fund the Congress' agreement with
the Post Office Department that was made last year when we did the
Revenue Forgone legislation, which was a reform of what had
historically been hundreds of millions of dollars in payments by the
Congress for Revenue Forgone. In many instances, however, we had
underfunded that. In effect, we had stolen from the money that we said
we would pay, and that we owed to the Postal Service.
The agreement said that we would make a $29 million payment, which is
included in this bill, over the next 42-years to repay that which was
owed to the Postal Service. In addition, the bill provides $68 million
to subsidize mailing for the blind, as the gentleman from Arizona
mentioned.
The fact of the matter is that the gentleman seeks to cut $6.7
million. The fact of the matter is that the Postal Service on substance
expects to spend $6.7 million over 5 years. So we would be taking out
all of the money in 1 year, theoretically, and reducing by, in effect,
$5 million the funding available to the Postal Service beyond that
which they were going to spend on this program.
I have a letter from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the
chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, saying that
the Coppersmith amendment reneges on our committee to the mailers.
The letter further says, ``I urge you to join me in opposing the
Coppersmith amendment.''
Again, Mr. Chairman, we are going to get amendments which will seek
to cut dollars which are, frankly, not in this bill, as this amendment
does. These funds are for revenue for gone and for the moneys which
this Congress has an obligation to pay pursuant to representations made
in legislation and to the Postal Service.
The Postal Service is a quasi-public agency, as all of us know. It is
a pay-as-you-go agency, as you also know. It is, obviously, losing
funds this year. It has the lowest cost for first-class mail of any
industrialized nation in the world, and it does so very efficiently,
although, because of its volume, clearly it make mistakes.
I would urge the Congress and this House to reject this amendment. It
does not cut funds dedicated to the purpose that the gentleman believes
is inappropriate. His proper avenue and the proper avenue to approach
this is in the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. That is
being done, and this House ought to wait on that result.
To do otherwise will give the Postal Service the opportunity to say
that we have either cut our obligation to them, or have cut our subsidy
for mailings for the blind, largely braille mailings.
I would ask that the House reject the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coppersmith amendment.
In a nation whose economy is based on free enterprise, any
governmental service which usurps a segment of that economy must
constantly justify its existence. In the case of the U.S. Postal
Service, which is granted a virtual monopoly, a significant part of
that justification has been the ability to allocate limited resources
to providing direct service rather than diverting a part of those
resources to such things as publicity, advertising, and marketing. For
after all, if you are granted an exclusive franchise, you should not
have to worry about promoting your agency versus a competitor. You
should concentrate your resources on providing the most efficient and
economical service possible.
In the case at hand, the Postal Service has undertaken a new logo at
a cost of $6.6 million at a time when postal rates are being increased.
If the public is choosing to use private carriers rather than the
Postal Service in those areas where they have a choice, it is not
because the private carriers have a better logo--it is because they are
beating the Postal Service at its own game and in spite of the
protections and advantages given to it by this body.
The American public cannot be fooled on this one; it wants letters,
not logos, and efficiency instead of fashion. The Postal Service is not
an eagle free to roam the skies; it is a falcon that is kept for a
specific purpose with a tether attached to its leg and held in the
hands of this body. It is time we reined it in. Support the Coopersmith
amendment.
{time} 1150
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise to support the Coppersmith amendment on the U.S. Postal
Service logo. This is an issue; again, it is not micromanaging the Post
Office. But clearly in this period, in this time and era when we are
trying to deal with budget deficits, which truly are a cancer on our
country, we have an opportunity to deal with an issue that if the Post
Office was a private-sector business and they were proposing a $6.6
million change in terms of a logo in the crisis atmosphere in which the
Post Office exists.
Just today the Washington Post reported that the top three officials
at the U.S. Postal Service were fired, including the Chief of
Operations, because of the problems that the Post Office is having. In
the article, Postmaster Rudman even admits that the Postal Service has
been plagued by poor service and customer complaints. Reinventing
Government does not mean reinventing a logo. The U.S. Post Office is
laden with problems. Simply giving itself a new logo is not going to
fix all its problems.
It is the wrong message to send to the post office. It is the wrong
message to send to the Government. I urge adoption of the Coppersmith
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to
a growing problem. It seems that the modern way to deliver mail is to
build cluster boxes where the mail for an entire block or more is
deposited. In more and more areas of our country, the familiar door-to-
door delivery is gone.
I understand the need for cost-cutting measures, but we are going too
far. In my congressional district, I have recently heard story after
story of mail theft and vandalism of these cluster boxes.
In poor weather, it is very inconvenient to venture down the block to
pick up the mail--and, unfortunately, in many communities it is
downright dangerous to go to the cluster boxes.
I want to make clear that our local postmaster has been most
cooperative and is trying to resolve the complaints that we have
received, but his hands are tied by the overall regulations phasing out
door-to-door delivery.
What has happened to the days when Americans could rely on getting
their mail? What has happened to the days when we could proudly boast
that our mail service was second to none?
There are some important services that should not be tampered with in
the name of false economy. Continued repairs to cluster boxes and
continued losses in mail soon eat up any potential savings realized
from discontinuing door-to-door delivery.
What is more American that getting mail at your door? Which one of us
in this Chamber would volunteer to give up this service at our home?
Which one of us would volunteer to walk down the halls of the Cannon,
Longworth, or Rayburn Office Buildings to get our office mail?
The citizens of our country deserve no less. It is time for the
Postal Service to stop standing and deliver.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO
THE PRESIDENT
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 of the United
States Code: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available for official expenses shall be considered as
taxable to the President.
The White House Office
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; including
subsistence expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105; including
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); not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment
expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive
Office of the President; $387,754,000.
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; $7,827,000, to be expended and accounted for as
provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109-110, 112-114.
Official Residence of the Vice President
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; $324,000: 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.
Special Assistance to the 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; $3,270,000.
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Council in carrying out its
functions under the Employment Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021),
including not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses; $3,420,000.
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; $5,058,000.
National Security Council
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the National Security Council,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
$6,648,000.
Office of Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration;
$24,850,000, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 and 3 U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles:
Provided, That of the budgetary resources available in fiscal
year 1995 in this account, $117,000 are permanently canceled:
Provided further, That amounts available for procurement and
procurement-related expenses in this account are reduced by
such amount: Provided further, That as used herein,
``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of
acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of
determining a need for a product or services and ending with
contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C.
403(2).
Office of Management and Budget
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and
Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, services
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $56,272,000, of which not to
exceed $5,000,000, shall be available to carry out the
provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35: 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 Committee on
Appropriations or the Committee on Veterans' Affairs or their
subcommittees: Provided further, That this proviso shall not
apply to printed hearings released by the Committee on
Appropriations or the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Office of National Drug Control Policy
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to title I
of Public Law 100-690; not to exceed $8,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; 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;
$9,942,000: Provided, That the Office is authorized to
accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and
personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work
of the Office.
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; $1,000,000.
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, $98,000,000, for drug control activities consistent
with the approved strategy for each of the designated High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than
$55,000,000 shall be transferred to State and local entities
for drug control activities; and of which up to $43,000,000
may be transferred to Federal agencies and departments at a
rate to be determined by the Director.
special forfeiture fund
(including transfer of funds)
For activities authorized by Public Law 100-690,
$14,800,000, which shall be derived from deposits in the
Special Forfeiture Fund; of which $1,800,000 shall be
transferred to the Drug Enforcement Administration for the El
Paso Intelligence Center, of which $8,000,000, to remain
available until expanded, shall be transferred to the
Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center for counternarotics
research and development projects and shall be available for
transfer to other Federal departments or agencies.
This title may be cited as the ``Executive Office
Appropriations Act, 1995''.
Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that title III 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
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title III?
Hearing none, are there any amendments to title III?
amendment offered by mr. goss
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: At the end of title III
(relating to Executive Office of the President), insert the
following:
Reduction of Funds
Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this title that is not required to be appropriated or
otherwise made available by a provision of law (other than
for ``Office of National Drug Control Policy'' or ``Federal
Drug Control Programs'') is hereby reduced by 20 percent.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in an effort to help the
President reach his stated goals of reducing the White House
bureaucracy and sharing the sacrifice he has asked American taxpayers
to make to reduce the deficit. Simply put, my amendment would cut 20
percent from the discretionary funds allocated to the Executive Office
of the President; excepting the Office of Drug Control Policy and the
Federal drug control programs that fall under this title.
Opponents of this measure have stated that this account has already
been cut from last year's levels--but let us take a closer look at
where these cuts come from. A full 99 percent of these cuts are made in
one area: Drug control. The argument that somehow this bill represents
a significant reduction in all White House accounts is false and
misleading.
I should say that I am not picking on the President or making a
partisan attack here. I brought an identical amendment--a 20-percent
cut in discretionary funding--before the Rules Committee when we were
considering the legislative branch appropriations. Unfortunately, my
amendment was shut out by a restrictive closed rule.
The fact is--despite the rhetoric coming from the White House--the
Clinton administration is not doing its part in sharing the burden of
deficit reduction. It is also a fact that there is a significant level
of waste in both the administration--and the legislative branch--and we
owe it to ourselves and to the American people to address this problem
and exercise our proper oversight.
This cut goes directly to the issues of White House arrogance and
lack of accountability and will certainly enhance better cooperation
with proper oversight. As recent reports have highlighted, there are
problems, and these do involve legitimate questions of cost.
Despite promises to the contrary, true staff levels at the White
House have not been significantly reduced. People have been shuffled,
but the only real cuts that have been made seem to be in the area of
drug control.
White House staff have been exceptionally slow in obtaining security
clearances--quite possibly jeopardizing our intelligence and national
security.
Delays in drug testing for the President's staff create an apparent
double standard.
Public access and information laws have been called into serious
question by actions of the Health Care Task Force and other private
advisers.
And, despite high-profile promises from the President that his
administration would be different, this administration has had several
official travel problems. Currently, many Americans are demanding a
true accounting of how much it has cost to transport so-called official
Presidential entourage on trips abroad; and they are asking why
Presidential campaign trips are being labeled ``official'' and paid for
with tax dollars.
Some would suggest that we are splitting hairs; that few really care
how much these things cost. But the American taxpayers--who foot the
bill for everything from first class executive travel to Presidential
haircuts--care a great deal. They are demanding a better accounting for
their tax dollars at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and they want to
see the waste eliminated from Government, executive and legislative
branch.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will save some $30 million in fiscal year
1995, and $200 million over 5 years. I have specifically exempted from
this cut the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Federal drug
control programs. These have already been gutted. These important
programs have been cut 18.2 percent under last year's level, and 23.4
percent under the requested amounts. Given our current violent and
drug-related crime problems, I do not think it would be wise to cut
these programs any further.
While my amendment will not single-handedly solve our budget crisis,
it is a positive step on the road to fiscal sanity. Earlier this year I
offered this proposal, and 75 others, in a package that would save $285
billion over 5 years--these things do add up, even if the explanations
from the White House do not.
{time} 1200
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we begin now what I believe to be a petty, partisan
attack which did not occur from 1981 to 1992. It did not occur.
Whatever the differences we had, we did not play this game. I
specifically, on this floor and in the committee, opened this game.
Let us take the representations of the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss] about the Executive Office of the President. I have a chart here,
and will talk about the increases in this budget.
First of all, on November 7, 1992, President Bush had in the
Executive Office of the President 1,394 employees. Never did I support
cutting the number the President asked for. Never. Nor did I support
cutting President Reagan's request. I respected both President Reagan's
and President Bush's independence and separation as President of the
United States.
He had 1,394 employees. This President today, as a result of his
pledge and this committee's action, has 1,044 employees, 350 employees
fewer, 25.1 percent less in numbers of employees.
The President's compensation we have not cut. Constitutionally, of
course, we cannot do that.
The White House office is at 1994 levels, $2.878 million less than
the White House requested. I think that is inappropriate, but I
supported it and our committee reported it out because, as I told the
President's office, we are in tight fiscal times and we are going to do
it to others and we need to take the reduction, but I think it is wrong
to do this.
The Executive Residence we cut $98,000; the Vice President's
residence is at 1994 levels; Special Assistance to the President is at
1994 levels; Council of Economic Advisors in at 1994 levels; Office of
Policy Development, $64,000 less than the President asked for.
From 1981 to 1992, the committee on which I serve did not cut
President Reagan's or President Bush's budget ever. There were some
cuts on the floor, largely restored in the conference committee
controlled by Democrats. Petty partisanship. It is wrong, and I do not
intend to do it in the future if your party elects the President. I
pledge that to the Members, and the Record ought to reflect that as
well.
The National Security Council, from the President's request was cut
$184,000, appropriated at 1994 levels. The Office of Administration,
cut by $2.7 million by this committee, never done before. OMB, cut
$267,000 from 1994 levels.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy, which the gentleman says
is not included in his amendment, is a little bit ironic. It is the
only area of the White House executive budget that was increased, $12
million for the fight against drugs in the HIDTA Program, the only item
the gentleman does not cut. So saving money apparently is not his
objective.
Unanticipated needs is at 1994 levels; the Federal Drug Control
Program, which I talked about; the Special Forfeiture Fund was cut $37
million. Mr. Chairman, on both sides of the aisle, Members can disagree
with the President.
We had arguments with the President from 1981 to 1992. Some people
will recall that we did have one instance in which there was a policy
difference which dealt with the Competitiveness Council, with the
allegation that the Competitiveness Council was being used to get
around the Clean Air Act and get around regulations.
We disagreed on that. We had a significant debate on that issue, but
we did not, in our committee, and even on the floor reduce the White
House budget. Only once that I can recall in those 12 years did the
House reduce the Special Assistance budget. It did one time for the
Competitiveness Council.
The fact of the matter is that this budget for the Executive Office
of the President is under the President's request, reported out of
committee. Why? Because we have tight fiscal times. I did not want, nor
did the President want, to be in a position where he was asking for
more than we were willing to give to other agencies.
I ask the House to reject this amendment out of hand.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was back in the Cloakroom planning a special order
for this evening on congressional reform. I would not have spoken on
this particular amendment at this time, but I heard my very, very good
friend, for whom I have a lot of respect, maybe a little less respect
right now, start railing about partisanship.
I still do respect the gentleman, but I must say there is nothing
partisan about this amendment. Members should not be accused of being
partisan when we want to cut anything in the Federal Government. We
have to tighten our belts. This Government is drowning in a sea of red
ink and it is bankrupting the taxpayers of this Nation. They are fed up
with it.
Mr. Chairman, just because Members want to cut expenditures at the
White House is no reason to accuse us of partisanship whatsoever. The
truth of the matter is that the White House has deemphasized the war on
drugs. Everywhere we turn, there is another article reporting it.
Here is one by Joycelyn Elders, the Surgeon General appointed by
President Clinton, that talks about legalizing marijuana and doing away
with the controls on other deadly drugs that are killing our kids. We
know that all of the spending cuts that have been made in the White
House have come out of the drug enforcement division there, and that is
an absolute disgrace.
All the gentleman is doing, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], is
trying to spend those cuts throughout the entire White House budget.
There is nothing wrong with that. The gentleman from Maryland knows it,
and he should not accuse people of partisanship.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I would be glad to yield to one of the most respected
Members of this House, sometimes, the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend yielding to me, the
gentleman from New York, who of course would not be partisan, I
understand that, ever. However, having said that, let me observe that
the gentleman does not suggest cutting everything else and adding it to
any place. The gentleman is not doing that. The gentleman is simply
cutting operations that have already been either cut or funded at last
year's level.
Let me say further, as I have told the gentleman, that the White
House agrees with the gentleman's position on the opposition to the
Elders statement. I agree with the opposition to it. The committee
agrees with it. The White House and the President have said that.
In addition, I know the gentleman is very concerned about drug
testing. I know that the White House is concerned about this as well.
Four hundred and thirty-six White House employees have been tested,
including the Chief of Staff. We do not hire people there without drug
tests. As a matter of fact, there were two instances where people were
not hired because they had a positive test result, so I share the
gentleman's concern.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I know the
gentleman from Maryland is sincere in what he is saying.
I would say to the gentleman, I offered a budget on this floor
sponsored by another 20 Members. It was put together by the Balanced
Budget Task Force. And there were some very, very difficult votes
involved, because we proposed cutting across the board, including the
good programs, but we have to get this Federal deficit under control.
What the gentleman from Florida is doing, sure, is cutting those
areas funded at last year's level. We ought to be cutting everything
below last year's level, otherwise we will never get control of the
budget.
I would just say in response to the gentleman from Maryland when he
says that the drug testing programs are still going on at the White
House: I hope they are. I have been trying to get that answer out of
the White House, and I will give them credit if that is true. I want
them to continue it, to set the example for the rest of government at
all levels--Federal, State, towns, counties, cities.
We ought to be drug testing in order to set that example, because 75
percent of all the illegal drugs in America today are not used by poor
people in the inner cities. They are used by the upper middle class
yippies and hippies, who may be bankers or stockbrokers, who are
driving into the urban areas, and purchasing drugs to use for
recreational purposes. Sniff a little cocaine, puff a little marijuana
on the weekends, it does not hurt anything--that is the attitude which
is causing this problem.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I am glad to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss].
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I did not come to my feet when the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] came very close to violating the rules,
characterizing my attack as petty partisanship. It was not intended
that way. My statement clearly said it was not. I referred to other
steps I have made to cut the budget legitimately.
{time} 1210
It just so happens that the President of your party happens to be in
the White House. That does not make it a petty partisan attack.
The facts are also that we do not count quite the same, it seems. The
detailees and some of the others that are in the White House budget
that are elsewhere get counted one way or another way depending on
whose side one is. The other point is when we take a look at the Office
of National Drug Control Policy and take a look at the numbers, they do
not lie. According to this, right out of the executive office of the
President, fiscal year 1995, $11.7 billion last year, $9.9 billion this
year, a cut of $1.8 billion, a cut no matter how it is looked at.
Consequently I think I have characterized fairly and accurately what is
going on. The gentleman may put a different importance on it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York yield to
me?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I do not want to characterize the gentleman from Florida.
What I believe, and the point I was trying to make is that I think it
is important for us to realize that there were very substantial
differences between the Reagan and Bush administrations. The reason we
did not do this, however, in this House is because we believe that the
White House ought to be a coequal branch of government with the ability
to set its budget, just as I believe that the White House ought not to
veto, for instance, the legislative appropriation bill where we decide
what we need to exercise our constitutional responsibilities.
In the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administration, the Committee only
once cut what the President requested in his own budget. There were one
or two instances on the floor where that occurred, which I opposed.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time on that point, the
gentleman from Maryland is making an interesting point. The point is, I
think, that the Democrat Party rarely wants to cut anything but
defense. I just had to say that. That is the reason Democrats have
never asked for any cuts in domestic spending that I can see.
Mr. Chairman, the only reason I came out on the floor was because I
heard some petty partisanship and I just wanted to take exception to
it. The gentleman from Florida has a fine amendment.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest admiration for the
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer's very strong commitment and
conviction to separation of powers. That is not what is at issue here.
What is at issue here is whether or not at this point in our Nation's
history, the question of affordability has not changed somewhat since
the Reagan years the gentleman referred to and that our legitimate
oversight responsibilities have, therefore, changed somewhat. That is
the point I am trying to make with this amendment, and I think that is
the point that all Members should consider. I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, before yielding back my time, I hope all
Members support cutting amendments, no matter what is being cut. That
is the only way we can deal with the deficit. I urge support for the
amendment of the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Arizona, for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I understand my friend, the gentleman from New York's
point. But again I would call attention to the Executive Office of the
President. That is what we have been talking about. It has been cut $28
million. That is what the figures say. If they were wrong, fine, but we
believe they are accurate. Those are the committee figures. The bill
has $270 million, that is $28 million less than last year's bill. That
is about a 10-percent cut. There is, in fact, a cut as well, as I
pointed out, of $2.7 million below the President's request for the
Office of Administration.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is good policy based upon the
separation of powers. What I do believe is that it does, in fact,
reflect the fiscal constraints confronting us. What I am saying is that
there is not a recognition in this amendment that we have already done
more out of this committee than we have done in the previous 13-year
period. We have made much greater cuts than we have ever done in the 13
years on which I have served on this committee.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COPPERSMITH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, I think the
gentleman should be given recognition. The gentleman has made cuts and
he normally does do a good job. That is why we respect the gentleman
for it. But we can do a little better. Let us cut a little more and
give the recognition at the same time.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate half of that.
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is very welcome.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, just in conclusion, let me say that I hope
we reject this amendment for the reasons that I have stated. We have
made very substantial reductions. We do not need to go further, except
to make a political point. That is my point in this whole debate. The
only reason for going further than we have gone, further than we have
gone historically every probably, and I have not checked historically
back before 1981, is to make a political point.
The gentleman made a number of points during the course of his fiscal
discussions, as I recall, unrelated to fiscal matters.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss] in his effort to cut the White House operations by
some 20 percent based upon my concern that critical performance should
not be rewarded and this administration's lack of attention to our drug
war is indicative of nonperformance.
Accordingly, I compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for
exempting the White House drug czar's office and the drug control
portions of this bill from his proposed 20 percent cut in order to
focus attention on the administration's inattention to our Nation's
drug war.
Mr. Chairman, last year severe cuts were proposed and enacted in the
budget of the drug czar's office. Those early cuts signaled a clear and
disappointing retreat by the new administration from the battle against
illicit drugs. Nothing I have seen since then has reduced that
perception. While the President has given the drug czar a Cabinet-level
seat, for which we compliment him, he has not provided that drug czar
with the tools or the financial support needed to make that seat a
meaningful one.
The evidence of the laxity by the administration in our war against
illicit drugs abounds. It is going to cost us significantly as a
nation. We will surely have more crime, increased health care costs,
greater worker inefficiency, and loss of productivity. We will also see
the destruction of many of our Nation's youth from the ever-increasing
quantities of imported, cheaper and purer drugs that this
administration's lack of direction will surely bring to our Nation's
streets.
Mr. Chairman, the critics of our counterdrug efforts, especially our
interdiction program, just do not perceive what is being done. We have
annually helped to seize from worldwide cocaine production large
quantities of killer narcotics. We have effectively cut off a great
deal of this scourge before it hits our streets, our schools, and our
workplaces.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, permit me to note recent U.S.
Governmentwide interdiction statistics:
Fiscal year 1992, a seizure of 17.6 percent of cocaine production, or
172 metric tons. In fiscal year 1991, there was 14.6 percent of cocaine
production, or 140 metric tons seized, showing a substantial increase
just from 1991 to 1992.
Mr. Chairman, the critics would not want to address the questions of
increased crime, often violent crime, health care costs, and lost lives
that these hundreds of tons of cocaine would have had upon our society
if not intercepted before reaching our shores. It is relatively easy to
state that nothing works, but, in fact, those critics are wrong.
Illustrative of the White House's abdication of the drug fight,
besides at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, are deep cuts in
fiscal year 1995 State Department's international narcotics matter
budget [INM] without White House opposition, while in Burma, heroin
production soars and we are without any counterstrategy. In addition,
we have had an unprecedented withdrawal of real-time counternarcotics
intelligence from Peru and Colombia under the guise of a reported legal
dispute. The litany of failures sadly goes on and on.
Just yesterday we met with the Secretary of Education who indicated
to us a serious reduction in their drug education budget without any
support from the administration. All of these retreats occurred, Mr.
Chairman, without the drug czar being effectively on the field of
battle as far as we can see by those of us who have been involved in
this battle. He cannot, it seems, effectively play the role of advocate
for the battle against drugs that the President himself has abandoned.
Sadly, that once proud office today has few advocates to even protest
the reductions that have been proposed this year.
{time} 1220
OMB CP's long-term survival will eventually be at stake unless the
current trend is reversed.
My own patience wears thin. Let us hope that improvement comes soon.
Accordingly, I urge adoption of the Goss amendment in order to send a
clear signal to the administration of the opposition that many of us
have to the reduced support by the executive branch for our war against
drugs.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I
understand his concern.
The gentleman is aware, of course, that this does not add any money
to the drug war?
Mr. GILMAN. I recognize that.
Mr. HOYER. Of course, we had the foreign operations bill. I do not
know whether the gentleman had an amendment to add money to that bill.
We are going to have the defense bill coming along. There could be an
amendment to add money to this bill.
Mr. GILMAN. We certainly did and will continue to try to do that.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman made the point, as I understand it, that
this is to make a point, this is to penalize, am I correct, for
policies that you do not approve of? Is that correct?
Mr. GILMAN. Yes. By all means, it is an important symbolic attempt to
show that we disagree with the administration's failure to advocate
financial support for the drug war.
Mr. HOYER. So it is a penalty for policies with which you do not
degree?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gilman was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is an attempt to focus attention by the
Congress and by the administration on the fact that the administration
has failed to support the very programs that they have indicated that
they were advocating. They cut the international effort. They cut the
drug czar's work. They cut our Education Department's efforts. What we
have is a program without any financial support, and this is what we
are trying to do is to remind the administration that this important
program is without adequate financial support here in the Congress
where it counts. And what better place to send such a signal than in
the executive branch budget?
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield further, I just want to point
out to the gentleman that I have in front of me, of course, the
national drug control strategy, February 1994, which points out the
total effort in drug control policy, drug treatment, drug enforcement,
all of those, was $12,136,000,000 last year. In this year's budget, it
is $13,179,000,000, or a $1 billion increase in the drug war in effect.
Now, it may not be in areas that you think are appropriate. I
understand the gentleman's point there. But the proper amendment would
be then to shift it from one to the other.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]
has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilman was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, my point being there has been a substantial
increase in the dollars dedicated to fighting drugs. There may be
policy differences, and those can be met by amendments on the floor
dealing with the substantive programs. This amendment, though, I
reiterate, is to make a point, is to penalize the White House for
policies with which you do not agree, and my point at the outset of
this debate was on our side of the aisle we did not do that to
President Reagan and we did not do it to President Bush, and I
personally believe it is inappropriate to do it to President Clinton.
Mr. GILMAN. I recognize that. I just want to comment that while the
proposals are there for budget increases, the support for those are not
present when they go before OMB and others of the agencies as well as
Congress.
I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The amendment before us represents a sound alternative to what, after
all, is Mr. Clinton's request for an increase in his White House
budget.
When all is said and done, the Appropriations Committee's response
funds White House activities at precisely the same level they were
funded in 1992, George Bush's last year. Yet as a candidate, Bill
Clinton talked about a 25-percent cut in the White House staff. Many
Americans are wondering, at current levels, whether we are not paying
too much already, particularly in light of the continuing allegations
of grave misconduct by members of the White House staff.
Yet Bill Clinton, the man who promised a 25-percent cut to the
American people, has this year proposed an 8-percent increase for the
White House budget. I congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], who did not see fit to give Mr. Clinton more money,
but is instead proposing that we hold him to at least some of the
spending cuts that he proposed as a candidate.
In light of what the White House staff has been up to, it seems to me
they hardly deserve a raise. Just 18 months ago, the Clinton White
House started out with Travelgate. It consisted in the firing and
smearing of honest career employees in the White House for the benefit
of the Clintons relatives and campaign workers. Even the White House
press corps were scandalized by such a noxious mixture of cronyism,
political manipulation of law enforcement, and scapegoating, the likes
of which Washington has not seen since the spoils system was first set
into motion by Andrew Jackson.
All of this certainly set the tone for what we have now come to know
as the prototypical Clinton scandal, the corner-cutting, the greed,
cronyism, and, above all, the deceit.
There has been more serious misconduct by the Clinton White House
than Travelgate, but certainly nothing more contemptible than firing
and smearing longtime, apolitical, low-level government workers in
order to benefit the President's cousin and his wealthiest friends.
No less disgraceful was the tampering with the FBI by the White House
counsel's office, the office in which I once served as senior associate
counsel to the President. The White House counsel is supposed to be
preeminently responsible for preventing ethical lapses by the President
and senior White House officials. Instead, it was this White House
counsel's office that was the very source of the scandal including
flagrant obvious misconduct by White House lawyer William Kennedy, who
did not contact the Attorney General, who did not contact FBI Director
Sessions, but interfered directly in the operations of the FBI to
target specific individuals. Yet Kennedy remains in the White House,
two reprimands and several additional scandals later, as a seemingly
permanent source of ethical trouble for this President and the other
White House staff.
As we all know, Mr. Kennedy, like Webb Hubble and Vince Foster and
Hillary Rodham Clinton, was part of the same law firm that represented
Arkansas wheeler dealers in Whitewater and Madison Savings and Loan and
dozens of other transactions including the Clintons own personal
finances.
One of the most unsavory aspects of this staff arrangement is the
cronyism. From the first, it turned the highest echelons of the White
House legal staff and the Justice Department into little more than the
Washington branch office of the Rose law firm. The predictable result
was the President and Hillary Rodham Clinton felt they could treat the
White House lawyers as their personal lawyers.
But Federal law prohibits Government employees, including the White
House counsel's office, from performing private services for the
President. Yet shortly before his death, Vince Foster was working in
his White House office in the West Wing on Government time at taxpayer
expense at preparing the delinquent Whitewater tax returns. Not only
was this improper because it was the personal investment business of
the Clintons rather than official business, but it also covered a
period well before the Clintons took office. Most observers who have
commented on this fact have speculated on its relevance to Mr. Foster's
death.
As a former member of the counsel's office, I am at least as struck
by its obvious impropriety; using a fulltime Government lawyer to work
on the Clinton family's personal business affairs is clearly improper.
I recall very well the extraordinary pains that, for example, President
Reagan took to ensure that none of the White House lawyers worked on
his personal business. His tax returns were prepared by his own private
lawyers and his accountants. Even his blind trust which, unlike the
Clintons, was set up before his inauguration, was prepared at his
personal expense.
Obviously the Clinton White House does not follow the same ethical
guidelines.
What does this mean from a budget standpoint? Obviously it means
today in 1994 we are already paying for too much White House staff, yet
the size and the composition of the White House staff whose budget we
are debating today is itself another mystery. The Clintons have
repeatedly denied requests from Congress for a list of White House
staff members and salary levels.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the Clintons have repeatedly denied requests
from this Congress for nothing more than a list of White House staff
members and salary levels. In fact, one of the Republican amendments
that we will not even be permitted to debate today under this rule
would have required disclosure of White House staff levels and salaries
on a regular basis. That is hardly too much for Congress to ask, since
we are supposed to vote to pay the bills.
But apparently the group that has for 40 years had one-party control
of this House, now with one of their own party members in the White
House has decided to help the White House stonewall the Congress, and
they have looked the other way so as not to notice the sleight of hand
used by the Clinton White House to disguise yet another broken promise,
the bogus 25-percent cut in White House staff.
{time} 1230
The fraudulent bookkeeping devices used to cover up White House staff
spending are worthy of Madison Savings & Loan. The Clintons have
decided that for the first time in 40 years the two largest components
of the executive office of the President are not part of the executive
office. That is not all. They have inflated the personnel baseline from
which the phony cuts are taken.
Then they fired low-paid, long-serving career White House employees
and used the extra money to hire the ever-changing cast of senior aides
cleaning out Clintons----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. COX. It is not terribly surprising that when the dust has
settled, President Clinton's 1995 budget request asked for an increase
in spending. But while it is not surprising, it is unfortunate.
Today as we vote on the White House budget, we are voting in the
dark. We know the White House staff roster thanks only to a leak in the
Washington Post. This House has had no hearings on Travelgate. We have
had no hearings on Whitewater. We have had no hearings on Mrs.
Clinton's transactions in stocks affected by her health care plan or
the undisclosed conflicts of interest on her health care task force or
the myriad other scandals large and small that have enveloped this
administration like a fog. Our job should be to cut through the fog.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished colleague from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, we did
have a hearing on Travelgate, as I am sure the ranking member will tell
you. Second, I do not know whether the gentleman heard me say there
were 1,394 people on the roster at the White House in November 1992
under President Bush. There are now 1,044.
Now, you can dispute those figures. We have had hearings about them.
Those are the figures.
Mr. COX. If the gentleman would yield at that point, reclaiming my
time, $157 million is the amount of money that was spent in 1992 for
the functions covered by this bill; $157 million is the amount that
this bill contains for the very same functions. I do not see a cut in
it.
Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman mean 2 years later? Fiscal 1995?
Mr. COX. That is right.
Mr. HOYER. For fiscal 1995 the gentleman does not see the cut?
Mr. COX. The gentleman said he cut it by 25 percent, but now we are
paying exactly the same amount.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman has
served in this House for some period of time, and he indicated he was
associate counsel. At no time do I recall the gentleman offering an
amendment or adopting a policy at the White House to disclose what he
now wants disclosed on White House personnel.
Mr. COX. The gentleman did so today, and was denied by the group that
controls the House.
Mr. HOYER. Excuse me?
Mr. COX. That amendment was disallowed.
Mr. HOYER. No; no; not this time. During the Reagan or Bush years,
did the gentleman ever offer an amendment or propose a policy in the
White House as associate counsel to disclose this information? And, if
so, could the gentleman let me see that?
Mr. COX. The gentleman does not serve on the committee, and the
gentleman did not offer, even, the amendment that is being disallowed
today.
Mr. HOYER. Now, I want to make my point. I think the gentleman is
trying not to answer my question. With all due respect to the gentleman
from California, the gentleman expressed concern that we were not
disclosing White House personnel.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. And the gentleman in the course of his talk said he was
associate counsel at the White House. Did the gentleman recommend to
then-President Reagan that he disclose that information, or
subsequently as a Member of Congress, that Reagan or Bush disclose that
information?
Mr. COX. I will answer the gentleman in as straightforward a fashion
as I possibly can. I have always supported such disclosure.
Mr. HOYER. I understand that. Did the gentleman make that
recommendation to them?
Mr. COX. I have not offered even the amendment that I am debating,
which is an amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
Nonetheless, it is specious to suggest that if I do not personally
offer every amendment, I cannot possibly support them. I do and have
consistently supported these cuts in the White House staff.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has
again expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168,
noes 262, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 236]
AYES--168
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bentley
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
de la Garza
DeLay
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Inglis
Inhofe
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--262
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inslee
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Roemer
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--9
Brown (CA)
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Reynolds
Schenk
Washington
Waxman
Whitten
{time} 1256
Messrs. GEJDENSON, JEFFERSON, HUTCHINSON, DICKEY, NADLER, PETERSON of
Florida, SKEEN, and LIVINGSTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
request a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman,
the committee has included report language regarding a current Postal
Service regulation aimed at controlling the inclusion of loose
supplements in magazines and commercial mailings, but has had an
unintended, adverse effect on a handful of second class weekly
newspapers utilizing a two-staple bound format. This is the second time
that the committee has brought this specific problem to the attention
of the Postal Service. Does the committee wish the Postal Service to
resolve this problem?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the committee
has directed the Postal Service to study this issue and to report back
on the basis for this regulation. We share the gentleman's concern.
Mr. PORTER. The intent of this regulation is to prevent commercial
mailers from including numerous supplemental inserts without paying
additional postage. However, a very small number of bona fide
newspapers are affected by this regulation simply because they do not
follow the traditional newspaper format. These newspapers had been
using this format for decades before the implementation of this postal
regulation. Does the committee want the Postal Service to allow these
papers to continue to use their customary mode of preparation without
being subject to the more restrictive rules on loose supplements which
apply to magazines and other bound publications?
Mr. HOYER. Again, I would say to the gentleman that the committee
shares his concern, and the committee expects the Postal Service to
review this regulation and report back on its rationale. As soon as I
receive that, I would look forward to discussing it with the gentleman.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the colloquy, and
I thank him for his concern.
{time} 1300
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the American people, I think, are pretty well fed up
with reports of politicians abusing power and fed up with wasteful and
abusive Government expenditures, and they continue to see reports in
the media of politicians taking advantage of perks. Some of them are
real perks, some of them are not. We went through this in past
administrations, and you would think folks would learn a lesson, but
apparently that has not happened.
Quite frankly, I had two amendments that I was going to offer, but I
know they will be struck on a point of order, so I would merely like to
just discuss them at this juncture.
One of those amendments would prohibit the unofficial use of military
aircraft by White House staff unless expressly authorized by the
President.
I think if we are going to have to spell it out, maybe we have to do
it, not for just this administration, but for others. Because we have
had abuses of military aircraft by both Republican and Democratic
administrations. It just seems to me it would make good sense if in
their rule book, that whoever the President may be in the future, there
would be absolutely no question of where that authority lies and where
the line is drawn.
So the amendment I was going to offer but which has not been allowed
because it is considered legislating on an appropriations bill, would
basically have banned the use of military aircraft for anything other
than official business as expressly authorized by the President. I
really think it would have just been a good guideline for this
President and future Presidents on down the road.
The second amendment dealt with legal counsel, the separation between
doing work for private matters and those for public matters.
Bernard Nussbaum stated to us in an earlier letter that White House
staff were not providing legal counsel on private legal or financial
matters, where there is, in his terms, ``no official nexus.''
We have seen a number of reports that contradicted that statement.
We also have seen press reports describing meetings between White
House staff members and Treasury Department RTC officials on the
subject of the President's involvement in the Madison Guaranty matter.
That is a personal financial matter. Press reports have pointed out the
late Vince Foster had Whitewater files in his office, and up until
shortly before his death, he was preparing the president and First
Lady's Whitewater tax returns. That is a personal financial matter.
Most recently, there are press accounts of White House staff weighing
the establishment of a legal fund to raise legal fees to pay for
attorneys representing the President on the Fiske investigation and the
Paula Jones case. The question is why are White House staff members
doing this? Shouldn't Mr. Kendall and Mr. Bennett be handling such
matters?
There is precedent in this subcommittee for concern about such abuse.
Back in 1973, former Chairman Roybal strongly questioned the right of
White House officials to handle Water-gate-related legal matters for
the President. But I think we need to make a very important
distinction, having said that. Watergate involved actions taken by a
sitting President and involved public policy.
Now, if this subcommittee in the past questioned whether official
funds should be used to pay for personal legal counsel for the
President on a quasi-public matter, we certainly have every right to
question the use of public funds for legal counsel on matters that are
clearly private legal and financial matters of the President and the
First Lady.
Mr. Nussbaum stated no funds are being used to provide legal counsel
for the President and First Lady. That sentence is in the present
tense. He said nothing about actions predating his letter.
The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, I think we should just leave no doubt
in the minds of the general public and the minds of White House
officials that public funds should not be used to provide legal counsel
on private or personal matters.
Again, that was the thrust of the second amendment that I had wished
to offer today, simply to put some guidelines in the White House
official operating manual as to where the line is drawn as it relates
to the official use of nonofficial use of military aircraft, and also
to the aspect of attorneys working in the White House, if they are
doing public matters or they are doing private matters, that those two
should be separate. I don't think there is much disagreement over the
fact they should be separate.
The problem is, we have no oversight because the executive branch is
a permanently authorized part of our Government, and, that would be the
appropriate place to bring this up. However, this is the only
opportunity we have.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 23, line
2, strike ``$38,754,000'' and insert ``$23,754,000''.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, some time ago it was announced
that the President was going to go to Normandy to celebrate the 50th
anniversary of D-day. And even though we may have had some differences
on his views on the military, we thought the President of the United
States should go to show respect for those who made such a tremendous
sacrifice for freedom.
Then we found out that the President was going not with just White
House staff and Air Force One and some military personnel, but he was
going with an armada of 29 to 30 aircraft.
Now, bear in mind that President Reagan, 10 years ago, went to
Normandy with six aircraft, and those six aircraft included the
transportation vehicles, White House staff, and the President himself.
But this time, the White House took 30 aircraft, 29 to be exact, we
believe more than that, but we have 29 documented, and approximately
1,000 people along with him, at taxpayers' expense. At least this is
what we were led to believe.
I am on the committee of jurisdiction that is bound by the
Constitution and the Congress to determine whether or not White House
expenditures are appropriate. That is the authorizing committee. Of
course, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] chairs the subcommittee
dealing with the actual appropriation of these moneys.
We contacted the White House, asking them for a list of the people
who went with the President so we could ascertain whether or not these
people were legitimate, whether or not they should have gone at
taxpayers' expense and, if they did not, did they reimburse the U.S.
Treasury for the expenses of that trip.
Bear in mind, each one of these planes, if you average them all out,
some cost 3 or $4,000 per flying hour, some cost as much as 12 to
$13,000. But if you averaged all these planes out as far as flying time
is concerned, the estimated cost per hour is 9 to $10,000 dollars per
flying hour to go over to Europe. There were 29 planes. If you figure
22 hours there and back, and of course they had to go to Rome and other
places, they had several side trips, but we estimated a minimum of 20
hours, we are looking at roughly $6 million in just flight time.
Then we found out that some of these aircraft were not catered by the
U.S. Air Force Commissary at Andrews Air Force Base, but were instead
catered by a private caterer, and we believe that private caterer
charged two or three times as much to the taxpayers as would have been
charged by the U.S. Government Commissary at Andrews.
We then contacted the service organizations: American Legion, VFW,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, AmVets, and so forth, to try to find out
if they were invited to go, because they represent the people who
served in the invasion of Europe in 1944. And we were told that while
they were going to the ceremonies at Normandy, they had not been asked
to accompany the President on Air Force One or the backup plane or any
of the other aircraft.
We tried valiantly for some time to get this information from the
White House. The White House called back to my office and said, ``This
is not any of your business,'' in effect, and we are not going to give
you that list.
During the Reagan and Bush administrations, on many occasions our
subcommittee asked for and received adequate information from the White
House. In fact, we got boxes of information for us to go through. Now
we ask the President, as the Republican minority, for that information,
and we were stonewalled.
So we wrote a letter to the White House under the Freedom of
Information Act that any citizen can do. And we were then told that we
were not going to get the information, that part of it was classified,
and so forth. So we have not gotten that information.
Thanks to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and I want to
thank the gentleman publicly, he called the White House as the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that deals with this issue. He
asked for a list. And today he was very kind in giving me a copy of the
list. I would like to go through that real briefly with you, and then I
will engage the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] in a colloquy or
anyone else who wants to talk about this.
{time} 1310
Air Force One went, with 50-some passengers. Air Force One backup
went with several White House staff. There was a press charter plane,
which is normal. And then there were 26 other aircraft. These 26 other
aircraft included senior DOD officials, 110 passengers, ceremonial
participants, 13 aircraft with approximately 750 passengers. And then
there were three or five aircraft that took a congressional delegation.
I thought there were three, but we found out today that there were
five.
I think that we should have had a presence over there. I believe that
the President should have been there, even when we have had differences
on our views on the military, because he is our Commander in Chief.
But for them to stonewall the Congress and not give us this
information until we force the issue, I think, is a real show of
animosity toward the Congress and arrogance on the part of the White
House.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Especially in view of the fact that shortly
after the President took office on February 10, 1993, he signed a
Presidential directive saying that any use of U.S. aircraft by the
White House should be reported to the public in a very timely manner
and there should be full public disclosure. Yet when the Congress of
the United States asked for this information, we were stonewalled.
We estimate the cost of the trip to be between $10 million and $15
million, including the private caterer and all the air hours and
everything else that took place. We do not know about the lodging,
because we have not had full disclosure.
We also know that there was one intern at the White House, an unpaid
intern that went over there with them. We would like to know whether or
not that unpaid intern was paid for with taxpayer dollars.
I do commend, as I said before, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer] for getting this information for us. But this is incomplete. It
does not give us a manifest, a list of who went. It says that 750
military personnel went, bands and so forth, but it does not give us
who these people were and whether or not they were officially
recognized to go, whether or not they should have repaid the Treasury
for their travel.
There were people that went on these aircraft. We do not have their
names. We believe that they were paid for by the taxpayer. If they went
and they were a private citizen, the are supposed to disclose that.
They are supposed to reimburse the Treasury for that travel, I think,
at a first-class airfare rate.
We do not have that information. This is helpful, but it certainly is
not an answer.
I would urge my colleague to get additional information, if he
possibly can.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
know the gentleman is very concerned about this. I wanted to ask him a
question.
I am sure he has investigated this. How many people went with Ronald
Reagan in 1984?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Ronald Reagan took 6 aircraft, not 29 or 30.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We were told that there were six aircraft
total that went. If the gentleman can give me additional information, I
would welcome it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the
gentleman is aware that 10 years ago they did not have the ceremonies
involving paratroopers or a beach landing. The gentleman is aware of
that.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. All the ceremonies that took place involved
six aircraft. This time it took 30 aircraft, 10 years later.
Mr. HOYER. And the gentleman is aware that 750 of the personnel,
which involved most of the aircraft and their equipment, were with the
bands, the paratroopers, and/or the persons who participated in the
landing at the beaches.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is what this very sketchy list shows, but
we do not have a manifest. In order to determine whether or not this
money was well spent and whether it was spent at taxpayer expense for
individuals requires a manifest. We need the names and the positions of
these people, not a carte blanche that says we took 750 people with us.
Mr. HOYER. I understand what the gentleman is saying. Am I correct
the gentleman from Indiana was a Member of the Congress in 1984? Did he
get at that point in time a manifest?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We did not request a manifest.
Mr. HOYER. And why did the gentleman not request it? There was great
interest in this issue.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We thought it was reasonable for the President
to take six military aircraft, including one military personnel that we
knew of, and that was himself.
Mr. HOYER. I will just suggest to the gentleman, that someone said to
me yesterday that there were 700 to 800 ``personal friends of the
President'' along.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What was said was that we believe there is a
possibility that he took 700 to 800 of his closest friends, because the
White House would not give us the information we requested, even though
the President had promised the public in a Presidential edict that he
was going to do that.
Mr. HOYER. With all due respect to the gentleman, who is a friend of
mine, who I respect and like and work with on a number of occasions, it
stretches my credulity to believe that anybody thought there were 700
close personal friends of the President.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman knows, as others know, that this was the
50th anniversary, a very significant event in world history as well as
American history, that there were literally millions of people who had
participated in one way or the other in this event and that the
military, in particular, these are not Clinton administration people,
these are DOD, had a right to participate. Chairman Vessey went over,
as the chairman knows, and other members of the Joint Chiefs went. The
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] is going to speak on this in a
second.
Bands went to participate in the programs. These were people
organized by the Department of Defense.
In fact, the President of the United States, on his plane, had a
total of nine more people in 1994 than were taken in 1984.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman is begging the issue. The
President, in 1984, President Reagan took six aircraft. He took 29
aircraft. The reason we said, if I might reclaim my time, what I would
like to say is that if the President had, according to his Presidential
edict, given us the manifest and the information, none of this would
have happened. But he stonewalled the Congress, as he has on many other
occasions. And we have no recourse but to try to put pressure on the
White House to get this information. We even wrote them a letter under
the Freedom of Information Act, and they would not respond.
When we said he may have taken 700 to 800 of his closest friends, we
said that for a reason. That was to force the White House and the media
around this country to put pressure on them to come clean. While this
is a very sketchy report, it simply still does not tell us who went at
taxpayers' expense and who did not and whether or not the taxpayer
ponied up a lot of money for people that went over there just as a
guest of the President. We know that one unpaid intern just working at
the White House for a short period of time went. I do not know how many
others.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman did not know the figures then. Was he just
using figures that he speculated?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman, in response to
his stonewalling question, that the D-day ceremony took place on June
6. Some of the equipment is not back yet. It is now June 15.
I just gave the gentleman the record, as the White House is putting
it together, of the planes that went, which almost exactly comport with
the gentleman's figures. It is, I think, very strange, to say
approximately one week after they came back that they are stonewalling
on information. I think the gentleman's characterization is not fair.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, any time one takes 30 U.S.
aircraft and a thousand people over there, there is a list before they
leave. They have to know who is getting on those planes. And the
military knew and the White House knew who was going, and these planes
were requested, most of them by the White House, according to the
information we got at Andrews Air Force Base.
So my question is, they had that list beforehand. Why did they not
give it to the Congress and why did the White House say, we are not
going to give you the information, which is what they told me?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, my source is the
White House. The gentleman says Andrews Air Force Base is his source.
So that I might check out the information, who is the gentleman's
source at Andrews Air Force Base?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will not get somebody fired out there from
the White House because of information that they gave to our office. I
am not going to do that.
Mr. HOYER. At Andrews?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We got it at Andrews on the private catering.
They usually cater these planes at the commissary at Andrews, but the
White House asked for a private contract to be let which costs two or
three or four times as much for private catering for many of these
planes.
Should we be using private caterers when these aircraft normally are
catered by Air Force One?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. I do not know the specifics of that.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Call the White House. The gentleman talked to
them about the other things.
Mr. HOYER. Rarely do they undertake as big an undertaking as 750
members of the military to participate in reenactments and other
celebratory activities.
{time} 1320
I frankly do not know the capacity of the in-house caterer, Mr.
Chairman, but that aside, that is not the issue here, I think. The
issue here is on the disclosure.
Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman, does he know any of the facts
relating to the 1984 trip?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we know in 1984 about President
Reagan.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he was told, but
he does not have a manifest. He has been told.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Nobody asked for a manifest, Mr. Chairman,
because they thought 6 aircraft was reasonable, not 30, at the
taxpayers' expense, especially after the President said that excessive
use of aircraft by the White House was going to be curtailed. We asked
for and demanded complete public disclosure in a timely fashion, and
the President stonewalled the Congress, our committee, when we asked
for that.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to my colleague, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, because we had a constituent inquiry on the matter, my
staff checked up on this issue, and I think it is interesting to put
into perspective some of what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]
has been saying, because my staff, when they talked to the Pentagon,
was told the Pentagon specifically told all veterans that they were
going to have to get over there by themselves, that they were not going
to be able to go aboard any military aircraft; that some military
people would be able to go on a space available basis, but that all the
aircraft that were going were for the White House and official parties
and that sort of thing.
Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to the gentleman is that the
Pentagon's information to my staff confirms much of what the gentleman
is saying here, that veterans did not get to go along, they were not
given free transportation over.
The fact is that this is a evidently a specially invited list that
got aboard all of these airplanes. That comes from what the Pentagon
just told us on a constituent inquiry.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, CBS news interviewed three
veterans in a California hospital who said they would have loved to
have gone, but they could not afford to go.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, not those veterans, nor were any
other veterans, to our knowledge, asked to attend, especially the
veterans groups. I said before, we contacted the major veterans groups.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to the gentleman is that
veterans who specifically contacted the Pentagon, finding out whether
or not there was any transportation that was going to be provided, were
told that no, there would be no transportation provided of any official
nature; that anybody going was going to have to go by commercial
airplane.
Mr. Chairman, that basically confirms what the gentleman is saying,
that the people who were aboard these were people who evidently got
special invites of one kind or another.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have told the gentleman at least 750 of
these were military personnel that participated. These are not special
invitees of the President of the United States. Other people were
former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs under previous administrations,
nonpolitical. Mr. Chairman, some of the gentlemen who are rising here
went. I did not go. They have personal knowledge.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to my
colleagues in just a minute.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, there
should not be any aspersions similar to the gentleman's. This is not
some special list that the President invited. That is not the fact.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
guess the question some of us have, Mr. Chairman, is that it was a
major celebration, the fortieth anniversary, and it should have been a
major celebration at the fiftieth anniversary, but the level of
participation here of military troops and so on, if the gentleman is
correct, is significantly higher.
The question is who made the plans that added significant expense to
the overall participation by the United States.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a legitimate
question.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, as I said
before many times, I believe, many times, those of us in the minority
have asked for information from the White House on a number of issues,
and we have been stonewalled time and time again. The gentleman can ask
almost anybody on this side of the aisle.
When we asked for that information and we finally got a sketchy
outline like the gentleman just received, we question whether or not
all of this is valid. I am not saying somebody lied down there, but I
would like to have more detailed information.
Mr. Chairman, who were these 1,000 people? The gentleman says 750
were military. Is the gentleman sure it was 750 and not 700 or 675?
Were 75 or 100 paid for, personal, private people paid for by the
taxpayers of the United States? I do not know and the gentleman does
not know.
Mr. Chairman, this is not sufficient. We want a complete manifest and
we want to know if these were people who were active military, retired
people in the military, or were they even in the military. If not, did
they reimburse the taxpayer? We are talking about $10 million to $15
million here, and five times as many aircraft as President Reagan took
just 10 short years ago.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have no dog in this fight, but
I would say to the gentleman, we did have paratroopers jumping in 10
years ago at the 40th anniversary. There was a significant jump at that
time. I do not know how they got there, but they were jumping in 10
years ago, too.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. There were six aircraft to our knowledge that
were there, totally, Mr. Chairman, not 29. My initial amendment, Mr.
Chairman, which I am talking about now, is for a cut of $16 million for
the White House budget, to send a message to them. If we are convinced
that much of this is accurate, we will reduce that down to $10 million
or $5 million.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, lest the importance of the D-day commemoration get lost
in the fog of this debate, let me say that this was certainly a very
timely, extremely well planned and put on series of commemorations to a
lot of brave men, both living and dead.
Mr. Chairman, I attended the Slapton Sands ceremony where nearly 800
soldiers and sailors died in a training exercise when they were
surprised by German E-boats. That was kept secret for a while so the
Germans would not learn about it.
I attended the SHAEF Headquarters ceremony in London, and between the
CINCUSNAVEUR Headquarters and the Embassy, what a moving experience
that was. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Montgomery], the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, spoke
at that event.
I attended events both at Utah Beach and at Omaha Beach. I heard the
President speak also at the Cambridge Cemetery. These were fitting
tributes to Americans. I do not want all this to get lost in this
debate, because that was truly well thought out and planned series of
events, and much credit must go to retired Lt. Gen. Mick Kicklighter of
the U.S. Army.
To all those who were involved, this will never happen again, to see
the literally thousands of American veterans with their Purple Hearts,
with the other decorations of their European campaigns; to see Othie
Owsley from Clinton, MO, who was captured shortly after the invasion by
the Germans and in prison camp for 10 months; to see Dr. Tommy
McDonald, from Missouri, Silver Star recipient, thrice wounded was over
there. We will not see that assemblage again.
Mr. Chairman, we should pay tribute to every American who was there,
who came back, and those who were interred in those stone-marked
cemeteries. Let us not lose the significance of this D-day remembrance.
That is what it is. Young America, young America, should know and
understand the sacrifices that occurred on June 6, 1944. That is the
purpose of all of this. It is not to be lost in this debate today.
Mr. SANGMEISTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the debate that is going on
here today. I was one of those who was on the Montgomery Codel that
went over there, and I want to say that it was the greatest experience
anyone could have.
My understanding was that the bulk of those people that went over
there were all veterans. It is too bad that as we do spend money around
here, that we did not spend twice the amount of money and bring that
many more veterans over there to see that. Mr. Chairman, it was one of
the most impressive commemorations I have ever seen, and I think we are
degrading the whole process by what is going on here right now.
Mr. Chairman, I was so pleased to see members of our own body over
there, much less, the minority leader himself, who was involved in the
D-day invasion, who spoke over there, movingly, about his
participation. We had the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], who
parachuted in behind the lines at that time and put his life on the
line, and he was able to speak. We heard all of this.
Mr. Chairman, I think probably one of the most moving things above
all was to travel by bus across Normandy and see all the French people
holding out their American flags and their English and British flags
and saying to us, giving us the V sign. I want to tell the Members, it
was a moving experience. I was very proud to be an American. I was very
proud to be over there at that time. I think we ought to end this
process and get on with the legislation.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite of words.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman Yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we were all proud as Americans
to see the ceremonies at Normandy.
{time} 1330
Mr. Chairman, we were all proud as Americans to see the reception
that we received as Americans over there, the people who went, by the
French people and the English people who experienced such a dreadful
time during World War II. We are very proud of the people who fought
and died on D-day and all of those who sacrificed during World War II
for freedom against Naziism and fascism. We are all proud of them. But
that is not the issue here. The issue is, 10 years ago at the 40th
anniversary, 6 planes went at taxpayers' expense, and this time it was
30 planes, and we cannot get an accounting, an itemized accounting from
the White House on who went. We are charged with the responsibility,
congressional oversight of White House expenditures of this type.
I would just like to say to my colleagues, if we could get a complete
manifest, a complete accounting and it meets with congressional
prerogatives and approval, then fine. But the White House has
stonewalled us, and we got an incomplete list here today. We say 1,000
people are going, 750 were bands and so forth, but we do not have the
answers that are required by our Congress as far as these expenditures
are concerned. While we are very proud to be Americans and very proud
of all those who sacrificed, and many of us served in the military for
our country, we are proud to be members of the military, former members
of the military, that does not answer the questions that we are asking
here today, and we would like to have those answers for the taxpayers
who footed this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I am looking down over the list here and I
just would like a little bit of clarification. If I understand
correctly, the list that we have lists three aircraft that the White
House says were their responsibility. Then there are eight aircraft
that carried 110 passengers, including the Secretary of Defense, senior
officials of military departments, the National Guard bureau chief,
retired generals and staff. If I figure correctly, that is a total of
about 14 people per airplane there. We have eight aircraft carrying 14
people per airplane. I ask the gentleman from Maryland, is that
correct, for an average?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have calculated it.
Mr. WALKER. I am dividing 8 into 110, which comes to something on the
order of 14 people per aircraft in that case. We have no reason to
believe that there is anybody else aboard those aircraft, is that
correct?
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is correct. If the gentleman would look at
the sheets that I gave to the gentleman from Indiana, the passengers
are set forth on the attached documents.
Mr. WALKER. Then we have 13 aircraft that were carrying people. If I
divide that out correctly, it is somewhere on the order of 60 people, a
little less than 60 people per aircraft that were carrying the 750
people.
It says it includes, it goes for participating in the ceremonies.
Mr. HOYER. I can tell the gentleman, there were 53 from the Missouri
National Guard Band; from the Maryland National Guard Band, which I did
not know was going, 53 traveled.
Mr. WALKER. So each of them took an airplane approximately.
Mr. HOYER. National Guard Band overflow. These were all KC-135's, 53.
Ceremonial troops on a C-130, 80; the Navy Band on a C-9, a smaller
plane as the gentleman knows, which is why we cannot compare, some
airplanes are obviously larger than others, 25;
Coast Guard Band, C-9 again, 43. That would indicate that there were
18 less on the same C-9 that went on the Navy Band plane;
And paratroop movement, seven C-141's with 450, a total of 757 for
those particular aircraft.
Mr. WALKER. And those planes, the planes that carried the
paratroopers, carried nobody else. This was all paratroopers who were
aboard those planes. We sent over 450 paratroopers, and they were
aboard the rest of those planes.
Mr. HOYER. There were seven C-141's.
Mr. WALKER. Seven C-141's carrying 450 paratroopers, and there was
nobody else aboard those airplanes, it was just paratroopers?
Mr. HOYER. Nobody to my knowledge. The pilots were on board
obviously.
Mr. WALKER. I understand that.
Mr. Chairman, I am trying to establish here, because this is the
information, it is the kind of information that we simply cannot get
this administration to turn over to us. It would be very helpful for
those of us in the minority who do have questions about some of these
things to get accurate information and get it in a timely fashion. We
would not have to go through these discussions. This discussion is not
about D-day. D-day was a wonderful ceremony, America participated along
with our Allies. It was the kind of thing that should be done. This
does help to clarify it. It helps to go down through it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is this administration has
been the least forthcoming administration in the time I have been in
the Congress in terms of bringing forth information. The reason for it
is, I can tell the gentleman, is the minority has no subpoena power and
the majority has no desire to subpoena any information. Therefore, we
are stonewalled by the Democratic leadership day after day in terms of
getting information because they refuse to use their subpoena power and
the minority has no subpoena power so we cannot get the information,
and this administration simply stonewalls us and says, ``We're not
going to give it to you.''
Mr. Chairman, I am saying if the gentleman does not want this kind of
discussion on the floor time after time, the way to stop it is to tell
the administration that they have an obligation to the Congress to turn
over legitimately asked for information about what is being spent on
the taxpayers' behalf. We are not getting that from the administration
all the time, I find it on my committee. I know the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], at the Committee on Government Operations,
has asked for all kinds of information and has been stonewalled by the
administration.
Mr. Chairman, if there is any place that should be getting this
information, it is the Committee on Government Operations that handles
oversight. Yet the chairman there has no desire to get this information
because he does not want to do anything to embarrass the
administration, and the minority just simply wants to get the
information to find out. Maybe there is embarrassing stuff, maybe there
is not, but it is going to get a lot more embarrassing if day after day
we have to come to the floor and face this kind of discussion simply
because the information is not available. I would suggest to the
gentleman that one of the signals that ought to be sent here is to the
administration to legitimately give to Congress that kind of
information which we are entitled to see and have when it is the
taxpayers involved.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Respectfully, I understand what the gentleman is saying,
but I will tell the gentleman very honestly, I believe that this is not
about information, this is about politics. That is what I have said in
the past.
Mr. Chairman, I will read from a report written by the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service that investigated this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. The report reads:
``Over the past year,'' and this is 1992, ``the Subcommittee on Human
Resources held four hearings, March 31'' and this is 1992, President
Bush is President, ``April 9, April 30 and July 21, 1992, on the travel
and personnel topics addressed in this bill. The White House refused to
testify at three of these four hearings. In addition, two scheduled
subcommittee hearings, May 28 and September 8, 1992, were canceled due
to the White House's refusal to provide witnesses.''
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the differences, I would say to the
gentleman is, the gentleman can read off all that, the difference is
that the subpoena power rests in the committee's hands. At the point
that the White House did not come up and testify to those kinds of
hearings, the committee had the power to subpoena the information,
anyway. It was used consistently on Capitol Hill against the
administration. The gentleman may think that this is politics, but the
bottom line is that there can be no politics out of any of this
information if nothing wrong has been done. However, this gentleman
thinks if there is going to be politics played, that there is plenty
wrong that has been done and if we get the information, it just might
be a political disaster for this administration.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Let me tell the gentleman my problem with that so we can
pursue this.
Mr. Chairman, the trip ended on June 7 or June 8. That was 7 days
ago. I have just handed the gentleman what I got because I believe that
Congress is entitled to this information. The gentleman says it is not
enough. I just mentioned the number of planes and people. I understand
that we could go deeper. But the discussions on the talk shows last
weekend were based upon hearsay. No manifest was available, there was
no absolute knowledge. Why? Because it made for good politics.
Mr. Chairman, I will work with the gentleman to get information
because as I think the ranking member on this committee will tell the
gentleman, I want the members of my committee, I want the Members of
your side of the aisle and I want our side of the aisle to make sure
that we are doing right.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may talk about the gentleman from
Iowa, the gentleman from Iowa has run into problems at the White House
getting information that he thought was legitimately his, not on this
issue but on several other issues that the gentleman thought
legitimately should be given to the minority. They have not been
forthcoming. All I am saying to the gentleman is this is just one issue
of about a dozen or more where information is not being provided by
this administration to Members of Congress who are asking for it.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa, Jim Leach, has had to go to
court to try to get information that he thinks is legitimately
available, should be made available to him as ranking member of the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. The gentleman has had
to go to court to take up a constitutional case.
{time} 1340
That just is not legitimate. It seems to me that if information is
done, is gathered at taxpayers' expense, we have a right to see it,
which should not take subpoena power in order to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Burton of Indiana and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that my staff
contacted Dover, DE, and Altus, OK, and a lot of these bases, and the
manifest that we have of these planes does not jibe with the
information we received.
There were five C-5's and 14 C-141's that went on this trip,
according to the information we received, 9 out of Scott Air Force Base
in Illinois, and four out of McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, and
they are not on this list. So there is an inconsistency. I do not know
what that is. That is why I said we need detailed information on the
manifest and the planes that went, No. 1.
No. 2, in answer to the gentleman's comments earlier about not
getting the information from previous administrations, I serve on that
committee, and they sent us box after box after box of information.
They did sent people up from the White House to testify. It may not
have been the people that the committee chairman wanted, but they were
people in relevant positions at the White House that did come up to
give us information. So do not give us that baloney that the Bush and
Reagan administrations were noncooperative with the committee, because
I was there. We did get the information.
In this administration, we cannot get anything on almost any issue we
have asked for. We have been stonewalled time after time. If you want
me to stand here and give you about a half hour's list of them, I will
be happy to do that.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that I certainly understand your desire for
accountability. That is our job, to make sure that the money is spent
properly.
My question to you would be: Are you familiar with a gentleman by the
name of Bob Michel, the distinguished minority leader?
Mr. WALKER. Well, I have no----
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Are you familiar with that gentleman?
Mr. WALKER, Sure, I am. That is a ridiculous question, but sure, I
am. I am willing to play the game. Yes. What do you want to say about
him?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The point I think that I think needs to be
made in particular with the Normandy trip, the distinguished minority
leader was very much in attendance, the gentleman from California, the
former peacetime fighter pilot, Bob Dornan was there, Congressman
Bilirakis, Congressman Stearns, Congressman Henry Hyde, certainly not a
big fan of the present administration, Congressman Charlie Taylor,
Congressman Alex McMillian. This is just off the top of my head.
Mr. WALKER. I understand the point the gentleman is making. We know
that five aircraft went carrying congressional delegations. We know who
were on those delegations. We can find that out. We would like the
administration to be as forthcoming about who was on the airplanes
other than congressional delegations as Congress did. We know who were
on the congressional airplanes. The gentleman does not have to read off
the list.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am addressing you as a gentleman, and I
hope that you will behave as such.
Mr. WALKER. Well, I am behaving as such by giving the gentleman my
time.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Please, let me finish.
Mr. WALKER. Sure.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Have any of the people I indicated, and
again, this is off the top of my head, of people that I know were in
attendance, have any of them spoken to any irregularities that they
saw, anything that they think should not have taken place? I would
certainly welcome that, because I traveled with, I know, Mr. Dornan
extensively, and I at the time do not recall him saying anything was
out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I do not think any
of us are claiming there are any irregularities. We simply cannot get
the information. We would like to know why there were 30 planes
involved. We have gotten a little bit of the information today. I do
not know that there were any irregularities.
I am not willing to say there were or were not. I have no reason to
believe that the people who went from this Congress did anything but
enhance this ceremony, and I am pleased they were able to be part of
the international participation that was there.
But I will say to the gentleman, again, this is symbolic of what goes
on time after time in this administration, where you ask for
information simply to find out whether or not there are any problems.
You are simply stonewalled, and we are then left with the impression
that there must be something wrong, because otherwise the information
would be forthcoming. Maybe it is just this administration has
absolutely no desire to give any information whatsoever, and that you
all on the Democratic side of the aisle are accommodating that by
refusing to demand the information. Maybe that is all it is.
But I am telling you, you are going to face this kind of issue all
the time on the floor if this administration does not become more
willing to provide legitimate information to the Congress on a regular
basis.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The Washington Times, according to my staff,
asked the White House for this information, and the White House did
give a list of the Congressmen that went, the congressional delegation,
the House and Senate Members, but they refused to give a list of White
House attendees and others, so they were very kind and helpful to give
our names out, which I think is fine, but they would not give the list
of those who went at the request of the White House that were
nonmembers of the Congress.
And therein, as Shakespeare said, lies the rub.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, personally I think it is great, you know, when we have
an event that changes the world, and I think for the better. I have no
qualms about any of the Members going or the responsible people going.
I think the issue for most of us on this side of the aisle, for my
friend, and I think you would agree that on many occasions we are
denied information from the White House, information that allows us to
manage the affairs of the House.
I would hope in the future that we run it like a business. When we
have got a codel or whatever it is, you know, First, we arrange the
plane, second, we say we are going somewhere, and third, the
justification of the people that are going on it, and none of this will
ever happen, I think.
I do not mind 30 airplanes going over there, quite frankly,
especially if they were legitimate. I think they were legitimate
people.
I do have questions about why the band from Missouri. Why not the
band from California? Did Mr. Gephardt ask for the Missouri group to
go? Or why not a military band? And maybe if we see those
justifications up front, there will not be any problem.
I do not think there is any rash undercover things on this. As a
matter of fact, I think it is great that you all went. I do not mind 30
airplanes going, because I think it was a great event, and I support
the Members for going to that.
But I would just say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle:
You know the frustrations we have on this side of the aisle, whether it
is Whitewater, whether it is bank scandals or post office or just
getting information out. I would ask the gentleman to be temperate of
that, and that is the only reason I stand up.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the gentleman is on
the floor, being a very successful military person.
Seven days after we came back now, you were in the military, and you
know how long it takes the military to react on the planes and
everything else to get the list, because everybody has got to sign off.
Am I right? Before they do that? The gentleman knows. I mean, we are
entitled to the information, but, for God's sakes, a week, you know how
long it takes. I have been sitting on the Committee on Armed Services
now for 12 years, and to get information in a timely fashion is not
very easy, because different people have to sign off, and that is the
only thing that I will say to the gentleman.
I appreciate his comments.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman that I have been
in the military, and I have done aircraft lifts. Every time I went,
they had to have a manifest that listed before we left on that trip,
you could fax it in an hour, on who was on the plane.
Mr. SISISKY. In reality, if the gentleman will yield further, in
reality that is true; not in reality, but it should be true, but the
gentleman knows what happens in this massive bureaucracy. I am not
talking against the gentleman.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. All I am asking is the other side have a little--
maybe you would call it sympathy or something--for our frustrations on
trying to get something, and not just this issue. This issue is not a
big heartbeat. This is the whole way that the House runs its business,
and I think this is just a symptom of that, and I think it is a symptom
of the frustration that we are going through on this side.
Mr. SISISKY. I get frustrated, too, at times, I say to the gentleman.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me make one real brief comment. When we
contacted the White House and asked for this information, they did not
say, ``It will be forthcoming in a week, or 2 days or 5 days or 20
days.'' They just said flat, ``No. This is within the purview of the
President of the United States, and we are not giving you that
information.'' And that has been the attitude of this administration
since they took office towards those of us in the minority. They will
not give us any information that they do not want to.
They are required to give it to our committee, as was done in the
past, but that is the problem we have. They did not say, ``Wait a week
or 2 weeks or 3 weeks and we will give it to you.'' They just said
flatly, ``We are not giving it to you, because it is within the
prerogative of the President.''
{time} 1350
I thought it was an appropriate thing for him to do. But on our side
of the aisle the frustration is that there is a different standard
being applied by your side of the aisle from our perspective to this
administration than was applied to the Bush and Reagan administrations.
That is my point.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, the only thing I would say is
that we do not own the White House or the Senate and now the White
House. So we have no recourse. So when we do ask, normally under the
Bush administration we could ask it, but now we cannot.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that this controversy revolves around D-day
because I was one of those who went on the congressional delegation and
the best part of it for me was hanging out with the Members of this
House who served in World War II. The best speech I heard over there
was not the written text of some excellent Presidential speechmakers,
it was our fellow Member and 101st Airborne paratrooper who spoke from
his heart and his head, with no notes, at that little field outside of
Ste. Marie Eglise, where we saw 41 paratroopers, 50 years later,
reenact that terrifying night drop into Normandy. The oldest was 83
years old, and one of them still suffers from back pains because he had
to let his main ram air chute and use his emergency chute. We watched
him coming among the cars into the parking lot. It was an inspirational
trip.
Let us try to sort out the frustration of what we are trying to get
our majority colleagues to do on getting this paperwork; not on this
trip, but on helicopters being used for golf course scouting
expeditions, and all stonewalling that is coming from the White House.
Toay is one of those days in history that are important for a lot of
reasons. Ben Gilman, on our side of the aisle, was a crewman on a B-29.
Today 50 years ago was the first time B-29's flew out of China. Most
people forget that because today was the day we first started the
invasion of Saipan, 50 years ago. We had just taken Biak Island and
held off the Japanese counterattack, at great loss of life. The Brits
were taking it hard and finally turning the tide in Burma. Yesterday
was the Battle of Karatan, beyond Ste. Marie Eglise, where untested
units took tremendous casualties. Until this moment, nobody is going to
mention that today. Normandy was a battle that lasted 80 days. Every
day is a 50th anniversary of Normandy.
But there is some suspicion that this was an attempt to raise in the
polls one individual's ratings and there may have been excessive use of
airplanes and personnel.
Do you know that 50 percent of this Chamber has had military
experience? Precisely 50 percent of the U.S. Senate has people with
military experience. Do you know what the average is for the
administration, the Clinton administration? 13 percent. Do you know
what the average is in the White House compound? 8 percent.
Some of us are curious who the hundreds of people are who went, which
included trips to Paris and a trip to Oxford to relive, on my behalf,
some very bad memories of giving aid and comfort during the height of
the bloody cold war to an enemy in Moscow and Hanoi.
Now let us face something: I know what the resistance is on the other
side of the aisle. Not a single Republican Senator or House Member had
anything to do with Watergate, and yet we lost 47 seats, 37 incumbents,
2 sophomores and 8 freshmen out of this Chamber, because Nixon covered
up, or his staff did, and he ran it.
I know what you are afraid of, you are afraid of the truth, and we
are going to go after it until we get the truth because we have a right
to know what is going on in a White House that may, may turn out to be
the most discombobulated, if not corrupt, White House that this Nation
has seen in 218 years.
Stop the resistance, you will lose, and maybe like 1974 totally
innocent freshmen and sophomores on your side of the Chamber will be
pulled down because of the shenanigans in the White House the way Nixon
wrecked our party, never to have seen a majority chairman in this House
ever again because of the way they covered up. Do not be part of a
coverup. Yes, it will bring you some pain. Seek the truth.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to point out one more thing on Mr. Hoyer's list here. Under
subparagraph 1 it says, ``This figure does not include aircraft
necessary to transport security and communications equipment. For
national security reasons, the number of such planes is never
released.''
So we know that these 29 planes does not include the entire armada
that went over there; there might have been 6 or 7 more planes that
went on ahead.
So we are talking about maybe 36 or 37 planes instead of the 29.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, to that extent I presume the gentleman would agree that
that would apply as well to President Reagan's trip as it did to
President Clinton's trip.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes, I presume that is the case. I just wanted
to clarify that.
Mr. DORNAN. Reclaiming my time, I do so to tell my colleagues and the
American people something that was not Reagan or Bush's or Carter's
fault but something I told President Bush on a short trip from Chicago
to here.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I went into that conference room on Air
Force I--and there are two of them--and I said to President Bush, ``Mr.
President, this airplane is excessive.'' The cold war was just ending.
I said, ``This is excessive.'' And then when I saw on the ramp in Rome
2 giant Air Force I's, 747's, I knew I was correct in telling Bush that
that airplane was excessive. We should have one for overseas trips
only. We should sell off the second one. The cold war is over. We do
not need four or five big Boeing 747E-4's tied down for the White
House, particularly for trips that are not intercontinental. I will
stand by that.
And if we take the White House back in 1996, I will still maintain
that with Gulfstreams and with available 767's and 757's and other
types of airplanes, it is excessive to fly around hundreds of people on
two gigantic 747's. It is also wrong to pluck flags out of the ground
at Nettuno and--you know what we did, Sonny, we laid flowers at those
graves. We did not plant phony crosses on the beach at Omaha with the
U.S.S. San Jacinto, named after George Bush's carrier, in the
background.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of debate, none of which has been on
this amendment. None. This amendment cuts $15 million from the ability
of the White House to conduct its business. None of the expenses are
paid out of this fund, none. This is, as the last amendment, ladies and
gentlemen, a serious amendment. Think about what you are doing in the
name of trying to make political points.
Could a majority party, as we are now, with a Republican President,
as was the case from 1981 to 1992, decimate the White House budget
because we disagreed with their policies? We disagreed with Deavers'
White House pass. We disagreed with Sununu's visits to the dentist.
Could a majority party decimate the person elected by the people of
this country to be the Chief Executive? That is the issue here because
this money does not deal with the payment of any airplanes. This is a
serious issue of the comity between executive and legislative branches
of Government. This is a serious issue as to whether or not we have the
courage and the honesty to say that when we say we will defend and
preserve the Constitution of the United States, it also means, as I did
for the 11\1/2\ years that I served under Republican Presidents in this
House, that I was prepared and committed to allowing them to fund their
constitutional responsibilities as they saw fit and, if I disagreed
with that, to go to the American public and say they are spending
excessively, they do not need this.
I do not say there is never an instance when we should cut. In fact,
as all of you know, we have cut $44 million from the President's
request. I do not like to do that, but we are in tight times. But I
suggest to you this is a larger issue, this $15 million out of $38
million, about a 40-percent cut in the White House Office of
Administration.
This amendment ought to fail.
{time} 1400
Yes, it served as an opportunity to debate issues that some may think
are politically embarrassing to the White House, and they well may be.
I think in this instance the substance of the debate is inaccurate;
there is no embarrassment here. But, having said that, I understand it
was a vehicle for debate. But I would ask my friends on the other side
of the aisle, who have held the Presidency for longer than my party has
in the last 40 years, to think about what this amendment does, think
about how we can fiscally decimate the ability of the Executive Office
to operate.
I ask most respectfully that we unanimously either withdraw this
amendment, which does not relate to these expenditures, or vote against
it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield
briefly?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think that I will concur on
one point, and that is that due to the fact that the President ordered
these planes and they came out in large part of the Defense Department
budget, and let me just finish because I am willing to withdraw the
amendment and substitute amendment No. 3 which would only cut $5
million and then go straight to a vote on that because I think that is
a more reasonable cut than the $15 million since it is all coming out
of the White House----
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman does not speak of
the character of the amendment. He speaks only of its amount, and I
will not agree with any cuts for exactly the principle that I
discussed. And so that everybody understands, that was my position
under President Reagan and President Bush. I have not changed my
position.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Just a question, Mr. Chairman; I guess I ended up a
little confused.
The gentleman said he cut $44 million from the budget, and that is
not a constitutional crisis, but, if the gentleman from Indiana wants
to cut $15 more from the budget, that becomes a constitutional crisis.
Mr. HOYER. That was from the entire Executive Office of the
President, as I explained. The Office of Administration is included in
that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we did this, as I pointed out, because of
the very tight fiscal times. I discussed this with the White House and
told them that we were going to do this because of what we were doing
with every other agency, not because I thought we ought to cut them, as
I expressed to my committee members, but because I thought that they
ought to be in the same position.
The gentleman, I think, will admit this $15 million cut has nothing
to do with the expenditures about which he is concerned. This does not
pay for the airplanes; it does not pay for the trips. It pays for the
ability to run the White House.
Now while we have constrained them by $2.9 million, which is 1994
levels, the fact is that this cut of 40 percent, decimates their
ability to run a coequal branch of Government.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Walker and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. WALKER. Just to clarify:
So, if the gentleman from Indiana was offering a $2.9 million
amendment, that would be a reasonable kind of amendment rather than the
$15 million because the gentleman has already cut that amount. But the
gentleman may not agree with it, but that would be a reasonable kind of
discussion to have on the floor about cuts in the White House budget.
Mr. HOYER. I would say to my friend that he is a very able debater,
but that is not what I am saying at all, and let me tell the gentleman
why I am saying that.
The gentleman's purpose in offering this amendment is not fiscal
responsibility. It is not to say that we are spending $15 million too
much at the White House office. I do not think he believes that. I hope
he does not believe that. And that has not been at any juncture
discussed in this debate. He is doing it to make a point. He is doing
it to make a political statement and, perhaps, a substantive statement
as well, but he is not doing it because he wants to save money. He
wants to make a point.
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman, I think, is characterizing the gentleman--
--
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, my point is that, if we on this side
had done that during the 12 years that we vigorously disagreed with
many of the policies of the White House and simply said, well, cut $15
million because we disagreed with, for instance, Mr. Sununu's trips to
the dentist and decimated the ability of the White House to operate, I
would have voted against that, and I think the gentleman knows I would
have.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that perhaps missing from this debate is some
perspective that does not talk about the rights of the White House or
the rights of Congress, but the rights of the public to know certain
information. I rise, not in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], but in total agreement with the
principle which is behind it, which is talking about the disclosure,
the difficulty that we Republicans have, members of the press have, and
members of the public have, in getting straight answers and straight
information out of the White House, and the purpose, I believe, of Mr.
Burton's amendment is not to decide, without having the information,
whether the expenditure for the D-day commemoration was proper or
improper, but to make sure that the information comes forward so that a
clear decision can be made as to whether it was proper or improper. And
certainly, looking at the information that we have been provided so
far, and it is not complete, but the information that has been provided
so far seems to indicate that the bulk of the persons who were
transported overseas were parts of paratroop commemorations and
military bands, and they were military personnel that were transported
to be engaged in the festivities and the commemorations of a very
crucial chapter in the history of the planet. And we may disagree or
agree with that, but I do not think that that should be a partisan
issue of how many people that are in the service, or former members of
the service, would take part in those important ceremonies. But at the
same time this debate has centered over a very troubling issue. The
White House does not want to release simple, accurate, timely
information to us as members of Congress, but it also denies the
taxpayers their right to know.
The chairman of the subcommittee with whom I serve knows that I am
not speaking out of partisan fervor. If I were here to make a partisan
statement, I would have voted for the last amendment. It is not a
matter of punishing the White House.
As a freshman, I do not have to be held accountable for whether I did
or did not support certain things that were done in the White House
under the Reagan or the Bush administration, and it really does not
matter, and we should not be here discussing, well, it is OK because we
did this under some other President. This people of America do not want
that to be the basis for making our decisions. The people want us to be
basing it upon is it a prudent expenditure of the taxpayers' money and
are we being forthright in those disclosures.
That is why we have things that I think we should be dealing with,
telling the White House that salaries ought to be disclosed, telling
the White House that travel and reimbursement for it ought to be
disclosed, that whether people have proper security clearance at the
White House to do their work, that ought to be disclosed. We had
things, such as in our subcommittee the White House told us that the
health care task force consumed about 300-and-some-odd thousand dollars
of the taxpayers' money, and now media reports are saying it may have
been $20 million. Which was it? Do we have a right to know?
Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. So, although because of the
information that is coming up so far about who paid the money and what
it was used for on the Normandy activities, I do not support the
particulars of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton], but I totally support the principle that my colleague from
Indiana is pushing, the right of the people to know and the obligation
that we hold accountable those in the White House just as we ourselves
should be held accountable.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a rather curious debate on this matter. We
have heard a lot of complaints from my colleagues on that side of the
aisle about the fact that the President went to France to join in the
international celebration of the 50th Anniversary of D-day. What he did
was no different than what President Reagan did 10 years ago to
celebrate the 40th anniversary, and it was no different than what the
heads of state of any Nation that was involved in that particular
invasion did. In fact, the prime minister of every European country
involved in the Allied effort went there.
{time} 1410
And they were there to celebrate a great event in the history of this
world, one which led to 50 years of freedom and relative tranquility in
the world. It was, even in the words of Joe Stalin, ``a great and
defining event,'' and heaven knows he was no particular friend of the
West.
As I looked about me, I saw several of my colleagues who were on this
trip, some on this side, who attended with the President of the United
States, and they were unanimously agreed that this was a very important
trip and a very important event. They also agreed that it was
appropriate that the United States should send its President on the
50th anniversary, as we did the 40th.
I have also heard discussion about not being able to obtain
information from the White House, but I do not think that is the real
issue here, and I do not think that is really at stake, from the way
the amendment was offered and the arguments that I have heard.
The trip to Normandy was a great event, and it celebrated an even
greater event. We honored thousands of Americans, British, French, and
Canadians who at the risk of their lives--and many of them gave their
lives, and hundreds and thousands of them were seriously injured--
embarked on a great crusade led by another great American who later
became a Republican President of the United States.
To recognize that we must honor those great men and women who served
in our Armed Forces and suffered and died at Normandy is very
important, and to do it with dignity and reverence and remembrance is
also important. The history of this country is the history of great men
and great women who have suffered, served, and sacrificed, and the
history of that war is a great part of the history of this Nation.
Americans from all parts of this country fertilized beaches of
Normandy and its waters with their blood, and they enriched the history
of the world, and they gave freedom to Americans and people of every
other race with their sacrifice. Only by honoring them and remembering
what they did and why they did it can this country carry forward its
great traditions, and only in that way can we avoid the kind of perils
we found ourselves thrust into in 1939 and on December 7 of 1941.
I would urge my colleagues not to demean that day, not to demean
those men and women, not to demean this country or our ideals or our
history by making this a partisan show in which we attack the White
House, because the President went over and participated in a great
international event with the leaders of every other nation of the Free
World.
What would we have said about the United States had the President of
the United States not gone to the 40th anniversary in 1984? And what
would have been said had President Clinton not gone in 1994? The
comments would have been ``Shame.''
I say to my colleagues that it does great shame to those Americans
who served there, to those great Americans who died and who suffered
there, for us to debate that. It is beyond question that the President
of the United States should have been there, and that Americans should
have been there, and that a delegation from the Congress of the United
States, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, should have been
there to join in honoring not only a great event but great Americans
and great human beings of other nationalities. Let us not demean this
body and this debate by seeking to whimsically cut the White House
budget on this kind of a pretense.
Let us understand that the President needs an adequate budget to
conduct his affairs. This party has been in control of the Congress for
years. We have always seen to it that Republican Presidents who have
occupied the White House a majority of the time have had the resources
and the funds they need to do their job. Let us not convert that type
of history to cheap partisanship.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment, and I will substitute my amendment No. 3.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I now offer amendment number 3.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 23, line
2, strike ``$38,754,000'' and insert ``$33,754,000''.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to make this very brief
because this has been a very prolonged debate.
I would like to start off by saying that we all believe the President
should have gone to Normandy, and we all believe that Members of
Congress who served in the invasion of Normandy should have gone as
well to show our respect and admiration for those who sacrificed so
valiantly on the beaches of Normandy and in Europe during the war.
We do believe we have had a terrible time getting a manifest of the
aircraft that went and a manifest of the people who attended these
events and these celebrations over there. We still do not have it. We
have a rough outline, but we do not have the information the congress
requested, and for that reason we are trying to send a message to the
White House that ``If you do not respond with openness, as you promised
during the campaign, then there will be some kind of penalty inflicted
upon you by the Congress because it is our responsibility to oversee
the expenditures of the entire Government, including the executive
branch.''
So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I have offered this third amendment
which would cut $5 million from the White House budget to send a signal
to President Clinton and the White House that they are to respond to
us, the people who manage the people's money, about their expenditures,
and if they do that in a timely fashion, they will have no more
problems with this Member.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly, as I said I would, to oppose this
amendment as well. The amendment is different in amount only, not in
character.
The $5 million suggested to be cut by the gentleman from Indiana does
not relate to the expenditures of which he complains. It is, as he
says, to send a message. My side of the aisle, I do not believe, did
that in the last 11\1/2\ years that I served during Republican
administrations, and I do not think it is appropriate to do so, for the
reasons I stated before.
I would hope that, as much as we want to send messages--and we send
them all the time to each other and to the President--we would not
accept this amendment. I concur with the gentleman from Oklahoma and
the gentleman from Indiana, and I believe I have cooperated with our
minority Members. Information that I deem appropriate, information that
the Reagan-Bush White House or other White Houses of either party have
provided, ought to be provided by this White House, and I will work
toward that end. I will work with Members to ensure that objective,
because I think that is appropriate and consistent with the
responsibility we have to the people we represent.
But there is a larger issue of undermining the ability of this
coequal branch of government to carry out its constitutional functions.
I hope that this amendment would be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147,
noes, 287, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 237]
AYES--147
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bentley
Bereuter
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
DeLay
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Huffington
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Paxon
Penny
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Ramstad
Ravenel
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--287
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Hunter
Hutto
Inslee
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Roemer
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--5
Dickey
Reynolds
Thornton
Washington
Wilson
{time} 1437
Messrs. SWETT, FALEOMAVAEGA, and BECERRA changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. bartlett of maryland
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland: Page 23,
line 2, insert after the period the following:
The amount otherwise provided under this heading is hereby
further reduced by $13,129.66.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan
amendment. All of us in government are affected when trips like this
helicopter golfing trip occur. My amendment today does not have
anything to do with recovering the cost of last months' helicopter
flight to a golf course in my district. Mr. Chairman, this is purely a
symbolic amendment. It gives the House an opportunity to make a
statement that we requested the White House, please release the
relevant information that we have asked for. If and when that
information is released, we will ask the conference committee to
reinstate the $13,129.66, which is what the White House says was the
cost of this helicopter golfing trip.
Mr. Chairman, we know that was not the full cost, because it does not
include the cost of two crash wagons from the fire department at Fort
Dietrich to go out when the helicopter landed and when the helicopter
took off.
This amendment is about Congress' legitimate oversight responsibility
and the willingness or the unwillingness of the White House to
cooperate. This amendment is an opportunity for us in the House to go
on record that we believe there should be full disclosure of the use of
the Presidential helicopters.
Since I attracted attention to the photograph of the Presidential
helicopter sitting on a nearby golf course, I have sent the White House
three separate written requests for the flight logs and manifests of
all of the helicopters in the Marine squadron that supports the
President, and any flights they might have taken where White House
staff was involved. I have not received a single response from these
requests. There is to date no indication that they intend to honor
them.
Mr. Chairman, the White House did release a sanitized list of staff
flights of the White House Presidential helicopters, but this list was
so incomplete that the now famous golf course flight was simply listed
as a flight from Anacostia to Camp David. There was no indication that
they stopped off at Holly Hills to play golf on the way back. If
Members did not already know that the flight went to the Holly Hills
Country Club, Members would have no idea that the helicopter landed
there.
Mr. Chairman, we have also had a second response, but again, not to
us. This response was through the Subcommittee on Treasury--Postal
Service--General Government of the Committee on Appropriations. We are
very indebted to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for providing
this information, but again, Mr. Chairman, this was simply slightly
expanded information on the 12 flights that they had previously
released through the press.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, we got the first one, not sent to us. We
got it from the Los Angeles Times. They faxed it to us. This second
list is contradictory. There are errors in it, and there are omissions
in it. Mr. Chairman, we have not asked for any information on
Presidential flights, only flights that the President was not on that
included White House staff. Mr. Chairman, we are not trying to set a
precedent. Similar information was asked for relative to the Sununu
flights and use of automobiles. We want the kind of response from the
White House that the conference got when they asked for that
information.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, when that information was released on the
Sununu flights, there was information brought to light that the White
House was not aware of. We continue to press our demands for full
release of this information. We believe that the stigma of this that
now rests on the executive branch and also on the Congress will not be
erased from the American people without this full disclosure.
Mr. Chairman, we ask that Members please join us in this bipartisan
effort to ask the White House to please release this information so
that we can move on, so that the American people can have their
questions answered about the use of White House helicopters.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the House and my colleagues reject the
amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Bartlett]. It is duplicative, and existing law covers the incident that
the gentleman refers to. Existing law precludes the use of military
aircraft for travel that is not related to the performance of official
or reimbursable duties. Further, the sole purpose of the amendment is
to attempt to embarrass the President over an incident concerning the
use of the helicopter 2 weeks ago.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the individual involved was
disciplined. Since then, Mr. Watkins has resigned and agreed to
reimburse the Government for the actual cost, which exceeds the amount
of DOD reimbursement policy. The White House has also instituted a new
policy requiring the Chief of Staff or counsel to the President to
approve use of helicopters.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the White House has disclosed all other use of
helicopters other than that by the President or Vice President, which
demonstrates that there has been no other questionable use of
helicopters in this administration.
This amendment should be rejected.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I
think it gets to the same point as the one that I wanted to offer
regarding abuse of military aircraft. I would simply urge my colleagues
to support the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, as
my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], said, this is
a symbolic amendment. It is a $13,129.66 cut. The issue here is not the
dollars, but the dollars are important.
Mr. Chairman, let me state that Mr. Watkin's act was against the law.
The money has been repaid. It was wrong. It should not have happened.
David Watkins has lost his job. I think that was appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, having said that, again, this amendment does not deal
substantively, it is a symbolic amendment. Again, I stress that the
money has been repaid. This is another instance where, to send a
message, we cut the Administrative Office of the White House, which
does not pay for this expense.
Mr. Chairman, on May 31, by memorandum of Mack McLarty, it has been
made very clear that, from this day forward, all requests for the use
of Department of Defense aircraft on a nonreimbursable basis will
requite the approval of the Chief of Staff or Deputy Chief of Staff.
Furthermore, if it is the Chief of Staff or the Deputy Chief of Staff
that happens to be flying, there must be approval of the Counsel's
office, or the Deputy White House Counsel.
All requests shall be sent to appropriate approving authority through
the Office of Management and Administration, so procedurally, the White
House believes that misuse of military helicopters was wrong, it was
contrary to policy, and they have made it very clear that this is not
policy. Also, as I say, the gentleman involved has been removed from
his job.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I concur completely that this
is a symbolic amendment. The funds for the use of the helicopter would
not have been paid through White House funds, we understand that. It
comes through the Department of Defense.
This is a symbolic amendment. By voting for this amendment, the
symbolism is that we are sending a message to the White House: ``Please
release the information so this cloud over government, of which we are
a part, can be removed.''
We agree with the gentleman that the flight in question was an
inappropriate flight. This is a picture certainly worth at least a
thousand words. What we want now to do is to clear the slate so we can
move on. This will remain an issue that will continue to embarrass the
White House and embarrass those on the gentleman's side of the aisle
until this information is released.
Mr. Chairman, when the information is released, we will ask the
conference committee to reinstate the $13,129.66. The money is not the
issue.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we do not need the
symbolism. The message has been received. Mr. Watkins lost his job over
this. Why? Because the White House concluded, correctly, in my opinion,
that this was absolutely inappropriate.
{time} 1450
Second, Mr. Watkins, first reluctantly, I am not sure why, he should
not have been, was ordered to and has in fact reimbursed the
$13,129.66. Furthermore, there is no stain on the White House.
Something happened that was wrong. It has now been corrected.
Furthermore, as the gentleman knows, I have gone over with him the
manifests that I requested so that I could go over with the gentleman
as chairman of the committee what they submitted to the committee. As
the gentleman knows, some of this is classified information. We went
over that with the gentleman. There were 12 trips and on all but this
one the record set forth, to this Member's satisfaction, legitimate
purposes. I agree with the gentleman absolutely that this last trip on
May 24 had no legitimate purpose, and the individual who perpetrated
that and decided to do that has paid the price. So we have sent the
message.
Furthermore, let me say just by way of example, John Sununu
reportedly took more than 70 trips costing $600,000, not $13,129. Of
that cost, $35,000 was in fact reimbursed by political organizations
and Sununu personally paid $892 back. We did not have an amendment that
was symbolic on the floor with reference to those travels.
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. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made an
important point, and that is that those records were released. That is
how we know how much money was involved.
Mr. HOYER. No, sir.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. The records were released, and that is how
we know how much money was involved in it.
Mr. HOYER. No, sir.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Our request was a very simple request. It
is a symbolic amendment. Vote for the amendment. It tells the White
House, ``Please release the information.'' Our committee has a
legitimate oversight authority. This is an appropriations bill. This is
the only kind of language that we can put in the bill and have the
amendment made in order, so I think everyone understands the intent of
the amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman was incorrect. It does
not prove the gentleman's point that the White House released the
information. In fact, that White House was subjected to, just as this
White House is subjected to, a GAO audit of the trips that are taken,
and the Sununu information came from this audit, just as the audit that
they are now undertaking, or will undertake at the end of this year,
will reflect similar information. But the gentleman is incorrect to
conclude that this information came from that released by the White
House. It came from the GAO audit which has seven pages, not one golf
trip, but seven pages of Mr. Sununu's trips. And we did not
symbolically cut money.
Did we criticize it? We did. Did we make a political point of it? We
did, because we thought it was embarrassing. And we did the same thing
the gentleman is doing, but we did not come on this floor and cut
$13,120 or $15 or $2.85 for symbolism. We did not do that because we
did not think that was the way to do it.
The way to do it is to go to the American people, as the gentleman
has done, on talk shows and in the newspapers. The White House was
properly embarrassed by this incident. It was wrong. Watkins has been
fired. Watkins has paid back the money.
This incident, however, is one where we have a clearly delineated
policy. The information that the gentleman wants to get by this
amendment I have shown the gentleman. The gentleman then says, ``Well,
how do I know this is all of the information?''
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HOYER. How do I know this is all of the information?
Well, I suppose we never know unless we subpoena every record that
the Air Force and the Marine Corps and the Army have. Then if we review
all of their records, which of course would fill up this building, I
presume then we can conclude that no, there is no other information
other than what has been submitted.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The
gentleman will admit there was an error and an inconsistency in the
record that he released to us, and we have thanked him previously in an
exchange for his efforts in this.
Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Our request remains a very simple and
legitimate request that as yet has not been honored. The two sources of
information coming indirectly to us were not a response to our request
that the White House release to us all of this pertinent information so
that a judgment can be made to put this issue behind us.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand that the gentleman
apparently wants to be personally handed this information. The
information has been given to the committee that, as I say, has
jurisdiction, which is why the gentleman is offering this amendment. I
have gone over it in my office for about an hour with the gentleman
because I believe the gentleman is correct, the gentleman has a right
to know. We have made that information available. As the gentleman also
knows, there is some classified information in the compendium.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the House to reject this amendment offered
by the gentleman from Maryland.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 236, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 238]
AYES--195
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fingerhut
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoagland
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Huffington
Hunter
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meehan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Slattery
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thurman
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--236
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barlow
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thompson
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--8
Brooks
Dickey
Hutchinson
Lowey
Reynolds
Thornton
Washington
Wilson
{time} 1515
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Page 28, after line 4,
insert the following:
Reduction of Funds
Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this title (other than under the heading ``Office of National
Drug Control Policy'' or ``Federal Drug Control Programs'')
that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made
available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5
percent.
Mr. HEFLEY (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
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this debate. We
have said almost everything that could be said on the various kinds of
cuts for the White House.
What my amendment would do is to cut 5 percent from the budget of the
Executive Office of the President. I have excluded the Office of
National Drug Control Policy and the Federal Drug Control Programs,
with this cut. Some hours ago we had the Goss amendment, which was a
20-percent cut. If we feel that doing that, asking the President to
face up to the promises he made about the cuts as to what he was going
to do in his White House, if we feel that is too draconian, then this
would ease into that. I am a little disturbed; I think the arguments we
have had here this afternoon seem to say that for us to even consider
cuts in the Executive Office of the White House should somehow be out
of bounds, that we should not consider that, because if we are serious
about cutting the way the Government spends money and reducing that
amount of money that we spend, then there can be no account that is
completely sacred and out of bounds. We have to look at everything in
our role of accountability.
So let me explain why I am offering this cut. When Bill Clinton was
elected President, he sent a message to the Congress and to the
American people. He promised cuts in his staff by 25 percent, cuts in
his budget by 10 percent, and he called on Congress to follow his lead.
We have heard a lot of talk this afternoon that, after all, this is at
the 1994 level. But that is not what he said he would do. He said he
would cut 10 percent. If we want to balance the budget, we cannot deal
with what the present levels are, we have to find places to cut beyond
present levels.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned 1994 levels. This account is
$270 million, it is $28 million less than last year.
Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman. But over and over this afternoon
we have talked in terms of the 1994 levels. I understand what the
gentleman means.
In the last year and a half the message sent by the actions of the
Clintons differs completely from the promises made just a short time
ago. Most of the so-called personnel cuts that took place actually
occurred outside the White House.
{time} 1520
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I remain troubled over the spate of lapses
that seem to plague the White House. For instance, and many of my
colleagues have pointed out correctly this afternoon, there have been
reports of political consultants and private advisers being granted
privileged access to the White House. There have also been
unprecedented delays in submitting the standard paperwork necessary for
issuing permanent White House passes to employees. Mr. Chairman, there
have even been disturbing reports that maybe the reason this has not
happened is, because of some kind of criminal records here, they could
not pass. We do not know if that is true or not. We simply do not have
the information as to whether it is.
But I think the most blatant lapse of ethical judgment occurred back
in February of this year. The White House designated Clinton's trip to
Chicago as an official function. However most of the press reports, and
I think most people accept this fact, that it was a campaign trip, so
there is a concern that President Clinton may have used official travel
funds for partisan political, purposes.
Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a disturbing trend here.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Americans everywhere, and this is the main
point and may be the reason for me asking for a 5-percent across-the-
board cut, and I would support that kind of a cut, or more across the
board, in the coming congressional budget as well. The reason for this
is that Americans everywhere work hard for their money, but it seems
like every year Congress finds a way to take an even bigger share of
Mr. and Mrs. America's earned money.
As my colleagues know, one of the things that is repeated adversely
all through my town meetings is that the taxpayers are sick and tired
of seeing Washington continue to spend at the ridiculous levels that we
spend, and that includes the White House as well as the other accounts.
It is time we sent a clear message to the White House: The American
people are not going to stand for any more of the same old spending
levels from their Government.
Let us show the White House and the public that we are serious about
cutting expenditures of the Federal Government.
Who will stand up for the beleaguered taxpayer out there?
Mr. Chairman, this is our chance to do that and our chance to help
the White House set the example.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
The gentleman asked, perhaps rhetorically, who will stand up for the
taxpayer?
This budget for the Executive Office of the President was $298
million last year. As presented, my colleagues, it is $270 million for
fiscal year 1995, almost a $28 million cut. Now it does not take much
of a mathematician to know that on a $298 million budget, with a $28
million cut, it is just about 10 percent.
That is who is standing up for the taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, my ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] stood and said this is a fiscally responsible
bill. Why? Because we took 1994 levels or 1995 requests if the 1995
request was lower. Why? Because I think that is an appropriate policy?
As my colleagues know, I do not. I think we ought to cut the White
House, but I also understand that we are cutting every other agency,
and we are putting a notch in our belt. Why? Because times are tough.
Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about bringing the deficit down 3
years in a row, the first time since Truman that we have done that.
Does nobody want to talk about that? Does nobody want to talk about the
fact that this budget, this deficit that we are running this year, is
40 percent below the budget deficit projected by George Bush's OMB, as
they left office?
As much as 40 percent below that? That employment is up? That we are
creating 6,000 jobs a day?
The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], my friend, says we want to
focus on the taxpayer. I suggest that focus is on the taxpayer,
bringing unemployment down, bringing job creation way up. We have
created more jobs under this administration, over 3 million new jobs;
that is three times as many as were created in the previous 4 years.
The gentleman says, ``We want to talk about the taxpayer.'' I am
prepared to talk about it--10 percent cut. It is the largest cut in the
White House budget report by this Committee since I have served on it,
and I do not like it. Understand that. But I am a political realist and
a pragmatist, and I say, ``When you ask others to cut, you got to do it
yourself.''
This 5 percent is on top of that, my colleagues. We ought not to be
doing that.
And I will reiterate. A gentleman is on this floor, Mr. Chairman, and
he knows that I grieve, and I do not overstate it, that he is leaving
this Congress. He and I believe, I think, in the same kind of
democracy. We differ from time to time on specific issues. But I have
tried to practice in the 13\1/2\ years I have been here comity with the
President of the United States because I believe that is appropriate,
and I have supported the President's budget every time it has been
submitted.
This 5-percent cut does not deal with how the White House performs
it. This cut undermines the ability of the White Hose to perform its
constitutional responsibilities, and again I reiterate, and in closing,
and then I will yield to my friend, the gentleman from California, but
in closing we are $28 million under last year's budget, not $28 million
under constant budget, current services, but $28 million under 1994's
expenditures. Why? Because of our concern shared by the gentleman from
Colorado that, if we are going to pinch pennies, we pinch them across
the board.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. COX. Two points:
First, as we have discussed earlier on the floor in the context of
other amendments, the amount that the appropriation bill allocates for
functions in the Executive Office of the President is $157 million,
precisely the amount that was spent for the identical functions in
1992, George Bush's last year. We were promised by President Clinton
that he would cut 25 percent from the White House, and frankly, I
think, that was not a demagogic promise. It was a sound pledge by a
candidate running for President because he saw that in the Bush White
House there was too much staff. In this White House there is just as
much, if not more, because of the detailees and so on.
Mr. Chairman, having worked in the White House myself, as I have said
in private conversations with the gentleman, I think the President can
get by on substantially less staff and do a much better job. Certainly
Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran World War II with a lot less staff than
we require right now for purposes that are not, in my view, wholly
legitimate.
Second, the gentleman said that we have no longer a deficit problem,
that everything seems to be under control, or, if he did not say that,
he said that things are looking up, that we are reducing the deficit
and so on.
I would just point out that President Clinton's first budget, the
very first one he submitted in January 1993, began with the fiscal year
we are now in. That fiscal year does not end until September 30, and,
as a result, the Clinton administration has yet to reduce a single
deficit. We have not reduced three consecutive deficits or anything
like that. We have not yet reduced our first deficit. The 1993 budget
year was, of course, George Bush's last year, and that was the deficit
that was reduced.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
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, the gentleman makes the observation, but in
fact it was definitely the Clinton budget that got us to where we are.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I will yield to the gentleman from California in just a
second. The gentleman will recall that he and his colleagues voted
against that budget. As a matter of fact, against every part because it
was unanimous on the gentleman's side, saying that that budget would
not do what in fact has happened in the country.
{time} 1530
I understand the gentleman's position, that you will not be able to
tell until 2 or 3 years out. But the fact of the matter is, it is those
budget policies adopted in reconciliation last year that led to that
reduction.
Mr. COX. If the gentleman will yield further, what we are talking
about is a White House that has promised future reductions in deficits.
By the way, this is not the first White House to project three
consecutive years of declining deficits. Many Presidents have projected
declining deficits. It is easy to reduce a projection.
What we have not yet seen is a real deficit coming down. We will know
after October 1 of this year whether the first budget year of Bill
Clinton has produced a larger deficit or a smaller deficit. Yes,
Members on our side have voted for much deeper spending cuts than were
contained in what the Democrats offered and what President Clinton
endorsed. As you know, the Penny-Kasich bill was actually opposed by
this White House. We have an A to Z proposal coming up.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I am always amused by the observation
that President Reagan and President Bush asked for more spending over
those 12 years than the Congress appropriated. Period.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go on too much longer, because I think
we have had ample debate on these subjects. I simply point out that
cutting spending first is what the Republican side is all about.
Cutting spending on the White House staff is an idea that George Bush
and Bill Clinton agreed about during the last Presidential campaign.
George Bush pledged to cut it 30 percent, because he recognized there
was too much staff, and asked the assistance of Congress in doing that.
He did not veto the legislative appropriations bill, as I urged, which
did not cut as much as he had asked for out of that budget.
But President Clinton then said he wanted a 25-percent reduction.
This takes it, it seems to me, wholly out of the realm of partisan
politics. If both the Democrat and Republican running for President
agree we ought to cut the White House staff, let us get on it with it.
Now, I realize as President, including this year, Bill Clinton came
up to the Hill and said give me an 8-percent increase in what we spend
on the White House. I realize what Congress is giving him is exactly
the same amount that George Bush spent in 1992 before a 30-percent cut
or before a 25-percent cut.
We ought to, as responsible stewards of the purse, make sure that
what the voters thought they were getting, a 25-percent cut in the
White House staff, is actually accomplished here on the floor.
This opportunity gives us part of that. I think it is wholly
responsible, and I would urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.
Mr. HEFLEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Let me say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer],
most of the cuts that the gentleman is talking about come out of this
budget come out of the Office of Drug Policy, which we exempt from
that. We are not talking about that.
Mr. HOYER. No, sir.
Mr. HEFLEY. According to your own report, $25 million or so, 18.6
percent, are cut from that.
You brag about this great recovery that is going on right now. We
hear this in the 1-minutes and hear it on the floor all the time.
Economists tell us it is the slowest recovery in recent history.
Recessions are cyclical. We know that. We can do some things to help us
in to them and help us out of them, but mostly they are cyclical.
Coming out of this cycle, it comes out, we are coming out the slowest
in history.
They also tell us, any economist that does not work for the White
House that you can read or hear talk about it, tell you we have not had
enough time to know whether the President's policy is working or not.
So we do not know whether that is.
One thing we do know, we know that taxpayers out there are bridling
under the biggest tax increase in history. They are hurting. They feel
they are paying too much taxes, they feel they are not getting their
money's worth, and this is a way to start kind of at the top of things.
The President is the face of Government. Let us start with the face
of Government and say we are going to have cuts there, we are going to
have cuts in the Congress, and in each one of the accounts as we go
through this thing, we are going to have cuts, and we are going to show
we can be more responsible in our spending.
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I wanted to simply point out that the President said he
was going to do a 25-percent cut.
In the White House offices that you keep talking about not having
reductions, there were 1,394 people working as of November 7, 1992, the
day after the election. The bottom line is, we funded last year 1,044
people, a 25.1-percent reduction in personnel.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman I think
agrees the amount in the bill is $157 million. The amount spent on
those very same functions by George Bush in 1992, was $157 million. So
we can do all we want with accounting definitions, but the fact of the
matter is, when the dust settles, there has not been any cut at all.
And that is what we are concerned about.
Mr. HOYER. The $157 million, what is the gentleman defining that as?
Mr. COX. This is the entirety of the programs funded in this bill,
with the exception of the drug czar.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield, there has been some
discussion about the economy and budget, and who deserves the credit
for what kind of economic growth.
Having worked in the White House and now having been in Congress for
6 years, I would like to just note that it takes about 2 years for any
President to have an impact on the economy. When I worked for Ronald
Reagan, it was not until 1983 that his policies actually began to fully
impact on the economy. That is when the economy began to grow. Because
for a full year, you are working on your first budget. The fact is,
next year we will find out whether the Democrats' budget causes growth
or whether it causes decline.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has
expired.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I understand
what is being said, but I vividly recall during the course of debate on
reconciliation, Member after Member from your side of the aisle coming
to this podium, including Mr. Kasich. the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget, saying that within 12 months this would all
fall apart because of the passage of that budget, which of course, was
just about 12 months ago.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. It takes at least 12 months for a budget to impact
on the economy. When I worked for the Reagan administration in 1981 and
1982, we took it for granted that the economy that we were working with
was an economy that was given to us by our predecessor, that being
Jimmy Carter. And the fact is we knew no matter what we did, it would
take a certain length of time, No. 1, before our policies would be
passed, and, No. 2, for those policies to actually impact on the
economy.
Now, if next year there is a strong economy, even though we are
siphoning more and more money out of the pockets of the consumer and
taking it to Washington, DC, if our economy is still functioning well
and prosperity is around us, then indeed the American people will know
that this President and this Congress deserves the credit.
But I can tell you in Orange County, where the last budget that we
passed, the massive tax increase included in that budget will siphon $2
billion out of our local economy. Consumers will have that much money
less to spend, and we are struggling in Orange County just to make sure
that we get out of this transition from the cold war, and we have a
weak economy.
Now there are people struggling all over the United States now. I
think what my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], and
other are saying, is when we are facing this time of struggle for a
strong economy and trying to see what is going to happen next year, we
are apprehensive at the very least.
The Office of the President, which I worked there for 7 years, they
can do with some cuts there in the same way other programs can do with
cuts throughout the Government.
{time} 1540
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman has heard me say, we have cut $28 million.
We have constrained the White House budget at the maximum number. There
is no increase in here, however the gentleman wants to assess the cuts.
How much would we have had to cut for the gentleman to say that it is
sufficient. We are talking about a 10-percent cut.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will have to admit to the gentleman, when we start
talking about figures----
Mr. HOYER. It is the symbolism of making additional cuts.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. The public has a very difficult time understanding
who is saying what and what the figures are, when we talk about budget
figures. Generally, when we are talking about cutting the budget, from
the gentleman's side it is basically cutting the increase in what was
projected by the administration. And generally, when we talk about
budget cuts on this side, we are talking about actually decreasing the
amount of money that is being spent. In this particular case, my
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] pointed out that
they are spending exactly the same amount of money on the Presidency as
we spent before, $157 million, I believe was the figure. Maybe the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] would like to amplify on that
point.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would just like to make a point to the gentleman from California
that just finished speaking. To the best of my knowledge, the Reagan
budgets that were sent here during the Reagan years and the Bush years
were not even offered but on about three occasions for the 12 years
they were President. One year, I know the Reagan budget was offered, it
got one vote. Jack Kemp, who is going to be running for the Presidency.
So the gentleman likes to rewrite history and say that budgets only
take effect for a couple of years. If the gentleman can take credit for
the good stuff and not take responsibility for the rest of the things.
Did it or did not President Reagan's budget pass? The best I recall,
there was never a Reagan budget that was sent from the White House to
this floor that passed this body.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me just make one point. The American
public ought to have the facts on this. We have disagreements on how
much money we are spending.
It was implied that the Clinton White House has more detailees than
the Bush White House. Of course the 1,384 that I talked about in the
Bush White House, 308 were detailees. That figure has been reduced to
143 of the 1,044 that are now there. Clearly, there has been a 25-
percent reduction.
I urge the House to reject this amendment.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I am interested in the argument, because a little while ago, when we
were arguing specific incidents with regard to the White House, the
helicopter problems, the plane problems and so on, then it was not
legitimate to cut the budget because those were arguments having
nothing to do with the budget that was before us. Now the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cox] comes along with an amendment to cut the
budget based upon the fact that the White House has not met its
commitment to slash 25 percent, that it has not managed in an effective
manner. And now the argument is that we cannot cut for that reason
either, because we have some numbers that indicate that the White House
is doing a great job here. And the gentleman from North Carolina
reminds us that no Reagan budgets passed, which I am not certain what
that has to do with anything.
My point is, it seems that no matter what the argument is, there is
no way that the House should look at the White House budget as a place
that we can exact some cuts.
I think our problem is, with the figures that the gentleman cites for
the 25-percent cut, is we know that most of that came out of the drug
office. And as a result, we have no effective drug program in the
country. But that is where most of the cuts came. And we know that a
lot of it was based upon now they figured what was in the Executive
Office of the President. By not including whole offices that are under
the Executive Office of the President, they were able to come up with
the 25-percent cut that started with practically nothing. That is not
legitimate in our view, and we ought to take a whole look at the White
House and do what the American people, what middle class America
thought Bill Clinton was doing and saying in his campaign. That is what
the Cox amendment is all about. It is a shame that when he makes that
kind of argument that we cannot get it.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the point that the
gentleman from California was talking about the budgets, the Reagan
budget. What does it have to do with anything? What it has to do with
anything, if we are going to take credit for the great Reagan years, we
have to give the credit to where the budgets originated. And not one
Reagan budget ever passed, that was presented from the White House,
ever passed this House, or a George Bush budget for that matter.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, we all remember that because we had a
gridlocked Congress that decided that every one of those budgets was
dead on arrival. And they refused to do what the American people wanted
to do, which was to cut spending. So we understand what you guys did
during these years that helped drive up the deficit. We understand all
that. It is the kind of thing we are trying to correct now.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, everybody wants to end this debate.
Mr. HOYER. In 1985, one vote. One Republican voted for the
President's budget, untouched by Democratic hands.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, by the time you got
around to bringing it to the floor that year, it was so totally
outdated that the figures had absolutely no sense to them whatsoever.
You waited. You waited months. That was during the time when you did
not meet the law.
Mr. HOYER. Ninety days after it was submitted it was out of date?
Mr. WALKER. You did not bring up the Reagan budget. You brought up
the Reagan budget as originally submitted, some months afterwards,
because you did not meet the time lines that year. That was the year
when, and a number of other years, when you refused to bring up the
budgets until well into the fiscal year. And at that point, the figures
were out of date.
Mr. HOYER. No sir.
Mr. WALKER. You are playing games, and we understand that.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is trying to rewrite history.
Mr. WALKER. You were trying to keep us from building up the defense
that ultimately won the cold war. We know what you were up to. It was a
lot of fun.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, may I just take a moment to remind the body
that the Budget Act of 1974 requires the President of the United States
to make a budget recommendation to Congress by February of each year
and for Congress to produce a budget by April 15 of each year. No
President, Republican or Democrat, since 1974, has ever done a thing
except recommend a budget to Congress. And rarely has Congress produced
a budget by tax day, April 15, when the rest of the Nation ponied up.
Mr. WALKER. I think the gentleman would agree with me that back in
the mid-1980's that Congress never got around to doing the budget
period, and then in many cases played political games. As I recall, we
did not introduce the budget that year. The Democrats introduced that
budget simply to try to embarrass the President, something which the
gentleman from Maryland told us earlier that the Democrats never do.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 236, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 239]
AYES--200
Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hoagland
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lambert
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Mann
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thurman
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--236
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Harman
Hastings
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutchinson
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--3
Bachus (AL)
Reynolds
Washington
{time} 1608
Messrs. McDERMOTT, SKELTON, HUTCHINSON, and WAXMAN changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ROWLAND changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I had pointed out earlier when not many
Members were here that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I
had an opportunity in the late 1980's to visit Perm Camp 35, which was
the last gulag in the Soviet Union
{time} 1610
When we visited the camp, we met with Scharansky's cellmate, whose
picture is here, and we also met with this individual, and his name is
Vladimir Potashov. We had debated this earlier, and I had an amendment
to require the White House staff, which has not done it, to file their
national security background checks in 30 days, and then to have the
process completed in 6 months. I had commented that when we spoke with
Vladimir Potashov, and I see the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith],
who is with us, three of the men that the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Smith] and I interviewed late that night in the Ural Mountains
said they worked for our Government. They basically had worked for the
CIA. We did not believe them. When we came back, we checked, and we
found out that it was true. This young man here, when he hollered out
that we were Congressmen, this young man was giving the ``V,'' who
wanted to emigrate to Israel, and Vladimir were together, we found out
that they had been turned in after we got back, turned in by Aldrich
Ames; Aldrich Ames, the CIA spy, had turned these men in.
When the debate came up earlier, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer], the chairman, said, ``Well, so what?'' He said, ``Even in the
CIA, they have had lie detectors and background checks.''
Let me read to you what Vladimir Potashov said in an op-ed piece that
I found in my office when I went back.
Vladimir said:
During the 100 or more interrogations, day and night, in
Lefortovo prison, I discovered that they knew of my reports,
quoting from letters to which they could not have had access
in the Soviet Union. Two things saved my life. First, I never
told the interrogators facts that they could not have known
already. Second, I was right when I urged the ``zero
option.''
Then he goes on to tell how he was punished and sent to Perm Camp No.
35.
All we are trying to do and wanted to do was to offer an amendment
which would keep something like this from happening again in the
country.
Three of these men suffered and went to jail because they worked for
the United States Government. Ten people were killed because Aldrich
Ames gave the information to the Soviets that killed these people.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why this Congress will not
permit an amendment to be offered today which would cover this
administration and all administrations merely saying that you have to
begin your background check in 30 days, and it has to be completed in 6
months.
Now, all of the people that work at the NSC, the DIA, the CIA, and
many of the companies in your congressional districts require the very,
very same. So I would ask the chairman, the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer], why could we not craft an amendment that would not be
directed at the Clinton administration, but would be directed at the
Clinton administration and any administration in the future, to require
that these people go through the background check, and not have what
took place whereby DeeDee Myers, who had been on for 1 year and 2
months, had not even filed her papers because she said she was too
busy? Could we not craft an amendment which could be accepted in a
bipartisan way where these types of things could certainly never, never
happen?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman I presume he is
not offering an amendment now.
Mr. Chairman, I did not say ``So what'' with reference to Aldrich
Ames. What he did was awful, despicable, and had dire consequences to
our people in Europe.
What I said was that they had the security checks on Ames. Therefore,
I did not think this was necessarily a case where, a security clearance
would have prevented subsequent problems. That was my point.
But let me ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an
amendment at the end of this bill, if I choose to do so, after
discussions with the gentleman on this issue. Let the gentleman and I
talk about it and see if we can do something. I know he feels very
strongly about it. I do not disagree with his objective.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield further, if there is no
objection, can we do that? It will be out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman repeat his request?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to offer an amendment relative to the subject matter raised by
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] regarding security checks at the
White House at the end of the consideration of this bill prior to the
motion to rise.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for that unanimous-consent.
Mr. Chairman, I am including at this point in the Record the op-ed
article by Vladimir Potashov and the final report of the congressional
delegation to the Soviet Union and Perm Labor Camp 35, as follows:
[From the Washington Times, May 1, 1994]
Vladimir Potashov--Survivor of the Ames List
I spy? Surely, Aldrich Ames asked this question when he was
arrested. After all, he was the CIA's protector against
Soviet spies. In 1990, the KGB's Deputy Chairman B. Grushko
wrote, ``[Since 1985] Soviet [Counterspies] have exposed over
30 of the most dangerous agents of the CIA and other foreign
services * * * practically all of those arrested in the USSR
were to the supreme penalty * * * to be shot''. (Pravda, Aug.
26, 1990).
Mr. Ames must have laughed at this boasting. They didn't
catch anyone. Mr. Ames just dumped us all into the net of his
counterpart, more accurately, his customer:
Mr. Grushko: ``So what's for sale today?''
Mr. Ames: ``Have I got the deal for you, ready in Moscow,
just waiting to be hauled in.''
Mr. Grushko: ``How many and how much?''
Mr. Ames: ``Three diplomats and one journalist, each for
$100,000. Next, the American source in the military
intelligence department of the General Staff. He's a general
and goes for $300,000. Next, an officer in the KGB; he helped
us the way I help you, $400,000. One radio specialist,
$200,000. Finally, a chief analyst at Arbotov's USA
Institute, a bargain, only $100,000.''
Mr. Grushko: ``So it's a package deal, should be cheaper
that way. What about $1 million for the bunch?''
Mr. Ames: ``What will you do with them?''
Mr. Grushko: ``Shoot most and lock a few up, just as we
always do.''
Mr. Ames: ``Good. Here are the names: Potashov . . .''
Mr. Grushko: ``It's a deal. I'll send a wire transfer to
your Swiss bank account. See you soon.''
This way or some other, I was sold. Was it really such a
good deal, Mr. Ames, that wire transfer to death, for those
people you were supposed to guard?
Mr. Ames knew very well what he was doing, like a doctor
murdering his patients. He sold his soul to the devil for
selling the souls of others. Was it worth it, even for all
that money? ``What will it profit a man if he gains the whole
world and loses his soul?'' as Jesus asked.
And me, am I a spy? I published two books and 100 articles
signed ``Soviet Expert on Disarmament.'' As a senior
researcher at the institute run by Kremlin adviser Georgi
Arbatov, I knew by 1981 that no Soviet leader would hesitate
to use the SS-20 missiles against Europe if he thought that
would save the Soviet Empire from collapse. However, I urged
the Soviet government to scrap them in exchange for an
agreement with the United States not to deploy the Pershing
and cruise missiles. I wanted this deal, the ``zero option,''
for the sake of Europe.
That's why, when the negotiations started in November 1981,
I put my life on the line. On a trip to Washington then, I
offered to tell the truth to the Americans. I had no access
to secret information. I would just report my personal
assessments, those things I couldn't say openly in Moscow. I
mailed my comments by private mail to the United States. In
essence, I said there was no chance for the ``zero option,''
until Mikhail Gorbachev took power in 1985.
Did I spy? At least, I paid for it. In 1986, I was
approached by the KGB to ``help them'' in their task ``to
arrange a major disinformation operation against U.S.
intelligence,'' as was reported in a newspaper article. My
choice was either to lie and live or refuse and put my life
in jeopardy. I chose reporting the truth and on July 1, 1986,
I was arrested. Fortunately a month before, I sent to a
British editor a manuscript of my book on disarmament, ``War
or Peace by the Year 2000?''
During the 100 or more interrogations, day and night, in
the Lefortovo Prison, I discovered that they knew of my
reports, quoting from letters to which they could not have
had access in the Soviet Union. Two things saved my life.
First, I never told the interrogators facts that they could
not have known already. Second, I was right when I urged the
``zero option.'' Soviet policy backed it before my trial.
That's why I was not sentenced to death, but to the gulag
until the year 2000. I spy? Is that the right title for one
who revealed the truth about the KGB on their own territory?
I faced them in a TV interview when American congressmen,
diplomats and journalists visited the last political
prisoners camp, Perm 35, in 1991. I told them I thought that
my sacrifice was justified if a few drops of my blood helped
to tilt the scales toward disarmament and, over the gulag's
red banner, I raised old Russia's flag as a symbol of faith,
the free spirit rising above communism. I did it in front of
the KGB officers and four envoys from foreign embassies who
took pictures. The Russian people learned from their
interviews that the KGB was no longer allowed to shut up
voices even in their own gulag.
A spy for money? I didn't want a cent for the five years I
spent reporting on disarmament issues in Moscow. For writing
those reports, the KGB seized my property, not to mention my
wife and my health. While in the gulag, I appealed to the
courts to retain the fees for my book, ``War or Peace?'' I
offered to donate them to a good cause. In 1989, I won my
suit in a Moscow court even though I was still a prisoner.
The court agreed to donate my fees to ``peacemaking
actions.''
There were attacks on me and other prisoners from Perm 35.
In some newspapers, they even blamed us for the collapse of
Mr. Gorbachev's perestroika. There were also direct threats,
so in addition to the prison camp, I decided to leave the
``Socialist Camp'' by going to Poland and then coming here.
Even now, personal articles against me still appear in the
Russian press.
I used evil to make good. Mr. Ames did the reverse. He took
good sources for learning about the threats to the world's
survival and made evil by shutting them off. I hope now he
will reveal the truth. You shall know the truth and the truth
shall make you free. After my experience in the gulag, I want
more people to be free. There I lost not six years, but 20 in
terms of health. At age 42, I have lost almost all my teeth.
But it is not the physical damage that matters; it is the
affront to morality of a man like Mr. Ames.
There are still plenty of customers for Mr. Ames' stores.
Looking for something special from Russia? How about a dose
of free truth--from Russia, with love.
Congressional Delegation to the Soviet Union and Perm Labor Camp 35
U.S. Reps. Frank Wolf and Chris Smith August 4-11, 1989
Final Report--Delegation Findings and Follow-up--October 1989
This report provides a brief account of the findings of the
Wolf/Smith delegation to the USSR, outlines our joint follow-
up initiatives, and offers recommendations for U.S. officials
and non-government organizations and activists interested in
the progress of legal and penal reforms, prison and labor
camp conditions, and the status of alleged political
prisoners.
Purpose of the trip
Inspection visit to Perm Labor Camp 35 and substantive
discussions on legal and penal reforms and human rights. U.S.
Reps. Frank Wolf and Chris Smith, accompanied by Richard
Stephenson of the U.S. State Department, interviewed 23 of
the 38 inmates reportedly still in Perm 35 at the time of the
trip, and one inmate at the Perm investigation prison.
background and findings
Perm 35, a Soviet correctional labor camp known for its
severe conditions and mistreatment of prisoners, including
prisoners of conscience, was the principal focus of our
delegation. Marking the first time any U.S. or Western
official has been allowed into a Soviet ``political'' labor
camp, the trip's findings served to confirm and amplify much
of the existing documentation on camp conditions and the
existence of many prisoners believed to be incarcerated for
basically political activities.
Helsinki Watch, Amnesty International, and others,
including former prisoners themselves, provided background
information for this trip. Many well-known political
prisoners have been confined in the Perm Camp complex, which
now includes only Perm 35: Natan Sharansky, Professor Yuri
Orlov, Alexander Ginsburg, Deacon Vladimir Rusak, Father
Alfonsas Svarinskas, and many others.
Interviews with prisoners ranged from 5-40 minutes, all in
the presence of camp administrators and an official of the
Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD). We viewed
punishment cells and other areas of camp and were permitted
to take photographs and videotape much of the camp and our
interviews with prisoners.
The broader purpose of the delegation was to discuss Soviet
progress toward legal reforms advancing the ``rule of law''
in Soviet society. That is, our discussions focused on the
need to institutionalize the positive changes occurring in
Soviet human rights practices, open up the Soviet prison and
labor camp system to greater scrutiny, and establish due
process. We held discussions with Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (MFA) officials on legal reforms, including the
critically important draft laws on ``freedom of
conscience'' (whose principal impact will be upon
religious communities), draft laws on emigration, and
reform of the Soviet criminal code. The delegation
questioned representatives of the Procurator General and
Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) regarding the Soviet
penal system.
As members of the U.S. Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission), we emphasized
that our interest in proposed Soviet legislation is to find
indications that changes are systemic and not simply
arbitrary. We reminded Soviet officials of the importance
which the American people place on respect for fundamental
human rights like freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and
the right to publish and organize independent groups. While
not presuming to ``teach'' this to the Soviets, we spoke
about the lasting impression such changes would make on the
American people. For religious believers, in particular, a
well-written law on conscience will offer legal recourse
should local authorities decide to be heavy-handed. With
respect to the 1991 Human Rights Conference in Moscow, we
stressed that the adoption and implementation of laws
guaranteeing freedom of conscience will have a direct bearing
on U.S. support and enthusiasm for the Conference.
The rights of religious believers, including those in
prison, was our major concern in meetings with the MVD,
Council on Religious Affairs and religious officials,
including the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians/
Baptists (Baptist Union). We also spoke with activists and
dissidents in the religious communities, including former
prisoners, to find their perspective on the present situation
for religious communities in the USSR.
Our visit to Perm Labor Camp 35 was a key element in the
overall equation of assessing Soviet human rights
performance. The Soviet ``gulag'' (Russian acronym for the
Soviet labor camp system) remains a stark symbol of ``old
thinking'' in a country where political reform and dissent
are coming into the open. Glasnost, or openness, has failed
thus far to penetrate into the gulag, either to change
conditions in the labor camps or to impact penal procedures
which have led to systematically cruel and unusual
punishment. It is important to recognize that the lingering
fear of incarceration in the Soviet gulag threatens to hold
hostage any meaningful reforms in Soviet society. Bringing
``glasnost to the gulag'' is an important step the Soviets
can take to deal with concerns that President Mikhail
Gorbachev's reforms might be reversed or undermined.
We have urged the Soviets to begin a process of opening up
prisons and labor camps to independent human rights monitors,
both Westerners and Soviet citizens. We have encouraged human
rights organizations to request access to prisons and labor
camps. And finally, we pressed the Soviets to permit visits
by clergymen and to allow religious literature into prisons
and labor camps.
Our foremost concern remains the plight of the 24 prisoners
whom we met in Perm 35. They have endured severe conditions
and several of them are already counted by the United States
among the nearly one hundred remaining suspected political
prisoners in the Soviet Union. U.S. human rights policy has
long embraced advocacy for individual prisoners' cases, a
practice rooted in American values recognizing the inherent
dignity and rights of each human being.
Our evaluation of the Perm 35 cases in question is based on
the claims of several inmates that they are political
prisoners, the documentation of human rights groups which
support those claims, and the findings from our interviews.
Our conclusion is that, regardless of any dispute over these
definitions of political prisoners, most of these prisoners
would not be prosecuted for similar ``crimes'' today, or
their offenses would be treated far less severely. In view of
the excessive punishment endured by these prisoners, we have
called on the Soviets to reexamine their cases in the context
of ``new political thinking'' and release them on
humanitarian grounds.
findings on perm camp 35
The Prisoners and Camp Conditions:
Mikhail Kazachkov has spent nearly 200 days of his 14-year
incarceration in punishment cells, up to 15 days at a time in
the ``shizo'' cell.
We were given a rare glimpse of the infamous ``shizo.''
Veterans of the Soviet gulag have provided vivid accounts of
this notorious four-by-eight-foot cell. It contains a wooden
plank fastened to the wall on which to sleep, with no bedding
or blankets, and a cement stump on which to sit. The cell,
and the punishment, is designed to make the natural cold of a
Soviet labor camp that much more severe--that is, the
unbearable, cold temperature is used as torture. Prisoners
complained that it is difficult to sleep on the hard,
narrow plank. The walls are made of a rough, pointed-like
concrete, which scrapes and cuts prisoners who might lean
or sleep up against it.
We had to insist that Kazachkov be offered the opportunity
to speak to us. He had been moved from Perm 35 to the Perm
investigation prison shortly before our visit. While
describing some instances of physical abuse in Perm 35,
Kazachkov explained that general-purpose beatings were no
longer a regular occurrence in Perm 35. Kazachkov suffered an
injured arm in trying to resist a forced head-shaving, a
practice which he described as a widespread form of
humiliation against Soviet prisoners.
Kazachkov, imprisoned in 1975 one week after applying to
emigrate, recently led eight other inmates at Perm 35 in a
work strike to protest unsafe working conditions. Together
these prisoners formed a Helsinki/Vienna human rights
monitoring group in Perm 35. Though completely within their
rights under the Helsinki Accords and the 1989 Vienna
agreement ``to promote the Helsinki process,'' camp
authorities used harsh measures to stop them. Just three
weeks after our visit, Kazachkov was singled out for his role
in the protest. He was put on trial for ``refusal to work''
and sentenced to serve the next three years of his 18 and
one-half year term in the more severe regime of Chistopol
Prison.
We interviewed 23 inmates in Perm Labor Camp 35 who
requested to meet with us. A there running through their
stories emphasized the conditions and treatment of prisoners
in the camp: long periods of isolation in punishment cells,
severe cold used as torture, and being cut off from family
and friends due to routinely intercepted mail and arbitrarily
canceled visits. We were never allowed to meet alone with any
prisoners. Prisoners gave their side of the story boldly and
bravely, several of them condemning the abuses of the KGB and
camp officials in their very presence. Many, though not all,
of the 24 inmates we met (those in Perm 35 plus Kazachkov)
claimed to be political prisoners. Many of the prisoners
expressed thanks to those in the West who had written letters
to Soviet officials on their behalf and to them personally.
We sought and received assurances beforehand from Soviet
officials in the Procuracy, Ministry of Internal Affairs and
the camp that no retribution would be brought against any
prisoner. We repeated this Soviet promise loudly during
meetings with many prisoners. The prisoners told us there had
been reprisals against some who met with New York Times
reporter A.M. Rosenthal during his visit to Perm 35 in
December 1988 (the first visit by any Westerner to a labor
camp). Some prisoners said that they understood reprisals
were a possible consequence of speaking to us; however, we
continued to stress that assurances had been given by the
Soviets that there would be no reprisals. One prisoner simply
said, ``there is nothing more they can do to us.''
Most of the Perm 35 cases demand a review by the Soviets,
including the following:
Oleg Mikhailov said that he was put in ``shizo'' simply for
requesting to meet with Rosenthal. Mikhailov was imprisoned
in 1979 on charges of ``treason to the motherland'' and
``anti-Soviet agitation'' for preparing to steal and escape
the country in a cropduster plane. He condemned the Soviets
for their treatment of prisoners. Although one and one-half
years of internal exile remain on his sentence, the Soviets
have stated that the system of exile has been abolished.
Mikhailov is due to be released on October 21.
Byelorussian Christian Alexander Goldovich was charged with
``treason'' for attempting to flee across the Black Sea in a
rubber raft, and carrying pictures allegedly depicting how
bad life is in the Soviet Union. Goldovich admits to having
the pictures, which the Soviets charged was secret
information, and explains that they were snapshots of his
apartment.
Goldovich is a physicist. Arrested April 21, 1985.
Sentenced December 2, 1985, to 15 years strict-regimen labor
camp and 5 years exile on charges including treason (Article
64), anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda (Article 70) and
leaking government secrets. Accused of attempting to escape
from the USSR and intending to leak secret information. To be
release April 2005.
Goldovich had requested a Bible during the Rosenthal visit
to Perm 35. He was denied one by camp authorities. We give
him a Bible and offered Bibles to any other prisoners who
wanted one--all but two did. The Soviets assured us they
would be allowed to keep them. Several times, he thanked
people in the West for writing on his behalf. Asked whether
there is any glasnost in the Perm camp, he replied, ``No,
not in the smallest degree.'' Goldovich's case has been
raised continually with the Soviets.
Ukrainian Bohdan Klimchak attempted to flee from the USSR
to Iran carrying his science fiction short stories, which he
intended to publish abroad. After nine days in Iran, he was
returned to Soviet custody. His writings were deemed
``nationalistic,'' and he was arrested in November 1978 and
sentenced to 15 years strict-regimen labor camp and five
years exile. His sentence was reduced under amnesty and
Klimchak was due to be released in September 1989 (end of
exile around March 1992). Convicted under Articles 64
(``treason'') and 70 (``anti-Soviet agitation and
propaganda'') of Soviet criminal code.
Ruslan Ketenchiyev, a lathe worker, was arrested August 27,
1982, charged with ``treason,'' and sentenced to 10 years
strict-regimen labor camp. Ketenchiyev tried to contact
American journalists and U.S. embassy personnel in order to
emigrate to the West. Instead of the American diplomat he
expected to meet, a disguised KGB agent entrapped him and he
was prosecuted on treason charges. His sentence reduced under
amnesty, Ketenchiyev is due to be released January 21, 1990.
Ketenchiyev told us of terrible conditions and various
punishment methods in Perm 35, including the well-documented
use of cold in punishment cells. He particularly noted the
lack of medical care in the camp. Responding to prisoners'
formal complaints about the extreme cold, camp doctors
declared the temperature in punishment cells to be
sufficiently warm.
Leonid Lubman, an economist and electronics engineer, was
arrested August 29, 1977, charged with ``treason,'' and
sentenced to 13 years strict regimen labor camp. He is
scheduled to be released on August 29, 1990. Lubman compiled
a manuscript providing 30 profiles of corrupt officials and
attempted to send it abroad.
Lubman may have become mentally disturbed in labor camp and
suffers from chronic headaches the stomach ailments. He
looked well over his 50 years and spoke much slower than the
others we met. He said the authorities have an interest in
not releasing him because he has learned the methods of his
incarcerators. He described some sort of torture, which
sounded like electrical shock and exposure to infrared waves.
He said he was punished after the December 1988 visit by
Rosenthal to Perm 35.
Resolving the Perm 35 Cases
Many of the acts committed by those in Perm 35 would not
have been considered crimes under Gorbachev. Although the
Soviets frequently contend these prisoners are criminals,
Soviet officials have repeatedly declined to open their
files. They refused to open the files to us, although the
U.S. State Department has provided court records and case
files to the Soviets on disputed U.S. cases. The exception
was a brief look at Kazachkov's file when Procuracy official
Alexander Korshunov sought to refute charges of punishment
made by Mikhail Kazachkov. When the open file revealed a
picture of a head-shaved Kazachkov, it was quickly snapped
shut.
Prior to the signing of the Vienna Concluding Document, in
December 1988, Mikhail Gorbachev declared at the United
Nations that there are no longer any persons in prison
``sentenced for their political or religious convictions.''
However, the release of remaining political prisoners was
made a condition for U.S. agreement in Vienna to schedule a
Helsinki follow-up conference in Moscow in 1991. The Vienna
agreement was signed in January 1989. The Soviets
subsequently agreed to a process of review for most of nearly
one hundred prisoners remaining on U.S. political prisoner
lists. Many of these ``disputed cases'' are the cases of
those we met in Perm 35.
The prisoners who remain in Perm 35 are held under
basically three charges: attempting to flee the country
(including hijacking, in some cases); war crimes; and
espionage. Many languish under Article 64 of the Soviet
criminal code, ``treason,'' in combination with more clearcut
political offenses like Article 70, ``anti-Soviet agitation
and propaganda.''
Soviet officials claim they hold no political prisoners
because all who were sentenced exclusively under one of the
four purely political criminal code articles (like Article
70, those used to prosecute free speech, peaceful assembly,
etc.) have been released in amnesties under Gorbachev.
Prosecution on charges of treason for the forbidden
activities of the Brezhnev era no longer makes sense in
today's Soviet Union. Article 64 was interpreted far too
broadly under Soviet law and used to threaten prisoners with
capital punishment and to extract testimony before they have
even seen a lawyer. Those who landed in Perm 35 for acts of
violence related to hijack attempts, or other acts of
violence, are not political prisoners, although cruel
punishment should not be simply excused in their cases
either. It is high time, however, for review of the excessive
punishment meted out for nonviolent ``crimes'' that would not
be prosecuted today, or would be treated far less seriously.
We conveyed to the Soviets that it was in the interests of
all sides for these cases not to linger beyond preparations
for the Vienna Follow-up Meeting at Copenhagen in 1990.
Should they linger until the already controversial Moscow
Human Rights Conference in 1991, the Soviets would face a
great embarrassment.
While these prisoner's cases remain unresolved, we sensed
from our discussions the Soviets' desire to be cleared of the
charges that political prisoners remain. Therefore, we call
on the Soviets to reexamine these cases in view of their
``new political thinking'' and release them on humanitarian
grounds.
Prospects for Legal and Penal Reforms
To the Soviet's credit, the kind of access we were granted
to Perm 35 would have been unthinkable even months ago. The
Soviets have closed down two political labor camps in the
vicinity of Perm 35 for lack of need as a result of prisoner
amnesties. Soviet authorities say that they have removed
hundreds of camp guards responsible for past human rights
abuses. Officials of the Soviet Procuracy, as well as the new
Supreme Soviet legislature, have talked about penal reforms.
The highest ranking Soviet procurator supervising Legality in
Correctional Facilities, Yuri Khitrin, admitted to us that it
was necessary to discuss ``humanizing'' the Soviet penal
system.
These statements would bode well for the prospect of
reform. However, the practical impact on prison and labor
camp conditions has thus far been minimal, and the Soviets
have publicly stated few commitments to improve or
reconstitute their gulag practices. On the other hand, the
Soviets have promised for more than two years to institute
legal reform which will decriminalize political dissent.
We discussed legal reform with officials of the Council on
Religious Affairs. Deputy Minister Alexander Ivolgin
explained to us that they were reluctant to discuss a draft
of ``laws on conscience'' which we put before them--one of
two thus far published. Ivolgin claimed that the new law on
religious groups had not yet been formally drafted for
consideration by the Supreme Soviet. An official from CRA's
legal office, Tatyana Belokopitova, offered a very
disappointing response on the question of requiring
registration of religious groups. The latest proposal would
establish the right of ``juridical person'' (legal recourse)
only for religious groups who submit to registering with
central religious authorities. This proposal would fail to
resolve either the present lack of legal rights for all
churches or the desire of many believers not to register--it
would instead pit these concerns against each other.
In a meeting with First Deputy Foreign Minister Anatoly
Adamishin, the question of new religious laws was side-
stepped by referring us to the Council of Religious Affairs.
However, Mr. Adamishin assured us that the Supreme Soviet
would place a high priority on new religious laws during its
fall session. He was less optimistic about action on draft
emigration (exit/entry) legislation. In general, Adamishin
declared that economic and constitutional reforms would take
precedent over both matters. On freedom of conscience,
Adamishin commented, ``We used to have a problem in regards
to freedom of conscience, but we never had a total absence of
religious freedom. The freedom to perform religious rites was
always allowed, so we are not starting from scratch.''
Regarding penal reforms, there appears to be a much tougher
hill to climb. We met with a panel of procurators and
investigators from the All-Union Procuracy and Ministry of
Internal Affairs who denied our references to the arduous
conditions in prisons and labor camps. We encountered a
Soviet willingness to discuss ``rule of law'' questions, even
while some observations caused a degree of discomfort:
prosecutors bring charges only with sufficient evidence for a
presumption of guilt; they are held responsible for
``losing'' cases; and all trial attorneys are answerable to
the Procurator General.
We raised the issue of establishing due process for charges
brought while prisoners are serving sentences--no sooner had
we left than Milkhail Kazachkov was victimized for such
pitfalls in the Soviet system. We identified those issues
raised by former prisoners: cruel punishments,
malnourishment, inadequate medical care, severe
restrictions on family visits. We were assured that draft
legislation excludes provisions which disallowed family
visits in the past. In addition, we were told that the
Procuracy now shares the responsibility for supervision of
correctional facilities with public commissions under the
new Supreme Soviet which guarantee ``law, legality and
order.''
The Soviets indicated openness to future visits to prisons
and labor camps by official and non-official groups. Mr.
Khitrin offered agreement in principle to a follow-up visit
by Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Michael
Quinlan, and Chairman of Prison Fellowship International, Mr.
Charles Colson. We mentioned that groups such as Amnesty
International, Helsinki Watch and the International Red Cross
should be permitted access to prisoners in prisons and labor
camps to monitor and report on conditions. We advocated on
behalf of independent Soviet monitors who wish to have access
to correctional facilities.
Finally, we received assurance that prisoners could have
Bibles and other religious literature and that clergy would
be allowed to visit. Both have been forbidden in law and
practice in the past. Khitrin told us that a decision had
been made that from now on ``all correctional labor colonies
will have Bibles in necessary quantities and permit ministers
of faith to visit.'' We urged the Soviets to put such
commitments into practice by granting requests to visit
prisons and camps.
follow-up and recommendations
Release of Perm 35 Prisoners
We have an obligation to work for the immediate release of
all remaining Perm prisoners on humanitarian grounds. The
Soviets are obligated to release all political prisoners in
compliance with their commitments under the Helsinki Final
Act and Vienna Concluding Document. In addition, one criteria
for agreeing to the Moscow Human Rights Conference was the
release of all political prisoners. While Soviet authorities
have raised questions in connection with many of these cases,
we as members of the Helsinki Commission have argued that the
burden of proof is on the Soviets to prove the individuals in
question are criminals. We have initiated or recommended the
following action on behalf of remaining prisoners, including
those in Perm 35:
(1) We have publicly called on the Soviets to release all
those in Perm 35 convicted for nonviolent acts. We believe
that in view of the excessive and cruel punishment these
prisoners have suffered, a positive Soviet response would
signal a truly humanitarian gesture.
(2) We have written Secretary of State James Baker to urge
him to continue the practice of raising individual cases at
the highest levels in U.S.-Soviet dialogue.
(3) We have discussed Soviet reforms and the status of
prisoners with Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence
Eagleburger, urging that human rights remain a top priority
in U.S.-Soviet relations. While Soviet human rights
improvements have occurred, we should continue identifying
problems that persist and pressing our concerns while the
Soviets seem willing to discuss and respond to them.
(4) We have urged human rights groups to advocate the
immediate release of political prisoners.
(5) We urge concerned Westerners to reinvigorate campaigns
on behalf of these prisoners, including letter-writing to
Soviet officials, camp authorities and to the prisoners
themselves.
Advancing Glasnost to the Gulag
The Soviets should begin a process of opening up prisons
and labor camps to interested individuals and human rights
groups. Only by following our inspection visit by
permitting further visits will the Soviets make progress
in erasing the Stalinist stigma of the gulag.
(1) We have urged Westerners and human rights organizations
to request to visit prisons and labor camps and meet with
prisoners in order to report on conditions.
(2) We have urged members of the media, particularly the
Moscow press corps, to make visits and report on prisons and
labor camps. Since our visit, a few members of the media have
been granted access to camps.
(3) We have helped to secure official Soviet approval for
the visit of Bureau of Prisons Director, Michael Quinlin, and
Prison Fellowship international chairman, Charles Colson, to
visit several prisons and labor camps in the USSR and discuss
reforms and ways to reduce crime and recidivism in that
country.
(4) We have urged that Western leaders and human rights
groups advocate on behalf of Soviet citizens who wish to
visit prisons and labor camps, including clergy to perform
religious rites or offer pastoral counsel.
(5) We have raised these concerns in congressional
hearings, and support Helsinki Commission hearing to focus on
conditions in the Soviet gulag.
Reforms
(1) We have shared our findings on the progress of legal
reforms--including ``freedom of conscience,'' freedom of
emigration, and criminal code revisions--with prominent non-
government organizations and urge their continued vigilance
in encouraging further institutionalization of basic freedoms
and that such laws be consistent with international law and
with CSCE commitments.
(2) We have raised concerns about Soviet legal reforms in
recent hearings sponsored by the Congressional Human Rights
Caucus and, in the past, in CSCE hearings.
(3) We have expressed our support to Soviet and American
officials for programs developed in a human rights framework
to promote Soviet progress on ``rule of law'' issues and in
other areas where U.S. expertise is helpful and welcomed by
the Soviets.
prisoners met at perm 35
Following is the list of prisoners (not all of them are
necessarily political prisoners) who spoke with Reps. Wolf
and Smith at Perm Labor Camp 35 in August 1989. For more
information on these prisoners and their cases, please
contact Helsinki Commission (U.S. Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, House Annex 2, Room 237, Washington,
D.C. 20515).
Mailing address for prisoners (Moscow post office box):
SSSR, RSFSR, S. Moskva uchr.5110/VS, Last name, First
initial.
Aleksandr Goldovich, Bogdan Klimchak, Viktor Makarov,
Aleksandr Rasskazov, Valery Smirnov, Igor Mogil'nikov,
Aleksandr Udachin, Maksim Ivanov, Vadim Arenberg, Akhmet
Kolpakbayev, Igor Fedotkin, and Viktor Olinsnevich.
Ruslan Ketenchiyev, Lenoid Lubman, Nikolay Nukradze,
Mikhailov Kazachkov, Oleg Mikhaylov, Yuriy Pavlov, Arnol'd
Anderson, Vyacheslav Cherepanov, Vladimir Potashov, Anatoliy
Filatov, Vladimir Tishchenkov, and Unidentified Central
Asian.
Acknowledgment: We wish to thank Richard Stephenson, Soviet
Desk Officer at the State Department, who accompanied us on
the trip to Perm 35, providing translation and other
assistance.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inquire further of the gentleman
concerning his unanimous-consent request. Does it apply to an amendment
that would be otherwise in order under the rules of the House, or is
the gentleman asking for any kind of a waiver of the rules?
Mr. HOYER. My belief is that it would be difficult to draft an
amendment that would not be subject to a point of order, because it
would have to be legislation on an appropriation bill which, of course,
is the problem the gentleman now has.
It would be subject to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. So the gentleman's unanimous-consent request to permit
him to offer an amendment on the subject of security checks at the
White House, prior to the motion to rise and report, if the Chair
understands it correctly, also includes the request that the amendment
in question be in order notwithstanding, in other words, to waive a
possible point of order under clause 2, rule XXI?
Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I do
not intend to object at this time, but I would like to reserve that, if
you and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] work this out.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Further reserving the right to object, I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I intend to discuss it with him as well. I
know the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is a very conscientious
member of our committee. He feels very strongly about this, and I would
like to see if there is a possibility of working out something between
now and when we finish this bill. If we can, I would like to
accommodate the gentleman. His objective is a good one.
I do not know whether the ways and means of getting there are
agreeable, which is why I am offering it. I think the gentleman knows I
will deal with him in good faith and see if we can resolve this issue.
I will discuss it also with the Ranking Member.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Further reserving the right to object, I was going to
suggest: Would you want to withdraw it now and discuss it later?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's unanimous-consent request is pending,
and the gentleman reserves the right to object.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object,
do you want to withdraw your unanimous-consent request, let us discuss
it, and then you can make the request later?
Mr. HOYER. No. If we get out of this title, the gentleman is
concerned about losing the right to offer it.
Mr. WOLF. Right.
Mr. HOYER. It would be relevant to this title, and that is why I ask
for unanimous consent to propose it at the end of the bill even though
it will not be in order. If we can agree, I want to accommodate the
gentleman.
Mr. WOLF. I think that is very fair.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] has the floor
under his reservation of objection.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Further reserving the right to object, I appreciate
what the Chair is trying to do to accommodate the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. If we can work this all out, I think we can get to
some conclusion here.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title III?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Administrative Conference of the United States
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Administrative Conference of
the United States, established by the Administrative
Conference Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 571 et seq.), including
not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and
representation expenses, $1,800,000.
amendment offered by mr. istook
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Istook: Page 28, strike lines 8
through 14.
{time} 1620
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It zero
funds the Administrative Conference of the United States. This
particular agency last year, under the appropriations that originally
came through this House, would have been zero funded. In fact, in the
report from the subcommittee in last year's bill, it was written, ``The
committee recommends the elimination of appropriation for a reduction
of $2,314,000. The committee believes that this agency has fully
accomplished its mission.'' That was the report of a year ago.
However, before the bill was finally completed, funding was restored
for this particular agency. In our subcommittee hearings, the head of
this agency testified to our subcommittee that if we were not going to
restore funding at the level which they had requested, which was $2.6
million, then we might as well zero fund the agency and not fund them
at all.
The committee, the subcommittee, put in this bill the level of $1.8
million, though beneath the level the Administrative Conference said
was necessary for them to operate.
I believe a proper decision of this body ought to be to either fund
the agency at a level to operate, or defund the agency entirely. This
particular agency has as its mission an advisory role, essentially, to
give advice to other Federal agencies, boards, and commissions on
crafting regulations. It is thus duplicating a function that is
contained within almost every department, commission, or board in the
U.S. Government. There are multiple sources of expertise regarding the
crafting and drafting and preparation of Federal regulations without an
agency that has a specific task to zero in upon that.
As such, I believe this is, as we said last year, an agency that
really does not have a mission. It is a duplicative mission.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk about eliminating
needless boards and agencies and the reinvention of Government,
proposals to make a Government that works better and costs less. We
talk about reducing the size of Government. We talk about eliminating
employees. We talk about eliminating spending. This is a very simple
opportunity to do it on a small amount of money compared to the overall
Federal budget, $1.8 million. It is not, however, a small amount of
money to most taxpayers in the United States. I would submit that if we
have difficulty taking an agency such as this and eliminating its
funding, being a duplicative agency, then how are we going to make
tougher decisions that involve much larger sums of money?
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Members join me in adopting this
amendment to zero fund the Administrative Conference and provide that
money--it cold go wherever else we might wish it because, after all,
Mr. Chairman, we do not have to spend it at all.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this amendment is
the latest move that stems from the anger of a series of administrative
law judges who were offended by the fact that the Administrative
Conference of the United States made recommendations with regard to
their procedures and the way they operated that offended a number of
those administrative law judges. They came forward beginning about a
year ago and made an attempt, fairly successfully, to eliminate this
agency. Unfortunately, the agency does exactly what I would assume the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and others have as goals, and
that is it is an advisory agency that has a very small budget of $1.8
million that is focused on recommending on a regular basis to our
entire Government and its various agencies ways in which we can improve
the efficiency with which their decisions are made, vis-a-vis each
other, vis-a-vis citizens, and vis-a-vis business. It is an effort to
improve the fairness and efficiency of the administrative process and
to make nonpartisan, nonideological recommendations with regard to
achieving the goals of the various agencies.
Considering the extremely low budget, it is a very good investment.
Mr. Chairman, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law
and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary. We held a
hearing on this agency in April. No witness appeared this year in
opposition to the continuation of the agency. In fact, the hearing
indicated that the Conference has done a good job in carrying out its
mission to make recommendations for improving these various areas.
I also point out that the Vice President, as head of the National
Performance Review, specifically asked that this agency continue in
order that it might continue to play the role it has played with regard
to the National Performance Review with regard to promoting means of
alternative dispute resolution, negotiated rulemaking, streamlining of
the regulatory process, and coordination of agency legal counsel
offices.
This is a necessary function.
I realize that there are many Members here who would like to comb
through the budget and find an agency which they can nail and then
claim that they have, when they go home, they can claim they killed an
agency. There are probably some agencies like that that deserve it. But
this is not one of them.
The budget of this agency is $1.8 million. It has been reduced from
$2.6 million asked for by the White House. That is as it should be. We
support that in the Judiciary Committee, and that is what the
Subcommittee on Appropriations is recommending today.
But for goodness sakes, do not kill an agency that is doing a good
job, moving us in the direction of greater efficiency, helping this
Government run and to serve the public as well as respond to the needs
of the business community when they come before these agencies, in a
way that makes sense rather than continuing in ways that are
inefficient.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment of my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], to eliminate the
Administrative Conference of the United States. I think this is a
legitimate debate we are having over this particular council and
another one that we are going to talk about a bit later, which gives
people an opportunity to come forth and really show the justification
of why we should continue spending tax dollars on various agencies. Our
former colleague and former Secretary of Labor, Lynn Martin, once made
a comment that she did not believe in reincarnation but if she did, she
would like to come back to Earth as a Federal program because that is
the only thing that she knew that had eternal life. And I think there
is maybe a lot more fact than fiction in that particular comment.
I have had a lot of my good friends, a lot of my colleagues on this
side of the aisle who have let me know that they support the Conference
and support it very strongly. But I believe we have got to find some
place to start making some tough choices, and I do not see so far in
the debate we have had, evidence that this particular group has
contributed to the economy of this country to such an extent that they
therefore should continue on.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a relatively small amount of money,
obviously, but we have got to start saving somewhere. I would like to
applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Istook's amendment and urge
everyone to support it. I think it is time we can show the taxpayers
that once an agency is created, it does not have eternal life.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman's statement, that we ought
to certainly find anywhere we can to cut the budget. But when you talk
about $1.8 million, an agency that the Vice President has asked be
continued in order that it might play the role that it has been playing
with the National Performance Review, that seems to be a curious place
to start.
Is the gentleman [Mr. Lightfoot] in possession of any studies or any
authoritative opinions that indicate that the Conference should be
abolished? I am not aware of any.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. We have had a series of hearings on it, and from those
hearings I was not particularly convinced that they justify the
continuance or the cost of the agency.
Mr. BRYANT. We held hearings also, a hearing in April, and there was
not a single witness who came forward in opposition to the continuation
of this agency. And of course we have a specific request from the Vice
President that this agency continue.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Obviously, we
do not always control the witness lists, as well. Again, I think it is
a legitimate debate. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is very much
in favor of it. Obviously, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and
I and others have a different opinion. That is what we are here for.
I guess we would probably vote on this eventually.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen of the House, it would be
difficult for me to summon up a great deal of passion opposing this
amendment in light of the fact that I supported zero funding this
agency last year.
Having said that, let me oppose the gentleman's amendment and let me
tell you why.
First of all, in the interim we have had the Vice President's report
on reinventing government. The gentleman who chairs the subcommittee is
absolutely correct. The Vice President specifically pointed out that he
believed this agency could play a significant role in reinventing
Government. As a result, it is obvious that the administration, this
administration, has focused on this small, important, agency.
{time} 1630
Second, Mr. Chairman, after we zero funded this agency in our bill, I
received a number of phone calls, but two in particular that I will
reference.
The first call I received was from Boyden Gray. Many of my colleagues
will recall Boyden Gray as counsel to the White House under George
Bush. Now, Mr. Gray and I have worked very closely together, not always
agreeing, on the Americans With Disabilities Act, but I have a great
deal of respect for his legal competence and for his views. He urged,
in the strongest possible terms, the continuation of this agency
because he believed that it was a very important asset to the
administrative processes of the government and that in fact, as the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has said, it provided a very useful
oversight and advisory role with respect to the administrative process.
He further stated that it was a forum in which many, many very able
people from the private sector could work, which was pro bono work, and
in fact we, as a Federal Government, obtained a great deal of benefit
from that work.
The second telephone call I received, shortly after this, was from
another gentleman who has been in the papers recently, the former
director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Miller. Jim
Miller, as my colleagues know, recently ran for the United States
Senate in Virginia. Jim Miller supported all that Mr. Boyden Gray had
told me, and he indicated he felt, as the former director of the OMB,
that this little agency performed a very important, cost effective
service for the Government and for the public, and he urged me at that
time to fund it.
Now we came to the floor. We zero funded it. We did not add it back
on the floor. We did go to conference. The Senate included it. I
recounted to my colleagues on the Committee the opinions of Mr. Gray
and Mr. Miller. Those opinions have now been, of course, supported by
and reinforced by Vice President Gore.
In light of that, Mr. Chairman, our committee agreed to fund at the
1994 level, which was a reduction from the 1995 request.
I would also tell the Members of the House that Sally Katzen, who is
with the Office of Management and Budget, and, because there was a
vacancy in the directorship, she represented the agency at our budget
hearing and represented very strongly that it was OMB's view that this
agency performs a very important function.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would not support the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the other
Members regarding this. I would like to reassure my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas, that the origin of this particular amendment is
not from any angry administrative law judges or angry anyone else that
has any sort of ax to grind against this agency. Whoever those persons
may be, I have had no communication with them.
However, Mr. Chairman, we have had, as we have mentioned, hearings
last year and this year. I would mention that as far as supporting the
zero funding of this agency, it was something which I saw in the
subcommittee and, thereafter, last year, even though at that time the
particular head of the agency happened to be a constituent of mine,
happened to be a fellow attorney, a fellow Republican, a fellow
Oklahoman, and his arguments, I have to say, did not dissuade me
either. Certainly people who are an alumnus of a particular agency
often have an attachment to it. We are all familiar with that process.
However the expertise that people have, whether they be part of the
handful of employees of this agency, or whether they be persons
otherwise employed, that provide pro bono assistance to this agency,
that expertise remains available without having to have a special
Federal group for it. We have hundreds of Federal workers through HUD,
through EEOC, through OSHA, EPA, HHS, the list goes on, who work with
these regulations, who have this expertise, who have the ability to
share this information and who coordinate their efforts on a constant
and consistent basis without having to hire additional people just to
do this under the name of the administrative conference.
If we are serious about trying to eliminate 252,000 Federal workers,
then I think we have to be serious about taking a look at an agency
that has less than 25. That is less than one ten-thousandth of the jobs
we need to do, so I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment,
and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for having
yielded this time to me.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he will
vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the Committee
appears.
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device.
{time} 1646
quorum call vacated
The CHAIRMAN. One hundred Members have responded. A quorum of the
Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII,
proceedings under the call shall be considered as vacated.
The Committee will resume its business.
Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] insist on his demand for a
recorded vote?
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The demand is withdrawn, and the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is agreed to.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out the provision of the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Act of
1959, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4271-79); $1,000,000, and
additional amounts collected from the sale of publications
shall be credited to and used for the purposes of this
appropriation.
amendment offered by mr. istook
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Istook: Page 28, strike lines 15
through 23.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is also dealing with one of
the other small agencies within the purview of our subcommittee in this
bill. The President, of course, previously, through executive action,
advised the public that he was eliminating 284 commissions, and he
invited the Congress to suggest further eliminations.
This, again, is an agency that through action in this House last year
we had agreed to eliminate by zero-funding it. That was on a voice vote
during last year's appropriation bill.
{time} 1650
Mr. Chairman, this agency, the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations, is also one that many of us believe, and I
believe, taxpayers would agree exists to duplicate the functions that
are being performed in so many other areas.
Essentially, the ACIR is an assemblage of a small number of federal,
state and local officials that are supposedly coordinating the entirety
of the relations between the tens of thousands of persons all around
the country who are involved in coordinating the efforts of federal
government, state government, county government, city government and
other units of government.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, we have a multitude of groups that perform
similar functions. These vary.
There is the National Association of Intergovernmental Relations
Officials. There is the National Association of Counties, the National
League of Cities, the Council of State Governments, the National
Association of Towns and Townships, the National League of Cities, the
United States Conference of Mayors, Democratic Governors Association,
National Conference of Lieutenant Governors, National Conference of
State Legislatures, National Governors Association, Republican
Governors Association, Reason Foundation, Sunbelt Institute, National
Association of State Park Directors, and the list, Mr. Chairman, goes
on and on and on.
Mr. Chairman, it is not possible to think that a small federal agency
that has a budget of slightly over a million dollars can somehow be the
grease that coordinates everything that goes on between all levels of
government in this country.
I submit that it exists to give certain people a platform from which
most of what they say goes unnoticed.
Mr. Chairman, this is a small federal agency. It is a federal agency
that we do not need. If it were abolished, it would not be noticed. The
functions that it seeks to perform are being performed by thousands of
other citizens already who would be surprised at the audacity to think
that the Federal Government had organized a group to be their spokesman
on their behalf. We have plenty of other spokesmen for federal and
state officials. We do not need the Advisory Council on
Intergovernmental Relations.
I ask the House to repeat the activity which it took when this vote
was up last year on the appropriations bill then and zero fund this by
passing this amendment.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman
from Oklahoma runs through a litany of different organizations, most of
which are private associations such as the National Governors
Association, the Democratic Governors, the Republican Governors, the
National Council of Legislatures, and so on. What this is is separate
from that. They all have an axe to grind at some point. Some of them
have more of an axe than others.
This is an organization that I believe becomes particularly
compelling in light of two circumstances. First of all, it is the
national performance review in which the Federal Government is
rethinking its role, its functions for many of its agencies and
particularly its relationship to the States. That then leads me to the
second major development.
That is an interest in this Chamber in particular, and I think one
championed by the gentleman from Oklahoma, about the need to be looking
at States, looking at the State experience on different issues. I hear
a lot of talk on unfunded mandates. I hear a lot of talk about other
issues supposedly that local governments can do better than the Federal
Government.
Perhaps in some cases that is correct. But the ACIR is one that
brings all of that together in a structure where we do not have a clear
axe to grind.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of issues that are going to be
before this body, and that the ACIR is dealing with. For instance,
resolving problems caused by Federal mandates on State and local
governments, achieving more effective and inefficient intergovernmental
service delivery, particularly with welfare reform and health care
reform and infrastructure investment, streamlining the Federal aid
system, re-balancing the intergovernmental public finance system to
produce more efficient outcomes.
So on a bipartisan basis, the ACIR brings groups together and begins
to hammer out suggestions that are helpful to this body. For instance,
just this year, the ACIR, in conjunction with the Army Corps of
Engineers, put together an infrastructure conference and discussed
capital budgeting, which was a major topic on this floor, and it is
moving forward on recommendations. Already the process initiated by the
ACIR has resulted in Executive Order 12893, the Principles for Federal
Infrastructure Investments, promulgated in January of this year.
So at a time when people are understandably saying we need the States
more involved, we need the local governments more involved, here is an
institutional structure at very low cost within the Federal Government.
I would urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
As I say, particularly in light of the national performance review
and an increasing role that this body would be playing in that, I think
this is not a good time to be eliminating that source of input to this
Congress.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of my colleague's amendment to eliminate the ACIR.
This amendment did pass this body last year. I believe it is an
opportunity for us to make the hard choices and face reality. Just
because something is nice does not necessarily mean it is absolutely
necessary for the Federal Government to continue to fund it.
I once served on the ACIR, and I realize they do good work. But when
it comes to counting the beans, the pot is nearly empty. And I think we
have better places to spend the money.
It is performing a service, I think, to let us have its clients pay
for the Commission's services. As the gentleman from West Virginia
pointed out, and as did the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], there
are a number of private groups that are involved with it. Quite
frankly, I think if they would all divvy up a little bit, they could
continue to keep it in place but fund it from private sources rather
than from the taxpayers.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the suggestion that private associations,
which perform this effort at coordinating between the different levels
of government at no cost to the taxpayers of the United States, the
suggestion that a private association has an axe to grind is to suggest
that only someone under the control of the Federal Government can speak
for the States, that someone under the control of the Federal
Government can speak for the communities, that someone under the
control of the Federal Government can speak for the counties. I do not
believe that to be the case.
I do not think that the Federal Government needs to appoint a
spokesman on behalf of every water district or school board or county
commissioner's group or city council or town board or State assembly or
legislature in the country. They appoint their own spokesman. They send
us delegates. They even have lobbyists that they hire.
They have associations. They have people that are coming up here
constantly. Most Federal agencies already have an office of
intergovernmental relations.
We have private groups that come here to petition the Federal
Government for redress of grievances.
{time} 1700
They do not need to be told that we are going to decide who speaks
for us. They can make their own decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that most Members of this body have
never had occasion to seek the counsel or advice of the Advisory
Council on Intergovernmental Relations to tell them how to deal with
their constituents from these other units of government.
Mr. Chairman, I myself have served in local government and State
government and now in Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I have never,
repeat, never, had the occasion to need the advice of ACIR, and I
submit to the Members that most Members of this body are in the same
group.
Mr. Chairman, if Members have ever had to rely upon ACIR to know how
to deal with their officials back home, then perhaps they want to vote
for this; but if, as I believe, Members are in the majority that do not
need it, then I suggest that Members vote for the amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the amendment to
eliminate the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. This
is silly. If there were no ACIR, we would have to invent one.
Mr. Chairman, I am actually surprised that my colleague, the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] would go after this Commission in
particular, since this Commission is not a commission of spokesmen, it
is a commission of technicians whose work is to help Federal agencies,
the Congress, the States, and the cities engage in bipartisan
federalism. They coordinate the activities of the Federal executive,
legislatures, State government, local government, and private parties
to come together on issues that require the assistance of all of them
for solution.
Because of this unique arrangement, ACIR was the first to identify
unfunded mandates as an emerging issue. They found it. They found it
before anybody on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle
found it, and the only reason they were able to find it is because,
uniquely, they have all the parties at the table.
They are still, by the way, the prime source for all concerned on
this issue. I have used them on this issue, and they get more calls on
the issue of unfunded mandates than they do on any other issue, because
this is an issue they have patented as their own, because of the
expertise they have developed.
It is these tough financial and technical issues in which they have
specialized, Mr. Chairman. I submit, Mr. Chairman, there is no other
forum for the solution of such problems that puts everybody at the
table: State government, local government, private sector, Federal
agencies, Congress. Increasingly, the problems of this society are at a
level of complexity that if you do not have them all there, then
somebody is off the page and solutions elude us.
Mr. Chairman, it is these finance issues which stultify this body.
Members have heard what ACIR has done on the National Performance
Review. Let me give the Members another example. Since we have talked
about the ACIR only in the abstract, let me give the Members another
example.
Mr. Chairman, they are working now with the Army Corps of Engineers,
as we have instructed them, meeting cooperatively with Federal, State,
local, and private officials to help develop a Federal infrastructure
strategy. If they were not doing it, I defy Members to tell me which
among the existing agencies has the range and scope to do it.
Mr. Chairman, these people do not depend exclusively on us for
funding. They have, in fact, gone out and found funding from other
sources. Forty-eight States voluntarily give them money. Forty-eight
States that do not have to give them money, help to support them. If
you are a State in this country today, you do not give somebody money
unless you are getting something in return.
Mr. Chairman, this is a small investment, a $1 million investment,
that has already brought us many millions more in return. Mr. Chairman,
this is a cheap shot. Leave these folks in the budget.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise also in opposition to this amendment cutting
funds for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. It is
really the last forum in which, Federal, State, and local elected
officials, as well as the technicians that the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] mentioned, meet on a very regular
basis to consider issues which are critical to the smooth operation of
our Federal system.
Mr. Chairman, the fact that Members may not have had occasion to
personally deal with the members of the Commission, or have access to
their work, does not mean that the work that they are doing is
inconsequential. It is very consequential, and it has had enormous
impact over the years in straightening out the very complex
relationships that exist between the various levels of government.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are going to find that the decisionmaking
process has been very definitely aided throughout the years by this
little-known, very lightly funded organization.
Mr. Chairman, I think it has been pointed out here that the
Commission has been given a charge to deal with the emerging issue of
unfunded mandates. Until this issue became a national issue, Congress
displayed an unfortunate lack of interest in intergovernmental issues,
and in the Commission's work in particular.
Those who have paid attention know that it was ACIR which first
identified the issue of unfunded mandates, and that was 20 years ago,
before it ever emerged on the radar screen in this body or, indeed,
elsewhere. For those engaged in the debate over unfunded mandates, ACIR
is one of the few sources of objective, historical information on what
has become a very unfortunate trend which costs States and localities
billions of dollars and promises to cost billions more.
Eliminating ACIR this year, in this year when this is finally coming
to the fore as a critical issue, would be, I think, a disaster, because
that is the one agency that really has an historical perspective, has
been gathering data, has been giving thought and consideration to this
issue for a long period of time. Their advice, their counsel, their
recommendations are going to be invaluable as we move to consider this
issue.
ACIR is working to answer some of the difficult questions on
mandates, questions which have vexed us from the start: For example,
how do you define a mandate? What is an unfunded mandate? We need them
to complete this very important project. It is an agency that is
focused, it has a clear mandate to do this, and I think, Mr. Chairman,
we would be absolutely ridiculous if we were to unfund this project or
this Commission at this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just remind my colleagues that the Commission
this year is funded at one one-thousandth of the cost of the unfunded
mandates on States and localities, and that is not, it seems to me, an
unreasonable price to pay. Considering what we are asking States and
local governments to pay, this is a minuscule amount to try and
straighten out this incredible thicket.
Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that a number of the groups that
conceivably or purportedly could pick up the slack, National
Association of Counties, National League of Cities, National Government
Association, it was suggested these groups could take up the burden
which the ACIR is now carrying.
The point is, Mr. Chairman, all of these organizations support the
ACIR. They are solidly behind the ACIR, and were very concerned a year
ago when we were proposing to eliminate the ACIR. They must feel that
this has utility, that it has merit and value. Mr. Chairman, I would
urge in the strongest possible way that this amendment be defeated.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments that
were made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], as well as
the gentlewoman from District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. They pointed
out some of the principal reasons why the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations exists and why it must be maintained.
Mr. Chairman, when we look back over recent history in terms of
intergovernmental relations, we will find that the ACIR has in fact has
been a persuasive voice and had a significant influence on some of the
policies we have adopted here in the Congress. They do not get any
credit for it, it is not a particularly visible organization, but they
have a tremendous amount of credibility and professionalism, as well as
objectivity and bipartisanship. That is what guides the commission.
Mr. Chairman, as we all know, during the 1960's and 1970's there was
an attitude on the part of the Federal Government, the Feds could do
almost everything better, more equitably, we were more progressive and
so on. We gradually assumed more and more responsibility from States
and localities.
Whether the accusations that were leveled at States and localities
were true or not, they are no longer true today. One of our principal
objectives has got to be to devolve some of those responsibilities now
that we have taken on at the Federal level, give them back to States
and localities where States and localities can implement them in a
fair, responsible, particularly fiscally responsible way, and in a way
that is consistent with the priorities of local communities. That is
what the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is focusing
on today.
{time} 1710
Mr. Chairman, they were a principal consultant to the National
Performance Review. In fact, they were an integral part of that effort
to consolidate Federal programs, to devolve some of the Federal
responsibility, to beef up the capacity of States and localities to
carry out programs in a way that best meets the priorities of the
citizens within communities who pay the money, who are most affected by
the quality of schools, of public safety and the like.
They made these recommendations, they largely result in the National
Performance Review. It is now up to us to act on those National
Performance Review recommendations. One aspect of that is going to be
the issue of unfunded Federal mandates as that is integral to the role
of the Federal Government versus States and localities.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot pass the kind of legislation that addresses
the problems that we know need to be addressed in terms of all the
mandates that are being put upon States and localities without the
money accompanying them to meet those mandates. What will be the effect
if we go ahead and pass an unfunded mandate bill that says there will
be no more Federal mandates unless they are fully funded? What will be
the impact on the regulatory bodies, on the environment, on public
works, on many other social programs that people are dependent upon? We
do not have adequate information. We need to acquire that kind of
information. That is exactly what ACIR is doing today. They are doing
that objective, bipartisan analysis of what role can States and
localities assume that the Federal Government is now doing and perhaps
not doing as efficiently as it could.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know what their recommendations are going to
be, because they are objective. They do not represent any particular
perspective. They are not funded by the States, they are not funded by
localities, they are not funded by the Federal Government exclusively
or by the private sector. As the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia [Ms. Norton], said, if there was not an Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations, we would have to create one, create one
that would give us the kind of objective perspective that the ACIR
gives us.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize that the ACIR
traditionally was funded at about $2.6 million, we have cut it to
almost a third of the funding that it is used to having available, and
yet it has not cut back on the scope of its activities. This is a very
important organization. If we cut this out, I promise one day we are
going to be on the floor trying to create it again. It has been in
existence for 35 years, the people who work with it are the best
testament to its importance, to its objectivity and to its
professionalism. I would strongly urge my colleagues to maintain the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. For the paltry sum
of $1 million, it sure gives us advice that is worth far more than the
amount of money it costs us.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with regret to oppose the amendment, and I say
``with regret'' because I think the entire house should commend a
Member who is willing to go through the budget item by item by item and
to propose those expenditures which in the Member's opinion we can
eliminate. I personally supported the previous amendment which passed
the committee sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, though, because
I think the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has been
a bit mischaracterized. It has been characterized as do we really need
as Members of Congress, for example, to call them to ask their advice
on how to deal with our counterparts in State and local government.
That is not really, of course, the function of the Commission.
The Commission, by being constituted with commissioners from the
Federal level of Government, the State level of government and from
local governments attempts to be a forum to examine and discuss
policies and to try to resolve the problems that exist, now perhaps in
a more complicated fashion than ever, between the different levels of
government.
Mr. Chairman, as several speakers have already indicated, the prime
subject which the Commission is studying now is unfunded mandates. If
the Commission can, through its role of processing information, come up
with even part of the solution to that problem, a problem that has been
complained about on the House floor as well as by our counterparts in
State and local government, I think it is an expenditure well-made.
Therefore, I urge that we preserve the Commission and reject the
amendment.
Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook] to eliminate funding for the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations. I commend him for his efforts to cut
unnecessary fat out of a budget which is in excess of $1 trillion but
at this time I think he is looking in the wrong place. He can be penny-
wise and pound-foolish in this particular item.
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations was
established to ensure coordination between the different levels of
Government. It is uniquely qualified to provide us with the expertise
to give technical assistance on current issues at every level of
Government, from here in the Congress to the most local level of
government. As a former member of the municipal council of the city of
Newark, NJ, a member of the county commission, the Essex County NJ
Board of Chosen Freeholders, and a NJ State commissioner of the
hospital rate setting commission, I realize the importance of
coordination between the various levels of government and the
interdependence of one level to the other.
The Commission has garnered an impressive body of research on
intergovernmental issues and has convened regularly to develop
consensus on issues important at every level of government.
It is easy for us here in the Congress to become removed from issues
that affect the very people who elected us here and to vote on them
without having the foggiest idea as to how they will impact the local
governments and the communities that they serve. The Advisory
Commission is an invaluable resource at providing a holistic picture of
the issues before us.
Most of my colleagues are very concerned about the issue of unfunded
mandates. This organization is a prime source of information for
everyone involved in this very important debate.
I was pleased when my colleagues accepted my proposal to have the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations take the lead in
overseeing the implementation of the recommendations and principles set
out in Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, his plan for
reinventing government.
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, under the
leadership of the newly appointed chairman, William F. Winter, the
former Governor of Mississippi, is enjoying a new surge of energy.
President Clinton attended the reorganizational meeting last year to
lend his interest and support of our task. The ACIR has adopted an
ambitious new agenda to take on the challenges facing our Nation today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment so that it
may continue its work.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment as I did
last year. This has been funded by the previous two administrations and
this Administration as expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Clinger], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], and by
others on our side of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity in the early 1970's to work with
the ACIR. I believe, as has been stated, they are a valuable resource
for the Federal, State, and local governments. I think it would be, as
someone has said, penny wise and pound-foolish to eliminate this
agency.
Mr. Chairman, $1 million is a significant sum of money. But when we
divide that between 50 States, thousands of municipalities and the
Federal Government, it becomes a very small sum as it relates to each
and every instrument of Government which it serves. As a result, I
think it is a wise investment, and I would hope very much that the body
would concur with two previous Administrations and this Administration
that this organization is worthwhile and provides a service that will
save the Government money and will, in fact, help the Government divide
responsibilities between its various levels.
Mr. Chairman, I would also observe in closing, the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Payne], mentioned that Gov. William Winter, the former
Governor of the State of Mississippi, now heads this organization. The
Governor testified before our committee. I share the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Payne's view that Mr. Winter is reinvigorating the Advisory
Committee's work, I believe we will find it even more effective than it
has been in the past, and I urge the House to reject this amendment
which eliminates it as an active agency of our Government.
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious when occasionally we strike a
nerve when we have people fearful that the Federal Government is going
to eliminate a program that spends $1 million. Supposedly the program
exists to do all the coordination, the communication, grease the
wheels, if you will, between, and somebody gave me this figure, 86,000
units of State and local and Federal Government in this country.
{time} 1720
And we expect that agency that we fund for a million dollars is going
to be handling that coordination? If so, Mr. Chairman, I submit we
ought to change that to the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Magic
rather than Intergovernmental Relations.
There is an encyclopedia that is published. This is just the cover
page of the Encyclopedia of Governmental Advisory Organizations, the
1994-1995 edition. It is a reference guide to over 6,500, I repeat
those numbers, a guide to over 6,500 permanent, continuing, and ad hoc
U.S. Presidential advisory committees, congressional advisory
committees, public advisory committees, interagency committees, and
other government-related boards, panels, task forces, commissions,
conferences, and other similar bodies serving in a consultative,
coordinating, advisory, research, or investigative capacity.
We have 6,500 of these around this country, and people here are
saying we cannot do without one to cut Federal spending by $1 million.
Now, I realize in the Government of the United States and in our
budget, $1 million is the Federal equivalent of picking up a penny off
the sidewalk. Mr. Chairman, I tried to teach my kids pick up those
pennies. They are going to add up. Benjamin Franklin taught us a penny
saved is a penny earned. But, you know it is still not a penny, it is
still a million dollars. It is still duplicating what is done in almost
every Federal agency that we have.
They have their own intergovernmental relations office. We are
constantly petitioned and visited by people representing the State and
local and area governments, and we have 6,500 advisory groups that seem
to think that they can advise us.
Why do we say that the Federal Government has to be in charge to have
just one more to pile on top of all the other Federal spending to pile
on top of all the other national debt? I do not think anybody here
depends upon the ACIR to make their decisions, and it is the height of
audacity for someone to think that this is the agency that coordinates
the problems with unfunded mandates or the national performance review
or anything else. That is ridiculous.
It is just another group that has been sucked in to play minor roles
in almost everything, and such a minor role that it will not be missed.
I would urge everyone, Mr. Chairman, to adopt this amendment to save
the million dollars.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 210, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 240]
AYES--223
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Chapman
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fingerhut
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goss
Grandy
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hoagland
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kreidler
Kyl
Lambert
Laughlin
Leach
Lehman
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Mann
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meehan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sanders
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Valentine
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barlow
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brooks
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Callahan
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Coyne
Cramer
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Grams
Gutierrez
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
LaFalce
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pickle
Price (NC)
Quillen
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stokes
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Vento
Walker
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--6
Cooper
Ford (MI)
Reynolds
Rostenkowski
Sharp
Washington
{time} 1744
Messrs. SUNDQUIST, QUILLEN, and DOOLEY changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. POMEROY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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; $1,682,000.
Federal Election Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended;
$27,106,000, of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available
for reception and representation expenses.
amendment offered by mr. livingston
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Livingston: On page 29, line 12,
strike ``$27,106,000'' and insert ``$23,564,000''.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the 1995
appropriation for the Federal Election Commission from $27.1 million to
$23.564 million, which represents the fiscal year 1994 level. In 1990,
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Election Commission got $15.3 million. The
next year it got an 11.9-percent increase. The next year after that, a
9.7-percent increase. Following that year it got an 11.8-percent
increase. And in 1994, which brings us to the level that I want to keep
us at, it got a 12-percent increase.
So, Mr. Chairman, since 1990, when the FEC level was $15 million, and
this last year the FEC asked for almost $22 million, or a 34.9-percent
increase. Even OMB could not swallow that; the Office of Management and
Budget agreed to a 15-percent increase, at a level in the bill of
roughly $27 million. Interestingly enough though, Mr. Chairman, OMB's
request intended to provide $4 million in fenced-off money for a
computer upgrade which would speed efficiency of the FEC.
{time} 1750
The committee gave the FEC the extra $4 million, over and above the
fiscal year 1994 levels, but did not fence off the computer money. So
the money will be used for additional personnel and personnel expenses,
but not for any computer upgrade. In other words, there is not going to
be any improvement in the FEC after we spend the additional $4 million.
We do have a 15-percent increase, and the FEC still cannot afford to
improve their computers. And that is only one example of how the
Federal Elections Commission has failed to prioritize their efforts
effectively.
There is a strong concern among candidates and political committees
that the FEC has become a burdensome bureaucracy, which makes running
for office and participating in the electoral process a complex and
dangerous endeavor. The FEC has spun out so many regulations over the
years and dragged on so many enforcement cases, and yet performed so
few audits in House and Senate elections, that I fear what is happening
is that the Federal Elections Commission is making criminals out of
honest folk, while it does not effectively deter the serious offender.
I am concerned about the FEC's decision last December to dismiss 137
enforcement cases, showing that the FEC is not able to carry out its
duties in a timely and efficient manner. They just wipe the troublesome
cases off the books.
I am reluctant to vote for extra money for this Government agency
that is not capable of fulfilling its responsibilities. Over the last
couple of years, I have proposed 11 amendments, at least, to the
authorizing committee on which I serve with the distinguished chairman,
the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Swift] but none of my amendments
and none of the gentleman's amendments have ever seen the light of day.
We have not changed this commission since its inception 20 years ago.
It needs improvement, it needs to be upgraded into the modern computer
age, and it never gets attention, because an authorization bill never
gets passed. Hence, my need to come before the House on an
appropriations bill and try to send a message to the Federal Elections
Commission that they are not doing their job, and, if you are not doing
your job, you need no more money.
While the FEC complains about not having the resources to handle its
workload, it has continued to promulgate such new regulations on how
Federal candidates can spend campaign funds. It appears that the FEC is
still actively searching for more and more activities to regulate,
while not adequately addressing the agenda currently on its plate.
Over regulation and inability to prioritize has tied the FEC in
knots, while it has mystified candidates and their supporters above how
they can exercise their first amendment right to participate in the
electoral process.
The FEC has only conducted 17 audits of House candidates in 9 years:
two in 1985, two in 1986, and six in 1987; but in the years 1988, 1989,
and 1990, zero; and in 1991, three, 1992, four, and 1993, four.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, they have taken up to 8 years to
conduct audits of presidential campaigns, only recently finalizing some
of the 1988 presidential audits and enforcement actions. The FEC
dismissed 137 ongoing cases in December of 1993 because of its
inability to keep up with the caseload, as I have noted. A truly
wonderful example is an audit they began of a Texas Republican
congressional committee in July 1985, and yet they didn't reach a final
decision on that audit until July 10, 1992, some 7 years later.
During that case, the matter was in the hands of the Commission for
73 months, while the Texas Republican congressional committee responded
to all the FEC requests in the short space of 11 months.
In an unbelievable twist, after waiting 84 months to reach a
conclusion in the case, the FEC issued an ultimatum that the case had
to be settled within a couple of weeks, or a lawsuit would be filed
prior to June 5, 1993, during the special election for the U.S. Senator
from Texas. The FEC procrastinated for 84 months, and suddenly chose to
threaten the new Senate candidate just before the election.
That is either rank partisanship, or at the very least, ineptitude,
and cases like it are reported by many attorneys who practice before
the Commission. They are just some examples of the wrongs committed by
the FEC.
The partisanship could have something to do with the fact that the
general counsel of the FEC just happens to have been a former employer
of Ralph Nader. Maybe, maybe not.
One episode clearly demonstrates the FEC's partisan bias. Last year
the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in FEC versus The National Rifle
Association that Congress exceeded its authority when placing its
agents, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, on the
Commission as nonvoting ex officio members. The Court said the makeup
of the Commission was unconstitutional, thereby calling into question
every single decision by the FEC since its inception.
One would think the FEC would quickly remedy the situation and remove
the special deputy of the ex officio members from the Federal Elections
Commission. But the FEC decided to allow the ex officio special deputy
to keep office space inside the Commission and to provide him with an
ad hoc secretarial staff assistant, not to mention his $100,000-plus
salary.
The special deputy should not be there. He has been told by the court
that he makes the whole process illegal, yet he is still in the
building, and this kind of decisionmaking does not make me enthusiastic
about supporting a 15-percent increase in the FEC's budget.
My amendment would freeze the funding of the Federal Election
Commission at the 1994 figure. We should not reward the FEC's poor
performance with a 15-percent increase, and therefore I move the
adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following chart and Wall Street Journal
article for the Record.
AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED BY FEC 1985-93
[Non-presidential committees]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of committee 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate candidates............................... 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0
House candidates................................ 2 2 6 0 0 0 3 4 4
National parties................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other parties\1\................................ 1 3 5 4 1 0 0 2 4
PAC's........................................... 1 5 1 4 0 1 0 1 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 4 10 12 8 2 1 5 7 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes minor national, state, and local party committees.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 14, 1994]
Congress' Representative to Election Commission Has Six-Figure Salary,
Big Office and Little to Do
(By Rick Wartzman)
Washington.--Douglas Patton has a great government job. He
has a six-figure salary, a big office, a secretary and an
assistant.
Just one thing is missing: For the past few months he has
had relatively little to do.
Since 1976, Mr. Patton has served as Congress's nonvoting
representative on the Federal Election Commission, the agency
that oversees the campaign-finance laws. Critics have long
sneered at the position, arguing that it's absurd for a group
that is being regulated to have a seat at the regulator's
table.
Last October, the U.S. Court of Appeals here took
essentially the same view. It ruled that the inclusion of
congressional employees on the FEC violates the
constitutional separation of powers between the legislative
and executive branches of government.
While the case is pending before the Supreme Court, Mr.
Patton has been unable to participate in closed-door
commission meeting and has been forced to turn back all
confidential FEC documents in his possession. That has left
some wondering just what he does all day for a salary that in
1993, according to congressional payroll records, totaled
$108,234.
``This guy is just sitting there . . . and taking up
space,'' charges Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana, who is the
ranking Republican on the House subcommittee on elections.
in constitutional limbo
Only in Washington, it seems, could someone find himself in
Mr. Patton's predicament: stuck in constitutional limbo,
unable to carry out a job that is hard to justify in the
first place.
Mr. Patton, who carries the title of special deputy,
declined to comment.
Over the past few weeks, Mr. Patton's status has caused
great consternation inside the FEC. Mr. Patton's boss, Clerk-
of-the-House Donnald Anderson, asked the FEC to allow the
special deputy to maintain his ninth-floor office at the
agency's downtown headquarters until the Supreme Court
resolves the matter. After some hand-wringing, the FEC's six
voting members--three Democrats and three Republicans--agreed
to do so.
staff cuts
Meanwhile, some FEC officials are grumbling privately that
Mr. Patton gets to keep his job while the FEC is slated to be
squeezed by the Clinton budget released last week; under the
president's plan, the FEC says it would be forced to cut 33
staff positions.
How Mr. Patton is earning his pay these days isn't clear.
Trevor Potter, the FEC chairman, notes that he hasn't seen
Mr. Patton sitting in the audience at any of the agency's
public meetings. But FEC officials say Mr. Patton sends his
assistant to keep an eye on things. And some figure Mr.
Patton can keep pretty busy fielding calls from members of
Congress who have questions about the election laws.
Raymond Colley, the deputy clerk of the House, says he
won't discuss Mr. Patton's situation, except to suggest that
Mr. Patton continues to play an important liaison role at the
FEC. ``He's still our eyes and ears there,'' Mr. Colley says.
Of course, to critics of the special deputy slot, that's
precisely the problem. Some, like Rep. Livingston, believe
it's unfair that because the Democrats control both the House
and Senate, it's the Democratic leaders who get to select two
special deputies, while the GOP picks none. The Senate
special deputy retired last September and hasn't been
replaced.
nothing but a spy
But others think the issue is more fundamental. They
contend that the special deputy--no matter which party
appoints him--is nothing but a spy in the FEC's midst.
``There is no legitimate rationale'' for the post, says Larry
Sabato, a professor of government at the University of
Virginia. With such a setup, ``this is a commission
guaranteed to fail.''
The special deputy positions have been around since the
early days of the FEC, which was established in the aftermath
of Watergate. At first, the FEC had eight commissioners. Six
of them--two picked by the president, two by the House and
two by the Senate--were voting members. In addition, the
Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate each got
to act as nonvoting members of the FEC. But in 1976, the
Supreme Court ruled that such an arrangement violated the
separation-of-powers principle. So Congress rewrote the
rules: The president would appoint and the Senate confirm all
six voting members of the FEC.
Yet despite a stern warning from Antonin Scalia--who was
then a senior Justice Department official and is now a
Supreme Court justice--that the presence of congressional
representatives ``perpetuates a serious constitutional
issue,'' they remained part of the FEC.
``Congress was real nervous and I guess they wanted to keep
an eye on the commission,'' says Rep. Al Swift, the
Washington Democrat who heads the House subcommittee on
elections. ``They're still not our favorite agency because
they regulate us,'' he adds. ``But that high-level of
paranoia has since abated into a simmering one.''
Scott Thomas, an FEC commissioner who has been with the
agency since 1975, says that having the special deputies
around doesn't make things uncomfortable. ``I haven't really
seen any kind of improper influence,'' says Mr. Thomas, a
Democrat.
Republican Joan Aikens, who has been an FEC commissioner
since the agency's creation, says that the special deputies
often bring added perspective to deliberations. ``When
questions arise on various issues, they can provide useful
information, ``she says, noting that Mr. Patton, for example,
is a director of First National Bank of Maryland/DC.
fowler appointment
But such sanguine feelings haven't kept the special deputy
post from becoming embroiled in controversy. After he lost
his Senate seat last year, Georgia Democrat Wyche Fowler was
named a special deputy--even though the FEC had gotten
complaints alleging that Mr. Fowler and Paul Coverdell, his
Republican opponent who won the election, had received
excessive campaign contributions from their respective
national parties.
Mr. Fowler, who has since left the FEC for a private law
practice, insists that his sole mission at the agency was to
help bring along campaign finance reform legislation. ``I'd
like to think I made a contribution,'' he says.
Last fall's appeals court decision has led to its own
difficulties. The case involved a challenge by the National
Rifle Association of an FEC ruling concerning a transfer of
$416,000 from one branch of the NRA to the gun group's
political action committee. The appeals court agreed with the
NRA that the FEC couldn't pursue the case because of the
separation-of-powers problem. Now, seven other FEC rulings
are being challenged on the same grounds. Among them are
cases involving former presidential candidates Pat Robertson
and Lyndon LaRouche.
As for Mr. Patton, he still has his share of defenders.
``Should he be laid off until the Supreme Court case is
decided?'' Rep. Swift asks. ``Is that fair?'' Nonetheless,
the congressman recently agreed with Rep. Livingston to
consider abolishing the special deputies positions as part of
a broader restructuring of the FEC.
In the meantime, Mr. Patton appears to be trying to fill
his time the best he can. ``He's here when I leave, and I
leave around 6 o'clock,'' says John Surina, the FEC staff
director. ``He seems very busy. But the assurance I can give
you is that he's not busy on matters he ought not be busy
on.''
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a body that likes, in most recent times, to
talk a lot about reform--reform this and reform that, and reform
something else, and be purer than the driven snow. We have had a great
deal of discussion here just in the most recent days about the need to
see that laws we apply to other people apply to ourselves.
The FEC appropriation is an excellent place to find out whether we
really mean all of that, because the Federal Elections Commission is
essentially an agency Congress created to regulate us. Now, for all of
that rhetoric about how we should have everything apply to us that we
apply to others, let us look at the sorry record of what Congress has
done with the agency that regulates it when it comes to our campaigns.
We have starved it to death year after year after year. We have cut
it, we have pared it back, and we have criticized it for not doing its
job.
Make no mistake about it, this vote on this amendment is a reform
vote. If you are for reform, you vote ``no,'' because you cannot be for
reform and vote to cut the guts out of the agency that is set up to
supervise our behavior when we go out to campaign. But that is
precisely what this amendment does.
What the FEC has had to sustain is a series of incredibly cheap
appropriations, beginning in the early eighties. This is not an agency
that is now suddenly finding that it is going to have to face severe
cuts because Congress and the administration are finally getting down
to deal with the deficit.
{time} 1800
This agency gave at the office in 1981 and has been having its
appropriations reduced by both OMB and this Congress every year since.
What has the agency had to do? Well, they were just criticized in the
well because they took a great number of the cases, gave them cursory
examination, and felt that they simply did not have the wherewithal to
go into them, that they were not major cases in any event. And they
dismissed them.
They have done other things. The law has said for years that they
need to have available to the public information on any campaign
contribution of $200 or more. The FEC for years did not even have the
personnel to input the information to provide it for anything below
$500.
If we talk about reform, one of the key reforms is that the public
can find out what is going on. There, in fact, have been editorial
calls and calls by public interest groups that that threshold should be
$100, that people should know where we get any contribution for $100 or
more.
The question is, where do we find the people? Where do we find the
resources? Where do we find the time so that we can, in fact, provide
that information?
If we want to make the case that the FEC in many instances has not
done the job the way Congress envisioned, I think we have to plead
guilty to that. But then Congress should also stand up and plead guilty
to the fact that it is the cause of the FEC being incapable of
delivering on its responsibilities in the fashion that they should.
If they do not have the money, they cannot do it. And we have been
cutting their appropriation for decades. So if we are going to talk
about reform, if we are going to talk about living up to the kinds of
things we expect others to do, we should start by living up to what we
have set up as an agency to guide us in our campaigns and not keep
cutting the budget so it cannot do it and then piously taking the floor
and criticizing the agency because it has not done a good enough job.
If I understand the remedy that is being offered for the ills at the
FEC, caused because they do not have enough money, the remedy being
proposed here is give them even less money.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Swift was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, the situation in which we find ourselves is
we are talking seriously about passing a big new campaign finance
reform law. We want to do that because we want to clean up campaigns
even further. We want to do a better job than we have done in the past.
But we are not going to do that on the cheap. It is going to cost
money.
And here we are, in the very session in which we will no doubt vote
on that bill, we are cutting the FEC's ability to carry out even what
it has got already.
Now, are we for reform or are we not? If we are for reform, this vote
is ``no.'' If we vote ``yes,'' the public can draw its own conclusions.
We are talking about campaign reform bills and more and more we have
the calls, as I suggested, to lower the threshold in which they have to
keep records down to $100. And what does OMB do? It cuts their budget.
And what does the Committee on Appropriations do? It cuts that figure.
And what does this amendment do? It cuts that figure and then says, go
out and do right.
They cannot do it, and this vote, make no mistake, is about reform.
If we are for reform and if we are willing to put our money where our
mouths are, vote ``no.''
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SWIFT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make it clear, in fact, the
committee gave what the OMB requested, $27,106,000. I just wanted to
make that clear.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for doing that. In the
past, that has not always been the case. It is the case of where they
tell OMB what they need. That gets pared. We pare it and there are
always amendments on the floor to pare it back.
This is an agency that started out, maybe like all agencies did, way
back when I came here 16 years ago. Maybe it had a little fat. That fat
was gone 15 years ago.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the
Chairman of the authorizing committee. I happen also to serve on that
authorizing committee with its ranking member, the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. livingston].
Clearly, I think most of us believe that if we are going to ask this
agency to perform a task and expect it to then perform the task, then
we need to give it the resources to do so. I agree with the remarks of
the chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], when he says
that we made a very substantial reform.
The reform in campaign financing was to tell the public where money
comes from to fund their politics and their politicians.
Frankly, I am one of those who do not believe that the level of
giving ought to be reduced. I am one of those who does not believe that
PAC's, which were adopted as a reform to allow small givers to come
together, are bad. But I do believe that the public ought to have the
information to form a judgment on whether or not campaign giving
affects the policies of those to whom those contributions are made.
Let me review the bidding just a little bit on this in terms of the
dollars. The FEC, which under statute has the right to make a budget
request directly to the Congress, requested $31,793,000 for fiscal year
1995. That is $4 million more than OMB gave them and $4 million more
than the Committee was able to give them.
This is one of the few agencies that we have approved an increase. As
I said, we took, for the most part, the 1994 level or the 1995 request,
whichever was lower. In this case, however, we gave an increase.
My opinion is that the committee gave the increase that OMB suggested
for the same reason that the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift]
enunciated. If we are going to tell the public that we believe
disclosure is essential, then we need to give the resources to the
agency that we have given the responsibility to oversee disclosure.
I would urge the Members to reject this amendment.
In addition to their present responsibilities, when we pass campaign
finance reform, it is the FEC's opinion that it will take them an
additional $4 million to carry out the responsibility expected of them
in the campaign finance reform bill. So the bottom line is, the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] is right.
If we want reform, if we want disclosure, if we want the public to
know what we are doing, we need to give the agency the responsibility
to make sure this happens and the resources to carry out that
objective.
I understand the concern of my good friend, the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] with whom I not only serve on the Committee
on House Administration but also this committee, the Committee on
Appropriations. It is not an unfounded concern. I look forward to
working with him in both the Committee on Appropriations and the
authorizing committee as we try to make sure this agency operates
effectively and fairly.
I urge the Members to reject the amendment.
{time} 1810
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate, as we discuss what should or
should not be done with the Federal Election Commission, to remember
that over the years we have relied on the Office of Management and
Budget, whether it was under the Reagan administration or the Bush
administration or now the Clinton administration, to advise us about
what we ought to do in expenditures for the Federal Election
Commission.
Mr. Chairman, this is from a letter dated March 4, 1994. The
signature is Leon Panetta, Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. It says this:
To put the Commission's budget in perspective, it is worth
noting that, compared to most agencies, the Commission has
received substantial increases in recent appropriations; for
example, the $27.2 million in budget authority the
President's budget proposes for 1995 is 45 percent over the
1992 level of $18.8 million.
And continuing to quote: ``About $4 million of the increase is for
new computer capacity. Factoring out that increase''--that is, going
from the $27.1 million, factoring out the $4 million, and therefore
leaving $23.1 million, which is the position of the amendment of the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]--``does mean that the FEC
would have a flat budget between 1994 and 1995.''
Even so, the agency has done very well recently. The fiscal
year 1995 budget authority is $3.6 million over 1993, and in
a time when most of the government is being asked to reduce
staffing drastically, the Commission's full-time equivalent
level of 294 people proposed in the budget is 10 percent over
the comparable 266 full-time equivalent the Commission had in
1992.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget said that $23.1
million is enough, and the number of employees at the FEC is enough. If
we give them the $27.1 million, we should give it to them in increased
computer capacity. What will they do with increased computer capacity?
They will do exactly what the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] has
passionately pleaded for us to do, and that is to increase the ability
of the FEC to do the job, to check returns, to determine who gives and
who does not give.
What has happened in the Committee on Appropriations is the fence
requiring that funds be spent to computerize was broken down. The FEC
is not going to spend that $4 million for the computers that would in
fact make it better able to do the job that the gentleman from
Washington wanted it to. What the FEC is going to do is hire more
people.
Leon Panetta has already said that there are enough people in the
$23.1 million budgets do not add more people. Breaking down the fence
between the $4 million for computers and the $23.1 million to keep the
funding of the FEC reasonable, according to Leon Panetta, creates a
situation in which the FEC will add more people, and more people will
not do a better job, along the lines that the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Swift] wants to see done.
Mr. Chairman, it seems entirely appropriate that if we do not want to
give the FEC the money for the computers, we should not give them more
people. Do not take my word for it, that is what the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, Leon Panetta, said should be done.
Leon Panetta asks Members to vote ``yes'' on the Livingston amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 197, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 241]
AYES--231
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Ford (MI)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
LaFalce
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meehan
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murphy
Myers
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Santorum
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watt
Weldon
Williams
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de Lugo (VI)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gutierrez
Hamburg
Harman
Hastings
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Hoyer
Hughes
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Kopetski
Kreidler
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickle
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sawyer
Schenk
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shepherd
Skaggs
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swift
Synar
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--11
Blackwell
Cooper
Fish
Kennelly
Neal (NC)
Reynolds
Rush
Sharp
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Wolf
{time} 1833
The Clerk announced the following pair on this vote:
Mr. Cooper for, with Mrs. Kennelly against.
Mr. RAHALL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. QUILLEN, TAUZIN, KLINK, and VOLKMER changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the distinguished chairman of the
committee in a colloquy for two purposes, first, to thank him for his
interest as indicated by a letter that he has written recently on the
two-tier system that now exists in the administrative judges between
AJ's and ALJ's, and how the chairman inquiringly wants to try to
accomplish some conversion in the near future.
I want the Chair to know, and I want the chairman to know, that I
have, as he knows, introduced legislation to try to bring about that
conversion, because I think it is in the best interests of our Federal
employees as they seek justice in their various claims not to have to
be bogged down in perhaps a system that is overlapping and perhaps
self-defeating.
So I ask the Chairman to concur with me, if he can, that this problem
will be one that we will be facing shortly following the debate on the
present legislation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
also thank him for focusing on this issue and bringing it to our
attention.
We have written, on behalf of the committee, for further information
on this issue that the gentleman just referred to.
We expect to get some information back before conference, and I will
be working with the gentleman and with our Committee to address this at
conference, if that seems to be appropriate.
Mr. GEKAS. I thank the Chair, and I am satisfied with that response.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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 as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger
motor vehicles, rental of conference rooms in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere; $21,341,000: 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
For additional expenses necessary to carry out the purpose
of the 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)), $366,896,000, to be deposited
into said Fund. 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, taxes, and any other
obligations for public buildings acquired by installment
purchase and purchase contract, in the aggregate
amount of $4,979,106,000, of which (1) not to exceed
$507,990,000 shall remain available until expended for
construction of additional projects at locations and at
maximum construction improvement costs (including funds for
sites and expenses and associated design and construction
services) as follows:
New Construction:
Alabama:
Montgomery, Courthouse Annex, $40,547,000
Arizona:
Tucson, Courthouse, $12,241,000
California:
Santa Ana, Courthouse, $25,193,000
Colorado:
Lakewood, U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory/Building,
$25,802,000
Florida:
Jacksonville, Courthouse, $4,600,000
Orlando, Courthouse Annex, $7,724,000
Georgia:
Albany, Courthouse, $6,000,000
Savannah, Courthouse Annex, $5,597,000
Kentucky:
Covington, Courthouse, $3,100,000
London, Courthouse, $1,620,000
Louisiana:
Lafayette, Courthouse, $5,363,000
Montana:
Babb, Border Station, $333,000
Missouri:
Kansas City, Federal Building-Courthouse, $84,895,000
St. Louis, Courthouse, $176,863,000
North Dakota:
Pembina, Border Station, $11,113,000
Ohio:
Cleveland, Courthouse, $30,048,000
Steubenville, Courthouse, $3,000,000
Pennyslvania:
Erie, Courts Complex, $3,335,000
Tennessee:
Greeneville, Courthouse, $3,123,000
Texas:
Austin, VA Annex, $1,430,000
Brownsville, Federal Building-Courthouse, $6,361,000
Corpus Christi, Courthouse, $6,857,000
Laredo, Courthouse, $24,341,000
Virginia:
Charlottesville, U.S. Army Foreign Science & Technology
Center, $4,178,000
Washington:
Blaine, Border Station, $4,472,000
Oroville, Border Station, $1,483,000
Point Roberts, Border Station, $698,000
West Virginia:
Martinsburg, IRS Computer Center, $7,547,000
Non-prospectus construction projects, $126,000: Provided,
That each of the immediately foregoing limits of costs on new
construction projects may be exceeded to the extent that
savings are effected in other such projects, but not to
exceed 10 per centum unless advanced approval is obtained
from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate
of a greater amount: Provided further, That all funds for
direct construction projects shall expire on September 30,
1996, 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 claims against the Government of less
than $250,000 arising from direct construction projects,
acquisitions of buildings and purchase contract projects
pursuant to Public Law 92-313, be liquidated with prior
notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
and Senate to the extent savings are effected in other such
projects; (2) not to exceed $815,268,000, which shall remain
available until expended, for repairs and alterations which,
beginning with fiscal year 1995 and in subsequent fiscal
years, includes associated design and construction services:
Provided further, That funds in the Federal Buildings Fund
for Repairs and Alterations shall, for prospectus projects,
be limited to the amount by project as follows, except each
project may be increased by an amount not to exceed 10 per
centum unless advance approval is obtained from the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate of a
greater amount:
Repairs and Alterations:
California:
Los Angeles, U.S. Courthouse, $24,910,000
Menlo Park, USGS Building 3, $7,631,000
Sacramento, Federal Building, $16,574,000
San Pedro, Custom House, $5,429,000
Colorado:
Denver, Federal Building and Custom House, $8,896,000
District of Columbia:
Ariel Rios-Facades, $3,946,000
Customs/ICC/Connecting Wing Complex (phase 1), $9,662,000
National Courts, $4,588,000
Illinois:
Chicago, Federal Center, $52,982,000
Maryland:
Baltimore, George H. Fallon Federal Building (phase 3),
$17,179,000
Woodlawn, SSA East High-Low Rise Buildings, $19,212,000
New Jersey:
Trenton, Clarkson S. Fisher Courthouse, $15,675,000
New York:
Holtsville, IRS Service Center, $21,313,000
New York, Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, $2,891,000
New York, Silvio V. Mollo Federal Building, $963,000
North Carolina:
Asheville, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, $7,052,000
Ohio:
Cleveland, Anthony J. Celebreeze Federal Building,
$12,192,000
Oklahoma:
Oklahoma City, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building,
$5,878,000
Pennsylvania:
Harrisburg, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse,
$16,903,000
Philadelphia, Byrne-Green Complex, $34,028,000
Philadelphia, R.N.C. Nix, Sr., Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse (phase 3), $14,730,000
Rhode Island:
Providence, Kennedy Plaza Federal Courthouse, $8,600,000
Texas:
Lubbock, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, $13,517,000
Virginia:
Richmond, U.S. Courthouse and Annex, $13,899,000
Washington:
Walla Walla, Corps of Engineers Building, $2,827,000
Nationwide:
Chlorofluorocarbons Program, $100,135,000
Energy Program, $50,803,000
Advance Design:
$21,685,000
Minor Repairs and Alterations, $301,168,000: Provided
further, That additional projects for which prospectuses have
been fully approved may be funded under this category only if
advance approval is obtained from the Committees on
Appropriations 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
Minor 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, 1996, 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 Minor 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; (3) not to exceed $127,531,000 for
installment acquisition payments including payments on
purchase contracts which shall remain available until
expended; (4) not to exceed $2,204,628,000 for rental of
space which shall remain available until expended and (5) not
to exceed $1,323,689,000 for building operations which shall
remain available until expended of which $3,400,000 shall be
available for essential functional requirements for primary
structural, electrical, and security systems of the Bureau of
Census, New Computer Center: Provided further, That of the
funds available to the General Services Administration for
the Albany, Georgia, Courthouse; Stuebenville, Ohio,
Courthouse; Corpus Christi, Texas, Courthouse; Providence,
Rhode Island, Kennedy Plaza Federal Courthouse; and the Walla
Walla, Washington, Corps of Engineers Building, shall not be
available for expenses in connection with 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
in connection with the development of a proposed prospectus:
Provided further, That for the purposes of this
authorization, buildings constructed pursuant to the purchase
contract authority of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972
(40 U.S.C. 602a), buildings occupied pursuant to installment
purchase contracts, and buildings under the control of
another department or agency where alterations of such
buildings are required in connection with the moving of such
other department or agency from buildings then, or thereafter
to be, under the control of the General Services
Administration shall be considered to be federally owned
buildings: Provided further, That none of the funds available
to the General Services Administration, except for the line-
item construction and repairs and alterations projects in
this Act shall be available for expenses in connection with
any construction, repair and 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 in connection with 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 of the House and Senate: 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, as amended, 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 1995, 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 $4,979,106,000 shall remain in the
Fund and shall not be available for expenditure except as
authorized in appropriations Acts.
amendment offered by mr. istook
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
Page 31, line 23, strike ``$40,547,000'' and insert
``$39,091,363''.
Page 31, line 25, strike ``$12,241,000'' and insert
``$10,980,177''.
Page 32, line 2, strike ``$25,193,000'' and insert
``$21,917,910''.
Page 32, line 7, strike ``$4,600,000'' and insert
``$4,186,000''.
Page 32, line 8, strike ``$7,724,000'' and insert
``$7,075,184''.
Page 32, line 10, strike ``$6,000,000'' and insert
``$5,676,000''.
Page 32, line 11, strike ``$5,597,000'' and insert
``$5,294,762''.
Page 32, line 13, strike ``$3,100,000'' and insert
``$2,917,100''.
Page 32, line 14, strike ``$1,620,000'' and insert
``$1,500,120''.
Page 32, line 16, strike ``$5,363,000'' and insert
``$4,971,501''.
Page 32, line 21, strike ``$84,895,000'' and insert
``$82,945,635''.
Page 32, line 22, strike ``$176,863,000'' and insert
``$159,353,570''.
Page 33, line 1, strike ``$30,048,000'' and insert
``$27,523,968''.
Page 33, line 2, strike ``$3,000,000'' and insert
``$2,982,300''.
Page 33, line 4, strike ``$3,335,000'' and insert
``$2,964,815''.
Page 33, line 6, strike ``$3,123,000'' and insert
``$2,863,791''.
Page 33, line 10, strike ``$6,361,000'' and insert
``$5,979,340''.
Page 33, line 11, strike ``$6,857,000'' and insert
``$6,274,155''.
Page 33, line 12, strike ``$24,341,000'' and insert
``$24,260,675''.
Conform accordingly the 3 aggregate amounts set forth on
page 31, line 15; and page 40, line 22.
Mr. ISTOOK (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
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment relates to the $508 million
which this bill expends on Federal courthouse construction.
The bottom line of this amendment is that it does not eliminate any
of the courthouse construction projects. However, it does reduce the
total amount of spending on courthouse construction by $32 million,
apportioned among 19 different projects. It is not an across-the-board
percentage. Instead, this amendment relates most to those which are
most expensive in terms of cost per square foot.
Mr. Chairman, now, there have been a number of studies recently.
There has been a great deal of activity in the Senate. The GAO has
become involved. There have been multiple media reports. Some of them
questioned the construction of Federal courthouses in general and
questioned the total square feet that are being added, and others
related to what we are doing.
How many times are we putting marble rather than some other form of
construction in place? Are we putting in hardwood or decorative wood?
Are we putting in private kitchenettes in chambers, multiple law
libraries rather than shared law libraries, larger space than is
necessary, and otherwise are we increasing the cost to the taxpayers of
this construction?
Here is a telling point, Mr. Chairman: If you are building a
courthouse for State government or local government, it will cost you
less than $100 per square foot. In fact, a company in Boston that did a
report on this reported that to build a typical State courthouse or
local courthouse, the cost is $90 per square foot. The State of Arizona
recently built a new supreme court building at a cost of $93 per square
foot. And I understand that is even with the use of expensive stone.
Yet for a Federal courthouse the average cost is about $200 per
square foot, more than twice as much as it costs the State government
to build a courthouse or local government to build a courthouse.
{time} 1840
We can talk about differences, Mr. Chairman, between how you
construct a Federal courthouse or one for any other level of
Government, but I do not believe we can justify spending twice as much
per square foot to build it because it is for the Federal Government.
This amendment is proportional, as I say; basically we took a formula
and we took the projects the new projects proposed in this bill, and we
calculated, or actually the GSA had already calculated, the cost per
square foot. And as to those which exceeded $100 per square foot, we
are proposing reducing the excess above $100 per foot by 25 percent.
Now, this difference in per-square-footage cost is not because of
regional variations. We have checked with services that report average
construction costs in different parts of the country, to make sure
these were not regional differences in construction costs.
So, for example, Mr. Chairman, the bill, as written, has a courthouse
in Cleveland at $200 per square foot. This amendment would reduce the
allowance to $175 per square foot. There is a courthouse in St. Louis
that is proposed for $187 per square foot; the amendment would reduce
the cost of that building by $22 per square foot.
The point, Mr. Chairman, is that this does not say that everyone has
to have the same price per square foot, because there are regional
differences; this does not kill anybody's project. But it does try to
bring a lower level of per-square-foot construction expense into this
process.
What has been the experience of many people is they find that funds
are over-allocated for construction, and then at some stage in the
process extra expense is added. It may be extra space, it may be
enlarging something, it may be making it fancier, it may be using brass
rather than cheaper metal; it may be any of a number of things. But
this puts us on record as saying that we want to meet the needs of the
Federal judiciary but we want to meet the needs of the taxpayers as
well. If State and local government can spend $90 and construct very
fine and satisfactory courthouses, then I do not think we need to spend
twice that much to construct a Federal facility. I believe this is a
commonsense approach, Mr. Chairman. The bottom line, as I say, is that
it reduces the $508 million in this bill for Federal courthouse
construction by $32 million.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, first of all let me put in context where we are in
Federal courthouses. First of all, as the committee knows, last year
the committee recommended a 10 percent cut across the board in
courthouse construction funding. On the floor we cut an additional 2
percent. So that meant we cut 12 percent.
In addition, the administration undertook, under Administrator
Johnson in the General Services Administration, a pause and review of
all GSA projects that were recommended. In that pause and review they
recommended that certain savings be affected. In fact, in our bill we
did, not at the administration's request but our own initiative, cut an
additional $78.2 million through rescissions. Now, that is in
juxtaposition to adding $28 million.
So that there was a net reduction in Federal construction of $60
million by the committee at our instigation below what the President
asked for. That was because of the rescission.
Now, the fact of the matter is there is a difference. There have been
recent news reports on the cost to build Federal courthouses. The
reports are focused on the cost per square foot of a Federal courthouse
versus a country courthouse as well as the extra touches often found in
Federal courthouses which could be viewed as too generous and too
opulent. Frankly, that is why we made the 12-percent cut. That is why
we urged GSA to make a very careful review of the Federal courthouse
proposals.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Istook's amendment is
across the board, and that is based on his view of what the cost per
square foot for construction of these courthouses ought to be. Let me
make it clear, however, there has been no testimony before our
committee with respect to this issue
There were questions asked, but we have not had a hearing on all the
components that would be impacted by Mr. Istook's amendment.
Despite the way Mr. Istook may have come up with the figures, it is
an across-the-board reduction, pure and simple, similar to Mr.
Pomeroy's to reduce the amount available for construction of each of
the named courthouses.
Ladies and gentleman of the House, Mr. Pomeroy intends to offer an
amendment to reduce by 6 percent the courthouses that are being
proposed. We will support that amendment. The reason we will support
that amendment is the newly recommended courthouses were not subjected
to the previous cut last year. We believe, therefore, that it is fair
and appropriate that the new courthouses be subjected to the same cut.
I am pleased that Mr. Pomeroy's diligence brought that to our
attention. And he has been very tenacious in trying to make sure that
we have, in effect, such savings as we can make while at the same time
providing courthouses for our people so that justice can be served.
Mr. Istook's amendment, however, also reduces funds for courthouses
which are beyond the design stage, not just new.
Now, what does that mean? Santa Ana and St. Louis and others will cut
money of their construction, though they are under way. They are
already being proposed and they have been subjected, I will tell you
again, to the GSA timeout and review. What Mr. Istook should be
interested in, in my opinion, is the courthouses which are being
initiated this year for which design has not yet been complete.
Quite obviously, if design is not complete and the cuts are made, as
Mr. Pomeroy suggests, then in fact that can be accommodated.
Now, I see the gentleman from California, who has one of the major
courthouses in this bill, on his feet, and I would be glad to yield to
him.
Mr. DORNAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and tell him that he
assumes correctly, I say to my distinguished colleague from Maryland.
I cannot speak for the St. Louis courthouse, I will let the gentleman
eloquently do that. However, with a heavy heart, and I do not say that
sarcastically, I go against my distinguished colleague, the gentleman
from Oklahoma. May his tribe increase on November 8, at least by 30
people. But the Santa Ana courthouse is in an earthquake-prone area.
After all, we do call it the San Andreas fault that runs very close to
there. Our Santa Ana courthouse has already taken about 4 hits. I point
out it is not the charming name of Ronald Reagan----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. I yield further to the gentleman from California, my new-
found friend.
Mr. DORNAN. I will wrap up by saying that if Orange County were a
State, it would be bigger than 19 States. We have passed in the past 3
years Oklahoma, with all due respect, Mississippi and Arkansas. Look
out, Oregon, here we come.
My point is you cannot ask people to get in the gridlock of traffic
on those main arteries between San Diego, our second biggest county,
and Los Angeles, our biggest, and spend 3 hours going to court and 4
and 5 hours driving home. Orange County is entitled to a modern
courthouse. It has come down--and I will submit this for the record--5
times already. We are now into the bone of the seismographic building
to withstand an earthquake. So, I repeat, with great pause I will have
to vote against this amendment.
I rise today in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from
Oklahoma that would cut funding for construction of the Ronald Reagan
Courthouse.
The Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, California has already
experienced more than its share of cuts. Indeed, if every courthouse
project in the country were scrutinized and held to the same standards
as the Ronald Reagan Courthouse, the budget would be in much better
shape.
Let me recite a few facts. Orange County's population is greater than
the States of Mississippi, Kansas and Arkansas and 16 others and is
rapidly approaching passing the population of Oklahoma. Look out Oregon
here we come. So Orange County right now is more populous than 19
States. Currently, the Federal court system in Orange County has just
three permanent courtrooms and three temporary courtrooms which are in
modular structures. The long-range need of the courthouse, however, is
for 29 courtrooms. So the current facilities, which are spread
throughout Santa Ana, are obviously grossly inadequate. But get this,
even upon completion of the Ronald Reagan Courthouse there will still
not be adequate space.
But as we consider this further cut to the Ronald Reagan Courthouse,
let me remind my colleagues that the project has already been cut
substantially, by one-third. It started out as a $168 million project.
It was then subjected to cuts of 10 percent and then 2 percent. After
those cuts, it was subjected to the time-out-and-review process, which
recommended an additional $25 million cut. Eventually, after all this,
we arrived at the $123 million figure in the committee bill.
The cuts have resulted in substantive changes to the courthouse's
design. An entire floor has been chopped off and most of the parking
has been lost. These are not luxuries that are being cut. We have
looked long and hard at the expenses, and we have cut them, in my mind,
beyond the bone.
I believe that although past cuts may well have been justified, this
additional cut attacks the substance of the project.
Furthermore, consider that the citizens of Santa Ana, a working class
city in the center of my district, support the project so much that
they have donated the land for the courthouse. Their donation has saved
the Federal Government $4.5 million.
And with all due respect to my friend from Oklahoma, construction
costs in southern California cannot be compared to construction costs
in Tulsa. Orange County has one of the most expensive real estate
markets in the country, especially when you add in the increased
expenses stemming from seismic requirements. Anybody who has been to
Southern California knows what I am talking about. Again it is simply
ridiculous to think that you can build in southern California for the
same price you can build in Oklahoma.
Lastly, if this cut goes through, the courthouse will have to be
redesigned for the third time, wasting even more taxpayer dollars. This
amendment may seem penny wise but, in the case of the Ronald Reagan
Courthouse, it is definitely pound foolish.
The Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, CA has been chopped,
topped, and scrubbed. And while I have great respect for my
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma and I applaud his commitment to
reducing the deficit and in probably every other case will be
supporting him, I must say that in this case he is just plain wrong.
The Ronald Reagan Courthouse, which will serve a legitimate Federal
function, has already been subject to severe cuts. I therefore urge my
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from California for his comments. He
reflects the problem caused by adoption of this amendment. To reduce
the cost per square foot would require a redesign in some instances of
these buildings, which would cost more, not less, in the final
analysis.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
{time} 1850
Mr. ISTOOK. Just to clarify, I understand, of course, Mr. Chairman,
what the gentleman is saying regarding the necessity to redesign in
some instances, but is he contending that the cost of redesign would
exceed the 32 million dollars worth of savings, because we have figures
here on what it costs to design these buildings today--
Mr. HOYER. It is our contention to pause at this point in time. The
Santa Ana Courthouse, as the gentleman knows, at this time is under
way, and the gentleman has pointed out what is going on. To pause at
this time, not just in the redesign costs, but in delay and
construction, yes, our premise is that it could approximate or exceed
the savings the gentleman seeks.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly disagree with that
contention, but I will seek my own time and present those things rather
than doing it on the gentleman's time.
Mr. HOYER. In fairness to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, I do not have
an estimate on that, but the information I have is that it is possible
to exceed the costs so that the savings may be somewhat illusory. But
the gentleman could speak to that question.
Mr. Chairman, the Members will have an opportunity to reduce the cost
of construction of new courthouses with the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. The Pomeroy amendment
reduces funding for the new courthouses which have not yet been
designed. This will ensure that savings which will reduce the cost per
square foot will be built into the design of the facility. The
Committee has included a provision in the GSA portion of the bill which
prohibits the transmission of a fiscal year 1996 request for courthouse
construction which does not meet the standards established by GSA and
OMB.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. I am taking this time, Mr. Chairman, because I think this
is a substantive, important amendment, but I think there are very
important reasons to oppose this amendment and support the amendment
offered by the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
The committee, as I said, has included in the GSA portion of the bill
language which prohibits the transmission of a 1996 request for
courthouse construction, which, as I said, does not meet the standards
applied by GSA and OMB. These standards include benchmarks currently
being developed by GSA which establish a design for courthouses to
lower the cost per square foot of these facilities.
Again, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate to the Members of the House
that we have reduced, not at the administration's request, but on our
own initiative, by $78 million existing facilities, not all
courthouses. Let me say, as the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]
knows, $30 million of that comes out of a reduction in a project,
frankly, in my district because I was convinced that in fact that money
could be saved without diminishing the scope and quality of the
project.
The benchmarks that the GSA will come up with will also increase the
occupiable square footage from the current 60 percent to 67 percent, an
appropriate step forward. This effort has the effect of lowering the
cost by approximately 10 percent. While the discussion of cost per
square foot for the courthouses is a valid one, of course we have not
had such a discussion in our hearings, and to base an amendment on such
a proposal without the opportunity to question GSA about the basis or
the effects of such a reduction on their cost estimate in our opinion
is not warranted.
Mr. Chairman, I would, therefore, ask that the Committee defeat this
amendment.
amendment offered by mr. pomeroy as a substitute for the amendment
offered by mr. istook
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pomeroy as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
Page 30, line 15, strike ``$366,896,000'' and insert
``$361,615,520'';
Page 31, line 15, strike ``$4,979,106,000'' and insert
``$4,973,825,520'';
Page 31, line 15, strike ``$507,990,000'' and insert
``$502,709,520'';
Page 31, line 25, strike ``$12,241,000'' and insert
``$11,506,540'';
Page 32, line 8, strike ``$7,724,000'' and insert
``$7,260,560'';
Page 32, line 10, strike ``$6,000,000'' and insert
``$5,640,000'';
Page 32, line 11, strike ``$5,597,000'' and insert
``$5,261,180'';
Page 32, line 13, strike ``$3,100,000'' and insert
``$2,914,000'';
Page 32, line 14, strike ``$1,620,000'' and insert
``$1,522,800'';
Page 32, line 16, strike ``$5,363,000'' and insert
``$5,041,220'';
Page 33, line 1, strike ``$30,048,000'' and insert
``$28,245,120'';
Page 33, line 2, strike ``$3,000,000'' and insert
``$2,820,000'';
Page 33, line 4, strike ``$3,335,000'' and insert
``$3,134,900'';
Page 33, line 6, strike ``$3,123,000'' and insert
``$2,935,620'';
Page 33, line 10, strike ``$6,361,000'' and insert
``$5,979,340'';
Page 33, line 11, strike ``$6,857,000'' and insert
``$6,445,580'';
Page 40, line 22, strike ``$4,979,106,000'' and insert
``$4,973,825,520'';.
Mr. POMEROY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment offered as a substitute be considered as
read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Dakota?
There was no objection.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, my substitute amendment addresses the
issue addressed by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and I
applaud him for his attention to the issue of excessive courthouse
construction costs with a difference in one important respect, and that
is it addresses contracts not yet let, agreements not yet made, on
behalf of this Government for the formal construction of Federal
courthouses.
As my colleagues know, we believe and talk every day that Government
ought to be run like a business. Government ought to be run like a
business. Well, that is darn right, Government ought to be run like a
business, and that means a contract is a contract. I think it is bad
business to have let the construction contracts on these projects, and
come back through a slapdash House amendment this afternoon, and redo
those agreements. I think the cost savings to be generated by the
amendment for which I am offering this substitute will be uncertain in
light of design changes that might be necessary
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the construction
costs at issue were addressed by an amendment I offered last year which
added to the 10-percent reduction made by the committee an additional
2-percent cut saving millions for taxpayers across the country.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I worry about the forward precedent of not
holding some sanctity to the contracts let by the Government. I believe
we would force an agency like the GSA with so many millions of dollars
of construction under its authority to rush forth the construction so
that they would not find themselves caught in the plight they are
presented with this afternoon.
However I believe cuts can and must be made in the construction
projects for courthouses not yet let. My amendment addresses
specifically projects where I am convinced costs can be cut. We have
seen examples of excess in the construction including expensive marble,
soaring ceilings, plush judges chambers, and ornate woods. Those are
just a few of the examples of the wasteful spending rolled into the
Federal construction projects for our courthouses. The amendment to cut
6 percent from the 13 new courthouses would save taxpayers $5.6 million
and encourage the type of belt tightening which taxpayers have
rightfully been calling for.
Last year, as I mentioned, the House took this step, put a 10-percent
cut in the committee, passed an additional 2-percent cut offered by me
in an amendment last year. I mentioned in that debate last year, and I
mention it again this year because of its direct applicability, an
example where Fargo, ND, led the way in reducing unnecessary courthouse
construction costs. Two years ago Congress authorized $46 million for a
new courthouse in Fargo. My colleagues would not have believed what
happened on the way to the Federal Treasury. The folks of Fargo, ND,
said, ``That is ridiculous. That is way too much of a taxpayer
investment. We don't care if it's coming right here to Fargo. It's too
much. Build it for half of that cost.'' And sure enough costs of that
project have been rolled back 50 percent. Imagine a community saying no
to Federal spending right in their backyard.
Mr. Chairman, if Fargo can take a 50-percent cut, then these new
projects can certainly take a 6-percent cut. I urge my colleagues to
support my substitute amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would not want anyone to mistake what the gentleman
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] proposes in his amendment. The Pomeroy
substitute for my amendment proposes reducing spending by $5.6 million.
However at the same time it does away with the proposed additional $26
million in spending in my amendment because the Istook amendment
proposes a $32 million cut, and the Pomeroy substitute seeks to reduce
the $32 million cut to $5.6 million. So, although we agree upon the
basic principles of reduction to spending, there is a significant
difference in the degree.
Someone mentioned to me, ``Well, Pomeroy is kind of Istook Lite on
this.'' I think that what we have is a mistaken premise that somehow it
costs more money to save on these projects. There is a mistaken notion,
perhaps, that these are buildings that are almost complete. That is not
the case. In most cases they are buildings that exist only on paper,
and I think in only two instances in all the bill have they even gotten
so far as to even break ground for site preparation. It is not a matter
of changing existing contracts. It is a matter of saving taxpayers'
money.
Certainly it is common in construction to have change orders, if
necessary, when the scope of a project is changed, especially in the
planning stages, which is what we are seeking to do. That is routine.
It happens frequently, and the cost is not the cost of the change order
that is proposed. The cost, depending upon the architectural fees
involved, may be, 10 percent of the change orders, and may be even far
less than that.
{time} 1900
The question then is, would we spend 5 percent of $32 million in
order to save that $32 million? And I submit that the answer to that is
yes. I have not heard the opponents of my amendment say that we have
not overplanned. I have not heard them say that we need all the space,
that we need all the trim, that we need all the marble, that we need
all the private baths and the private kitchenettes and the high
ceilings. I have not heard that suggestion. But that is what my
amendment is trying to do, strictly to go and cut out the frills which
routinely pop up. And usually we do not see them until the edifice is
completed, and we read the press accounts of the new Taj Mahal that has
been constructed at Federal expense.
Taxpayers going to a courthouse are seeking simple justice, not a
fancy building. As an attorney by profession, I can tell you I have
been in plenty of courthouses and plenty of courtrooms. And I can see,
and anybody that goes into them, can see the difference between a state
and local and a Federal Courthouse, or the courtrooms.
I have been in huge courtrooms that you rattled around in and the
sound gets lost. I have seen judges that each have their own private
law libraries, rather than sharing books with the judge next door, who
may be as far as 50 or 100 feet away.
I think we need to meet the needs of our judiciary, but we also need
to meet the needs of our taxpayers. And I submit it would be
inappropriate to say let us not cut spending by $32 million, let us
adopt the Pomeroy substitute and say that $5 million is enough savings.
We have got to put a halt to the practice. They have been having
hearings on this over in the Senate. I have copies of transcripts of
much of that. They have had the testimony, they have had the studies.
We simply need to pay attention to it.
Again, I reiterate, this is not a threat to a project in anyone's
district. This does not cancel any project. This merely says we are not
going to be as fancy, we are not going to have as many frills, we are
going to use more common sense, we are going to save the taxpayers $32
million.
I request that Members reject the Pomeroy substitute and adopt the
Istook amendment.
Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I do not want to prolong the debate,
because I am not really completely aware of the courthouse contracts
that currently exist. I do want to strongly support the Pomeroy-Dickey
amendment, because I think it moves us in the right direction.
Last year, of course, I watched with great interest as the gentleman
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] had discussed the experience they had
in Fargo, ND. I think his point was very well taken.
On the overall issue, I think really we are agreement, Mr. Chairman.
The goal here is to try to cut down on some of the frills we spend in
courthouse spending.
I think this amendment that the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr.
Pomeroy], and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], have put
forward accomplishes that goal. It is a way to try to save money over
the long-term, and I think it is a good amendment. I strongly support
it, and I hope we adopt it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pomeroy amendment. I believe,
as I said in the initial debate, that the Pomeroy amendment does reach
the objective the proper way. The reason I believe that is because it
deals prospectively with projects that are not now on the ground and in
construction as the Santa Ana and others are.
I understand what the gentleman is saying, that he believes this will
just do away with frills. The fact of the matter is, as was discussed
by the gentleman from California, there are other things that make
costs expensive unrelated to frills. His happens to be in the
earthquake fault area, and therefore construction requirements are
heightened.
The fact of the matter is that the GSA has had a time out and review
and looked at existing courthouses with the specific objective of
reducing frills. In fact, we have reduced numerous courthouses, as the
gentleman knows, as a result of that time out and review, part of which
was in some instances scope changes, and others were known as value
engineering savings.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the House to adopt this amendment. It does
save about $5.5 million, and it does so appropriately, and I think
without adverse consequences to projects that are ongoing.
I would reiterate, I do not have the figures and I cannot therefore
say it definitively, but it is not just redesign costs that are
involved here, it is delay costs as well. I do not know what they would
be, frankly, because I do not know how long the delays would be, but
that would be a consequence of moving forward and trying to adopt this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the substitute is appropriate, it will not
adversely affect us, and will speak to the issues raised by both the
gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from North Dakota of
excessive costs on courthouses. I urge the adoption of the Pomeroy
amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1
minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman may proceed.
There was no objection.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I do so simply to try to wind it down.
Since the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] mentioned the Santa Ana
Courthouse, that particular project is proposed at $123 million. This
amendment, because of the amount that is appropriated this year as
opposed to prior years, would only diminish that $123 million projected
by $3.5 million. So it is less than 3.5 percent differential on that
particular one.
Furthermore, although the national average construction is less than
$100 per square foot, and according to the Associated Building
Contractors, the differential for building in Los Angeles is only about
15 percent higher than elsewhere in the country. Nevertheless, the per
square foot cost of this courthouse in California is $205 per square
foot, more than double what I have been talking about on the average,
even though the local differential would only be 15 percent. I commend
that to the gentleman's attention.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair
announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote may be taken on the Istook amendment.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 302,
noes 120, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 242]
AYES--302
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackwell
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Buyer
Byrne
Calvert
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Dornan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Furse
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Grandy
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOES--120
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Brown (FL)
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clyburn
Coble
Crane
Crapo
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Herger
Hoekstra
Hoke
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
King
Klug
Knollenberg
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
Meek
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Paxon
Petri
Porter
Portman
Quillen
Rahall
Ramstad
Ravenel
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Roth
Royce
Saxton
Schaefer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Taylor (NC)
Towns
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--17
Cooper
Edwards (CA)
Fish
Ford (MI)
Kanjorski
McCandless
McCurdy
Michel
Neal (NC)
Reynolds
Sharp
Torres
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Whitten
Wilson
Wolf
{time} 1927
Messrs. BATEMAN, LEWIS of Florida, BEREUTER, COBLE, GUNDERSON,
HANCOCK, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, BARRETT of Nebraska, HERGER, SAXTON,
QUILLEN, SUNDQUIST, MOORHEAD, HALL of Texas, LINDER, and BOEHNER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. KOPETSKI, SHAYS, and PACKARD, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of
Texas, and Mr. CARR of Michigan changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed
to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 393,
noes 22, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 243]
AYES--393
Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--22
Ackerman
Bacchus (FL)
Bishop
Brown (FL)
Bunning
Clyburn
Fowler
Hochbrueckner
Hoke
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
McCollum
McDade
McKinney
Meek
Mica
Quillen
Rahall
Rogers
Serrano
Vucanovich
NOT VOTING--24
Bonior
Clay
Cooper
Cunningham
Edwards (CA)
Fish
Ford (MI)
Gingrich
Hunter
McCandless
McCurdy
Michel
Neal (NC)
Reynolds
Sharp
Slaughter
Torres
Torricelli
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Waxman
Whitten
Wilson
Wolf
{time} 1936
So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. fawell
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell:
Page 31, line 15, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before ``,
of which''.
Page 34, line 16, insert ``(less $11,427,000'' before ``,
which shall''.
Page 36, strike line 25 and all that follows through page
37, line 2.
Page 37, strike lines 9 through 11.
Page 38, line 24, insert ``and'' after the 1st semicolon.
Page 38, line 24, strike the last semicolon and all that
follows through ``Building''on page 39, line 2.
Page 40, line 22, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before
``shall remain''.
Mr. FAWELL (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
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, this is the first of two amendments that I
will offer to strike unauthorized and unrequested projects from the
bill. These amendments are supported by our bipartisan porkbusters
group.
Mr. Chairman, the first amendment strikes three unauthorized new
courthouse construction projects. These new projects are $6 million for
a courthouse in Albany, GA; $3 million for a courthouse in
Steubenville, OH; and $6.8 million for a courthouse in Corpus Christi,
TX.
Mr. Chairman, the Albany, GA, project is unauthorized and was not
requested by the administration for fiscal year 1995. The Steubenville,
OH, courthouse was not requested by the administration and it was not
requested by the General Services Administration for fiscal year 1995,
either. The GSA study of Steubenville, OH, came back with this verdict:
``Federal space needs can easily be met with low cost leases.''
Moreover, it was not authorized by the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, which means that they are in violation, of course, of
the rules. That is true with all of these projects, but, of course, the
rules were waived, and so although I would have had a right to make a
point of order and we could have all gone home, I do not have that
right, and we have to have a debate on the subject of striking these
projects.
Mr. Chairman, the $6.9 million Corpus Christi, TX, courthouse was not
requested by the administration, it was not requested by the General
Services Administration for fiscal year 1995, it was denied funding by
the Office of Management and Budget, and it was not authorized by the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
To the many taxpayers who may be listening in at this later hour,
what is at stake here, I believe, is whether to allow a few Members of
Congress to circumvent the rules and to spend millions of tax dollars
on what could be called pork-barrel projects.
{time} 1940
And by that, I mean not substantively referring to those particular
projects, but I mean that they had no authorization, no hearings, no
determination of the needs for these projects. That is to say, there
was a complete failure to follow the basic procedures in the House in
regard to spending.
To taxpayers who want to know why, why Congress will not cut
unnecessary spending, watch the vote on this amendment. A vote against
this amendment is a vote in favor of breaking the rules of the House
and to spend $16 million on what I think can be called pork-barrel
projects.
And who wants these projects built? Neither the General Services
Administration nor the Committee on Public Works and Transportation
that alone have the statutory authority to request them via a
prospectus.
In addition, these projects are all over the President's budget. How
much over? Even the Committee on Public Works and Transportation cannot
estimate the final cost of these projects. There have been no
estimates, and most important of all, no prospectus.
Public Works has not had, therefore, the chance to really pass on in-
depth information about these projects.
The appropriators will say, ``Do not worry, funding for construction
of these projects is still subject to the approval of a prospectus by
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.'' The Committee on
Appropriations, by the way, then in their appropriation proceeded to
authorize expenditures for a prospectus on these projects. But, in
fact, the appropriators know that once the prospectus is under way
there is no way of stopping this train. A prospectus will, in essence,
set in motion funding for these projects.
But the underlying law, the Public Buildings Act of 1959, gives this
power only to the General Services Administration and to the Committee
on Public Works. The Committee on Appropriations just usurped that
power and said, ``Go ahead now, we authorize you to come up with a
prospectus.''
This is a classic case also, from my viewpoint, of legislating on an
appropriation bill. That is against the House rules, too. But there is
no problem. The Committee on Rules simply waived that rule, too.
Furthermore, last year similar language requiring subsequent
authorization in an appropriation bill was dropped by the conference
version of the Treasury, Postal appropriations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Fawell was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say this: We are being
asked as a body to approve this spending when neither this body nor the
GSA nor the authorizing committee know the facts. Shall we vote blind?
No. Because that is why prospectuses and authorizations and facts ought
to precede appropriations.
This is our only chance, at least insofar as someone like myself, an
average Member of this Congress, to ever vote on whether to start the
funding train for these unstudied and unauthorized projects.
These projects have to be stopped before the prospectus is funded or
ordered to be funded, or there will be no way, of course, of stopping
them.
The communities back home and everyone else will say, ``Well, this is
just something that has to be done, because after all, the
appropriations have approved this.''
A ``yes'' vote on the Fawell amendment is a vote for cutting $16
million unauthorized pork-barrel projects. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for
cutting wasteful spending. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which speaks to
three projects, as the gentleman has indicated.
I will speak to them briefly. But let me first make the general point
that historically the so-called pork-busters have referred to projects
that were, in fact, being passed by the Committee on Appropriations
without approval of the authorizing committee, and going through the
regular process.
Now, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] mentions that, ``Oh,
well, the Committee on Appropriations will get up and say it has
language.'' That language is critical.
Now, I think we will have some members of the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation reference that. We work very closely and have
told the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the chairmen of the full committee and the
subcommittee, who do very, very careful work on these projects, that we
would not either appropriate something they had not authorized or not
appropriate funds and not make them subject to authorization. In other
words, in the final analysis, none of these projects can go forward
without the Committee on Public Works and Transportation giving them
approval. That is the process. That is what we have agreed to follow.
We have a good, close working relationship, and that is what we do.
Now, the gentleman is correct. These projects were not in the
President's request. However, as you will hear from the Members who
represent the areas that these projects are located in, there was very
strong feeling that there was a need. I will not speak to that, because
I presume they will.
On pages 38 and 39 of the bill, we say that the funds available to
the General Services Administration for Albany, GA, for Steubenville,
OH, and for Corpus Christi, as well as the two projects that will come
in the next amendment, shall not be available for expenses in
connection with any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition
projects for which a prospectus, if required pursuant to the public
law, has not been approved. That is the key.
In other words, this committee is not saying we are the final word on
this. We understand there is an authorizing process. We understand that
we need to make sure that both Committees, as well as this House,
believe those projects are appropriate.
I will yield in just one second. But let me finish my comments here.
That is the way the process is set up to work.
The gentleman is correct. We are putting the appropriation in now so
that if the Committee on Public Works decides this is appropriate, they
can move forward. We do, as the gentleman observes, provide for the
limited authority so that the prospectus can be prepared for review by
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. The gentleman is
absolutely correct on that. And the gentleman is also correct that it
is legislation on an appropriation bill.
We adopted a rule, of course, that said that we would be all right on
that.
Now, let me say that the law to which you refer says that, subject to
the exceptions contained in the preceding proviso, in no case shall
funds be made available for any lease, line item, construction, repair
and alteration project referred to in the preceding proviso if, prior
to February 1, 1994, the lease, line item, construction, repair and
alteration project has been disapproved by the House Committee on
Public Works and Transportation or the Senate Committee on Environment.
Now, that refers to last year's language which the gentleman
mentioned. He is correct. We did change that language as a result of
conference, and as a result of the request of the Senate. That is what
the Senate did.
However, they wanted to have it just by the Senate committee. We said
no, that is not the way we are going to play; obviously two Houses need
to act on this. As a result, we made it subject to the actions of both
committees and had either committee disapproved the project, it would
not have been able to go forward.
Happily, the Committee concurred with the judgment of the Committee
on Appropriations in both the House and the Senate, and those projects
went forward. But I would suggest to the gentleman that this is not the
kind of pork projects that the gentleman has historically had great
concern about.
{time} 1950
And the reason it is not is because this project is going to have to
go through the same review process ultimately. It may not go through in
the same sequence, but it ultimately has to go through in the same way
of any other project in order for money to be spent.
Mr. Chairman, I will have more to say on this as we conclude, but I
know that Members who know intimately about these three projects will
want to speak to them.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, despite the pleas from our chairman
of the subcommittee, we have rules. The rules say we do not appropriate
money unless there is an authorization. The fact is that the chairman
of the subcommittee has just admitted that there is no authorization
for these projects today, which means, under the rules, that the money
should not be appropriated.
The second point I would make is, under the rules of the House, under
the proceedings of the House, unauthorized projects in a bill such as
this should be subject to a point of order, except that once again the
Committee on Rules has waived all points of order.
Now, what kind of a body do we have if we ignore the rules that we
set up for ourselves? And we have been through this on appropriation
bills for the 3\1/2\ years that I have been here, and probably for some
time before that. But I think it is time that we all vote on the rules;
those of you on the other side of the aisle impose the rules on us, and
yet you cannot live by your rules.
So, to stand up and say that this is not pork is wrong; because it
has not been authorized, it is pork-barrel spending. It is business as
usual.
The authorization committee, if they felt this was so important, why
in fact was it not authorized? Why has it not been brought to the
floor? We do not know whether these projects have merit, whether they
are practical, whether they are needed. We are probably going to hear
from some Members in whose districts they happen to be located come to
the floor and tell us that. But the fact is they are not authorized. We
all know what the rules are. So, to say it is not pork, let us all be
honest, this is nothing but pork-barrel spending, business as usual.
If you really want to send a message home to your constituents, stand
up and do the right thing and vote for the Fawell amendment and for
fiscal sanity.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman understands, of course, how the authorizations are
affected, I am sure. That is by resolutions of the authorizing
committees both in the Senate and the House. Once that is done, it is
presumed to be authorized. It does not have to be signed into law. The
gentleman, does he understand that?
Mr. BOEHNER. I understand that.
Mr. HOYER. That being the case, exactly the same process, the
gentleman is correct, has to occur in order for these projects to go
forward. It just doesn't have to happen in the same order. That is my
point.
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman is saying is we
are not going to follow what the rules say, that because we do not have
the authorization bills, we are going to go ahead and appropriate this
and say if they get authorized, the money is going to be there. Is that
what the process of the sequence is going to be on this?
Mr. HOYER. What I am saying is that historically we have found a
problem, not all the time, but a consistent problem. That is that the
committee of the other body simply has not acted. So we went for
literally years without any authorizations on the other side. So what
happened was the House committee would do its work in timely fashion,
authorize the project, we would put it in the appropriation bill, send
it over to the other body, and it would be passed and signed by the
President.
You talk about the rules, this is a law. This cannot go anywhere
unless the House acts, the Senate acts, and the President signs it.
This is the law of the Congress of the United States that makes these
expenditures. Unfortunately, though there is a process it has to go
through, it has not worked all the time. It has worked better in the
House, I would suggest to the gentleman. All we are doing is providing
for these projects at the request of Members that these are, in their
judgment, necessary in their districts. But to also say, as the
gentleman says, because our rules require authorization, these are
subject to authorization as any other project would be.
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, the chairman has made it clear to
all of the Members that we are not following the rules. Now, we can
complain that the Senate has not acted on our authorizations, and maybe
there is good reason, maybe there is not. I do not know the history of
it. But we know that to get an authorizing bill passed, that it has to
pass the House and the Senate and be signed by the President. If the
projects cannot get through that process, then under the rules we are
not allowed to appropriate money. Now, the chairman of the subcommittee
knows that. Now, the question is: Are we going to follow the rules or
are we not?
I suggest to all my colleagues that if we vote for the Fawell
amendment, we will be supporting ourselves, we will be supporting our
rules, and you bring some fiscal sanity to what is going on in this
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Fawell] for a correction.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I understand perhaps the wrong amendment
was read. I just wanted to ascertain if that is so. It should be 0.020.
If that is not the case, I would make a unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the originally
intended amendment, which in fact has been debated.
There was no objection:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell:
Page 31, line 15, insert ``(less $15,857,000)'' before ``,
of which''.
Page 31, line 16, insert ``(less $15,857,000)'' before
``shall remain''.
Page 32, strike line 10.
Page 33, strike line 2.
Page 33, strike line 11.
Page 38, line 23, strike ``Albany'' and all that follows
through the last semicolon on line 24.
Page 40, line 22, insert ``(less $15,857,000)'' before
``shall remain''.
The CHAIRMAN (during the reading). Without objection, the amendment
is considered as read and printed in the Record.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Fawell] is properly before the House.
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the Fawell amendment.
The Fawell amendment is straightforward. It deals with three
construction projects in the Treasury/Postal Service appropriations
bill.
The projects have been described earlier: one for Corpus Christi, TX.
This project was not requested by the administration, was denied
funding by the Office of Management and Budget for fiscal 1995, and it
has not yet been authorized by the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation.
The second project, in Albany, GA, was not requested by the
administration, was denied funding by OMB, and has not yet been
authorized by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
The project in Steubenville, OH, again not requested by the
administration, has not yet been authorized by the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation. In fact, the General Services Administration
has stated that downtown Steubenville currently has an office vacancy
rate of 18 percent, or 36,000 square feet. There appears to be very
little demand for this available space. Federal space needs can easily
continue to be met through low-cost leases.
Three examples of projects that have found their way into an
appropriations will without having gone through the committee process
on Capitol Hill that may have, may have, demonstrated their merit.
These projects were clearly not on a priority list in terms of the
Clinton administration's budget submission to Congress. For that
reason, it is important to draw attention to the fact that this
represents, once again, an example of the appropriations legislation
funding projects which are primarily local in their importance and
questionable in terms of the expenditure of Federal tax dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Fawell, for
his diligent work over the years in gleaning appropriation bills in
order to identify this sort of spending, unauthorized and unrequested
projects which have no place in our appropriation bills. I join with
him again this year, as I have in the past, in support of amendments to
strike these projects from the legislation before us.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just briefly, I do
want to make it clear--and this is not understood by a lot of people,
and it was not understood by me until I went to the books and reviewed
it--that before you can have a new construction--and, by the way, there
are $507 million toward new construction. So it is not that we are not
spending money on new construction. But before you can have one under
the Public Buildings Act, either GSA on its own initiative or the
authorizing committee can ask for and commence the prospectus--ask for
a prospectus, which is a full evaluation of the needs. They review the
area where the courthouse would be built, the amount of office space
that must be available. It is an in-depth survey. Then the GSA has to
go through OMB, and it is quite a process before they ultimately come
up with a prospectus which basically allows the authorizing committee
to do the authorizing.
{time} 2000
Now obviously none of that has taken place, and there has been plenty
of time for it. Now whether it might sometime in the future, because of
one or two people that may believe it can or may take care of it, is
something else, but I think that it is important to know that on all of
these projects there has never been a favorable prospectus that has
come out of the GSA, and that is awfully important, I think.
Mr. PENNY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is making
the point that clearly this is an example where the cart is now before
the horse. We do not have any, any of the elements, in place that would
normally precede the funding of a construction project, and yet here we
are today dealing with an appropriations bill that offers funds for
these projects that are not requested, that are not authorized and that
have not even received the benefit of a prospectus.
Mr. FAWELL. That is the way I view it, yes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman, I think, would agree that, pursuant to the
language, the cart cannot get there without the horse. What I mean by
that is the process that the gentleman referred to is required by this
bill.
The gentleman is correct obviously; the cart, as he says, is before
the horse, they both have to get there or this project does not go
forward.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
I want to say, first of all, that this has nothing to do with the
penalties involved because the Members whose districts are affected by
this are some of the finest Members that we have in this body. But as
the last two speakers have accurately stated, this is putting the cart
before the horse.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the way that people want us to do their
business. None of these projects have been authorized. There have not
been hearings held in the authorizing committee on these projects. None
of these projects have been requested by the GSA. To vote against this
amendment would be to vote for millions of dollars with no real
knowledge of the need, the ultimate cost or anything else about these
projects.
The overspending, the exorbitant, excessive spending, on courthouses
around the Nation is fast becoming, and has become, a national issue.
It has been reported on in recent months by all the national networks
and by many of the leading national journalists. The people are
becoming very angry about all the waste that is popping up in these
courthouses. In Boston we have a courthouse plan with 33 kitchens, a
$1.5 million boat dock, a six-story atrium, 709,000 dollars' worth of
artwork and so many other things. Can we really be sure that these
courthouses will not have private kitchens, marble floors, private
elevators, and all these over-elaborate things we are seeing in these
other courthouses? The judges in the Foley Square project in New York
City have upgraded their gold-plated project with over $30 million of
elaborate extras.
The GAO, the General Accounting Office, in a September 1993 audit,
Mr. Chairman, found that Federal courts had overestimated their needs
by 3 million square feet, which is probably $4 to $6 billion
conservatively at the present rate of the cost of these Federal courts.
In fact, the Boston Courthouse, as I mentioned, if it comes in on
budget, will be $285 a square foot. Many others are coming at over $200
a square foot. One of the national networks reported that the average
hospital cost in this country was $97 a square foot even with all of
their special construction needs, and yet these Federal courthouses are
coming in at ridiculous amounts, and that will be the case with these
courthouses if we do not really look at them first, if we do not go
over them with a fine tooth comb and if we do not go through the normal
procedures, the processes, that are called for by the Public Buildings
Act of 1959 which specifically says that these courthouses must start
with the authorizing work done first.
This is not a partisan issue. This is becoming one of the most
bipartisan issues in the Congress, and, in fact, in my position as
ranking member, ranking Republican, on the Subcommittee on Public
Buildings and Grounds, I have just a few days ago signed a letter
requesting a new GAO investigation of the exorbitant and excessive
costs in regard to these courthouses. That letter was signed by 8
Members of the Congress: Senator Dorgan, Senator Glenn, Senator Sasser,
Senator Kerrey, all Democrats, Senator Cohen, Senator McCain, the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and myself.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Fawell] has a fair and reasonable amendment here. It does not means
that these courthouses will not be approved later, at least we will be
doing it. If we follow this amendment, we will be doing what the people
want us to do, and that is spending their money as if it were our own
instead of just blowing it right and left as if we did not have a $4\1/
2\ trillion national debt, as if we were not still losing hundreds of
millions of dollars each day on top of it.
We cannot afford to keep doing business as usual in this Congress.
There has to be a stop some place, and this amendment is a good place
to stand up in favor of some fiscal sanity and to pay some regard to
the taxpayers sacrifices that they are making on a daily basis to
provide the money that is doing all the things we want to do.
I urge support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
Mr. ROWLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. ROWLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROWLAND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $6 million,
which has been included in the appropriations bill, to begin
construction on the courthouse in Albany, GA. The Albany courthouse has
been on the General Services Administration list of requests in fiscal
year 1994 as well as for fiscal year 1995. According to GSA, this is a
sound project.
It is my understanding that the design for the Albany courthouse is
95 percent complete and will be 100 percent complete on July 5, 1994.
The city of Albany has already donated a prime site for the courthouse.
Pages 38 and 39 of H.R. 4539 clearly state that the funds
appropriated for the Albany courthouse and the other courthouses the
gentleman from Illinois has referred to will not be spent without the
authorization of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. So,
I really do not know what the gentleman's problem is.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words to speak on behalf of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
Mr. Chairman, the old adage in politics is that one man's pork is
another man's project. More often than not parochial debate about what
is or is not pork gets wrapped up in personalities and partisan
politics. The gentleman from Illinois has sought to put an end to that
shallow and vindictive way of approaching the public purse strings and
has said, along with his colleagues, we ought to have some objective
criteria, objective criteria that focuses on procedures of
decisionmaking consistent with the rules of the House of
Representatives, and only, only if a project for spending in an
appropriation bill is brought to the floor without having gone through
this decisionmaking process, shall we deign to call it pork or
otherwise characterize it as unjustifiable spending, never on the basis
of geographical region, personality or party definition.
I watched the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] today after having
done his research into the spending bill, after having checked, project
by project, to see the extent to which the separate projects have
fulfilled their criteria of decisionmaking procedure of this body in
its own rules, identify some that failed, failed the test of process,
and with total disregard to all other considerations that brought them
forward. Furthermore, I have come and gone from the floor today, and I
have watched the gentleman from Illinois diligently and passionately
wait his turn within the processes of this House as we assign turns to
offer amendments, and so it has come his lot to make his offer late in
the evening. The gentleman from Illinois has, more than anybody I have
ever seen in this process, consistently put principle ahead of
parochialism, principle ahead of partisanship, and principle ahead of
personalities.
{time} 2010
This is not some random selection on his part. It is a matter of
saying we should have a consistent process by which we make decisions
that every Member should bring a project to the process and compete
against every other project by every other Member, fairly, and without
consideration to stature of the Member involved, party of the Member
involved, schmooze, as we know it in politics, but on the merits of the
project relative to the others.
Now, the chairman gives us an elaborate explanation about the
relationship of the appropriations bill to the authorizing bill, all of
that in consideration to our relationship with the other body. And then
he makes the very cogent point to the gentleman from Illinois, ``That
is the way,'' the chairman says, ``That is the way the system is
intended to work.''
But, Mr. Chairman, if that is the way the system is intended to work,
why does the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee then need to
go to the Committee on Rules and ask the Committee on Rules to waive
the rules of this body, and bar the gentleman from Illinois of the
normal procedure of raising a point of order against these
expenditures, by the House waiving its own rules in defense of these
projects?
No, I reject that argument. When the system works the way the system
was intended to work, the Committee on Rules does not have to waive the
rules of the House and preempt the system to preserve the pork.
So, as I applaud the gentleman from Illinois for his commitment, the
quality of his workmanship, and his persistence and patient tenacity, I
implore the Members of this body, vote ``yes'' for the gentleman's
amendment, vote ``yes'' for a process by which we as a body can put
principle and process and procedure ahead of personality, parochialism,
and partisanship.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fawell and in support of
the funding for the Albany courthouse. I say no to obstructionists. I
say no to those people who engage in obstreperous debate. I say yes for
action.
In fiscal year 1992 in the appropriations bill, legislation was
passed to fund designs for a new courthouse in Albany, GA. In July
1991, the city of Albany adopted a resolution donating land for the
construction of a new courthouse. In fiscal year 1993, Congress
appropriated $6 million of the total almost $12 million necessary for
construction, management and inspection of the building.
Now, in order to complete this project, the people who live within
the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia need the additional $6 million.
Mr. Chairman, the House recently passed a major crime bill to keep
criminals off the streets. How can we expect to get and keep criminals
off the streets if our U.S. judges, probation officers, clerks of
court, and other administrative officers of the court are handicapped
by insufficient work space?
We now have four district judges, three bankruptcy judges, two
magistrates, serving 70 counties in the middle district of Georgia,
operating out of one courtroom when they sit in Albany, GA.
The existing courthouse cannot accommodate the requirements of the
Federal courts and the related agencies. As designed, the proposed
courthouse could accommodate the future growth of the courts beyond
their 10 year requirements. An additional courtroom can be provided by
converting office space. Noncourt court agencies can be relocated when
additional space is needed.
Mr. Chairman, plans for the Albany courthouse have been around since
fiscal year 1992. This project did not just appear out of thin air. The
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] knows very well that before any
money can be spent on the courthouse, the House Committee on Public
Works will have to approve an 11(b) prospectus for the courthouse. A
vote against the Fawell amendment means that the city of Albany will be
eligible for funding in March or April of next year, rather than
waiting until November of 1995, when costs and inflation will make the
construction costs go higher.
GSA is well aware of this project. According to the prospectus, in
May 1993, leasing agreements over 30 years could cost the Federal
Government more than it will cost to construct this facility.
Mr. Chairman, this is not pork. Our area and areas like ours where
jobs can be created through the construction of a major facility, where
justice can be had and communities made safer by the swift and
efficient administration of justice, this is not pork. This is beef and
potatoes.
Vote ``no'' on the Fawell amendment.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would call this body's attention to the report from
the Committee on Appropriations for this particular bill, page 3, and
would read the following words. It says:
The American people want their government to be held
accountable. As the Committee on Appropriations, we hold a
special responsibility in restoring their faith in their
government by ensuring them that their money is being spent
wisely on programs that they want and in a way that they can
judge results. We must ensure that governmental institutions
are in place and functioning effectively to eliminate
government waste and inefficiency that do nothing but
increase our national debt. The debt is strangling our
economy. If this country is to grow, create jobs, and compete
in the world marketplace, we must reduce our national
defense, and one of the methods for doing so must be the
reduction of waste and inefficiency in government spending.
Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of this matter coming before the
authorization committee and the argument that the gentleman from
Georgia just gave should not be made here, but should have been made in
the appropriate committee. That is the whole purpose of that committee,
and that is to authorize the construction and the nature of the
construction. In fact, that is to comply with that law that was passed,
the Public Buildings Act of 1959. But what we see here is using this
body, using this forum this evening as a hearing, as a total program
for saying we need this, let us go ahead and do it.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about three courthouses. We are talking
about $60 million. These expenditures may be necessary, they may not be
necessary.
I have in front of me a letter from a Federal district judge in one
of the districts saying, ``in my opinion, the construction of a
courthouse would be a monumental waste of the taxpayers' dollars.'' If
we are to fulfill these words and the words in the preamble of this
report from the Committee on Appropriations, then we should hold those
hearings in the appropriate committee. We should bring in the judge
that wrote this letter saying this is a waste. But let us not thrash
out the necessary and the desire for these courthouses here in this
body, bypassing the authorization process.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would request and ask the Members of this
body that they vote in favor of the Fawell amendment to eliminate those
expenditures that have not been authorized. They can always come back
next year and use the appropriate procedures. And if these in fact are
necessary, as the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, has stated, then
do so at that time, using the appropriate remedy.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Fawell.
I agree with the thrifty spirit of the gentleman's amendment and
appreciate his intentions. This is not parochialism, this is dire need.
We both agree on the importance of authorizing the expenditure of
funds before they are appropriated.
Unfortunately, in this case, fate has delayed the authorization.
I was scheduled to appear before the authorizing committee, chaired
at the subcommittee level by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Traficant, to
testify to the need for the courthouse in Corpus Christi.
That hearing was delayed but will take place tomorrow.
The Corpus Christi courthouse was included in this appropriations
bill because the need is so great--and the authorization course will be
followed this week.
In fact, the General Services Administration does support this
project, and I understand it is ready to release an 11(b) study as soon
as it is requested by the Public Works and Transportation Committee.
I have every reason to expect that an 11(b) request will be made by
the committee.
Most importantly, this appropriations bill has a safeguard built in.
It requires that a prospectus be approved before any funds
appropriated in this bill will be made available.
This protection assures that the authorization process must be
complied with before the funding is released.
The Appropriations Committee did not want to delay for a year this
badly needed courthouse.
The need here is great--the current courthouse was built in 1916.
We have judges in three different locations; security officers in
three different locations; and files in three separate locations across
the downtown area.
This operation is inefficient to the clerk's operations, as well as
to the judges and the community they serve.
Corpus Christi needs a courthouse 70 percent times larger than
current housing just to meet today's needs.
The volume of criminal cases before the Southern District of Texas is
influenced by the increased instances of illegal drugs, illegal
immigration, and illegal financial practices associated with the S&L
disaster of the 1980s.
These trials are complex and cumbersome--and can consume as much as a
month.
The process is slowed even more by the lack of space.
For these reasons, I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment
by the gentleman from Illinois.
{time} 2020
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fawell amendment to strike
three unauthorized courthouses from the fiscal year 1995 Treasury/
Postal Appropriations bill. Mr. Fawell has been tireless in his efforts
to strike porkbarrel spending from various appropriation bills, and I
am glad to stand with him on this particular amendment.
The courthouses funded in this bill are located in Albany, GA, at a
cost of $6 million; Steubenville, OH, at a cost of $3 million; $6.9
million for a courthouse in Corpus Christi, TX.
None of these courthouses were authorized by the Public Works and
Transportation Committee; there have been no congressional hearings on
the proposed projects; the three projects were not awarded on a
competitive basis; and the projects are for purely local interest.
After this amendment there will still be over $4\1/2\ billion for
courthouses left in the budget justified by standard procedures.
Additionally, these three projects at a cost to the taxpayers of $15.9
million were not requested by the President or agency of oversight, the
General Services Administration.
Now, maybe these three new Federal courthouses are needed; maybe they
each have merit; we do not know, because there were no hearings in
committee. The practice of placing projects such as these in
appropriations bills without following the standard congressional
procedure must end.
Let us not saddle the taxpayers with the bill for more pork. Vote in
favor of the Fawell amendment to strike these three examples of
porkbarrel spending.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Fawell]. I would like to congratulate the gentleman for
his diligent efforts in trying to take on the problem we have with pork
projects. Once again, we have an appropriations bill with a number of
unauthorized projects.
Within this bill there are close to 25 million dollars' worth of
unauthorized courthouse projects. Some will argue that this is not a
lot of money. Why should we bother? But if every day this year Congress
found just $25 million to cut, we could reduce spending by over $9
billion by the end of the year.
Finding items to cut is basically our job. I believe that the
American people want it done. They are tired of waste, and they are
tired of unauthorized pork barrel projects.
Under the rules of the House, each of these courthouse projects are
subject to a point of order because they are unauthorized. The
leadership knows this, and that is why they have crafted a rule that
waives all points of order.
This unfortunate practice has become routine and so what is the point
of having budget points of order, if the House is going to wage them
whenever a violation is identified?
Let us restore the rules of the House and strike these projects. If
they are important and necessary expenditures, then they should be
authorized.
I believe that we should go through a process that says we go through
the authorization process first and then, after we have gone through
the authorization process, we make the funds available for those
specific projects.
It is also my belief that we have the rules of the House here for a
purpose, and that is to assure a certain amount of reliability in the
process in the House. This guarantees fairness to all Members, both in
the majority and the minority. I think that we need to make more of a
conscientious effort to stick with the rules of the House and diminish
the times that we have to waive the points of order because we have not
followed the rules of the House.
Mr. APPLEGATE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Let me just say, there is a couple of points I want to make, but
first of all, I would like to address a couple things.
I hear all these arguments about authorizations and appropriations,
and I know that, I have been around here long enough to know that we
are not going to appropriate without the authorizations.
We went through that last year with the Transportation Subcommittee
on Appropriations. We did not ask to kill all the amendments, only that
they be subjected to authorization first, which is the way it ought to
be. And it was not always that way with appropriations. They used to go
about doing whatever they wanted. Bill Natcher came in, and he made
those changes and so the Members now come to the authorizing committee.
So we know what that situation is, and it does not make any
difference whether it has to be first or second. The point is that one
cannot spend the money unless one has the authorization. It is as
simple as that.
And it will show, as the chairman pointed out on page 38 and 39 of
the bill, it states exactly in there that this is subject to
authorization.
Now, as to Steubenville, I have to say, I have a great respect for my
friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] and all, but the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] in this instance simply does not
know what he is talking about. He states that, and he is quoting the
GSA, says that downtown Steubenville currently has an office vacancy
rate of approximately 18 percent or 36,000 square feet. True. I do not
argue that. It is true. But that is when we were looking for a federal
building, a federal office building.
This is a courthouse now. This is for courtrooms. This is not to
bring in the Social Security office, the IRS, the FBI and the rest of
them. This is for something that is needed. So I think that the
gentleman is wrong on that point.
{time} 2030
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Chief Judge of the Southern
District of Ohio. I will not read the whole thing, but I will just go
through and say a couple of things that he had mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, he said,
Judicial officers who travel to Steubenville must depend on
the courtesy of the Common Pleas Court of Jefferson County to
provide state court facilities * * *, an arrangement that has
obvious disadvantages for the judicial officers and federal
litigants. Federal court judicial officers should not * * *
be dependent on state officials for the conduct of federal
court business.
``The Southern District of Ohio includes forty-eight counties'' with
5 million people in them. ``Lawsuits must be filed in Columbus,'' in
which people must travel 150 to 200 miles away, and it makes it very
inconvenient for litigants, for lawyers to have to make this trip.
The judge says it is his belief that ``litigants who otherwise would
prefer to have their cases determined in the federal court, file in a
local court if jurisdiction is concurrent in order to avoid the
hardships and increased costs of filing in Columbus.''
``By statute,'' now listen to this, ``by statute, Steubenville has
been designated a seat of this Court, 28 U.S.C. Section 115(b), but, at
the present time, there is no federal building'' in Steubenville. As a
matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, there is not one Federal building in my
whole congressional district, outside of a post office.
``Until such time as a suitable facility is provided, the citizens
who reside in this area of Ohio will continue to be deprived of
convenient access. . . .''
The judge says he believes ``that a suitable federal building in
Steubenville should be established for this purpose.'' This is the
Chief Judge of the Southern District. And he says, ``this does not
require the building of an elaborate, costly structure of the style
frequently associated with United States courthouses,'' so we are not
looking for one of these granite-type big column courthouses. We want
something practical.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Applegate] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Applegate was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. APPLEGATE. Mr. Chairman, this is what the judge says. He says
that he believes what is required is ``a Federal building of modest
proportions that would be sufficient to accommodate courtroom chambers
for a District Judge, chambers for a Magistrate Judge, chambers for a
Bankruptcy Judge, and chambers for an Administrative Law Judge,'' with
an office for the clerk and the United States Attorney.
It would be nice if we could be included as part of the Southern
District, but the way it is, we are not.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, and talk about some other of the
arguments that the Chief Judge has stated. However, his point is very
cogent. He is very accurate. He knows what the needs are.
What we are looking for, Mr. Chairman, is a reevaluation by the
General Services Administration, a new 11(b) for a courthouse and not a
Federal building.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. APPLEGATE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman had mentioned the fact that
the Hon. John D. Holschuh had written a letter, and I was not going to
bring this up, but inasmuch as the gentleman has, I think it is only
fair.
I have a letter from, I think, the Chief Judge, James L. Graham,
where, and I will just read it, he said:
Representative Douglas Applegate recently requested that
our Chief Judge, the Honorable John D. Holschuh, send him a
letter supporting H.R. 2562, which directs the GSA to design
and acquire a site for a Federal building to be constructed
in Steubenville. When Judge Holschuh circulated his proposed
letter among judges here in Columbus, I and others took
exception to the need for a Federal building in Steubenville,
and even stronger objection to the creation of additional
judgeship positions for a district judge, a magistrate judge,
and a bankruptcy judge to be located in Steubenville.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Applegate] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Fawell and by unanimous consent, Mr. Applegate was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FAWELL. I continue:
Judge Holschuh proceeded to send the letter, but enclosed
it with a covering letter which indicated that it represented
his personal views only.
I frankly doubt that anyone will ever see the covering
letter, and Judge Holschuh's letter may be presented as
representing the views of this court, since he is Chief
Judge. In my opinion, the construction of a courthouse in
Steubenville and the creation of additional judgeships there
would be a monumental waste of the taxpayers' money.
Enclosed you will find copies of the letters other members
of this court sent Chief Judge Holschuh expressing their
reservations or outright disagreement with Representative
Applegate's bill. Judge Rubin's letter is in particular very
much to the point.
The only thing I would want to add to that, Mr. Chairman, is that in
all three of these projects, as well as the two other projects which
would be in the second amendment, it is very, very clear that there
never has been an authorization, never, and never has there been a
prospectus issued by GSA.
Mr. APPLEGATE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If the gentleman would, give us time and we will have that to you.
Let me just say this. Maybe that is why Judge Reuben is not the Chief
Judge, I do not know.
Let me say this, that Judge Holschuh has recommended additional
judgeship positions for a district judge, additional ones, because the
workload is getting too large for Columbus, and they need the offices
in other areas, so it is only one judge's word, perhaps, against the
other.
The fact of the matter is we need the courthouse in Steubenville.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter by Judge Holschuh:
U.S, District Court,
Columbus, OH, December 20, 1993.
Hon. Douglas Applegate.
610 Ohio Valley Towers, Steubenville, OH
Dear Congressman Applegate: It has come to my attention
that during the last session of Congress you introduced H.R.
2562 to direct the Administrator of General Services
Administration to design, and acquire a site for, a federal
building to be constructed in Steubenville, Ohio.
As you are aware, since 1987 when the former Post Office
and United States Courthouse was sold by the Postal Service
to a private party, there has been no federal court facility
located in the eastern part of this state. Judicial officers
who travel to Steubenville must depend on the courtesy of the
Common Pleas Court of Jefferson County to provide state court
facilities for their use, an arrangement that has obvious
disadvantages for the judicial officers and federal
litigants. Federal court judicial officers should not, in my
opinion, be dependent on state officials for the conduct of
federal court business.
The Southern District of Ohio includes forty-eight counties
having a population of approximately 5,000,000 people, and a
large part of the district geographically and a substantial
portion of its population are contained in the eastern and
southeastern counties. The citizens of Ohio who reside in
this part of the state undoubtedly face major obstacles in
seeking access to the federal court. Lawsuits must be filed
in Columbus, a distance of approximately 150 miles from
Steubenville. Thereafter, counsel and litigants must make the
round trip of approximately 300 miles for preliminary
pretrial conferences, status conferences, discovery hearings,
settlement conferences, and final pretrial conferences and
trial. Attending trial in Columbus, or attending any other
hearing which extends more than one day, requires staying
overnight in Columbus, away from the homes of the attorneys
and litigants and away from the law offices of the attorneys.
Aside from the inconveniences involved, the costs of
litigation under these circumstances is greatly increased.
In short, the citizens who reside in the eastern and
southeastern part of this state must endure considerable
hardship and greater expenses to utilize the federal court
than that required of other citizens who have ready access
to the court system at Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton.
It is my belief that, as a result, litigants who otherwise
would prefer to have their cases determined in the federal
court, file in a local state court if jurisdiction is
concurrent in order to avoid the hardships and increased
costs of filing in Columbus. A federal court facility in
Steubenville would eliminate those hardships and costs for
the great number of citizens who live in the eastern and
southeastern part of our state and, in my opinion, would
result in a greater utilization of the federal court by those
citizens.
By statute, Steubenville has been designated a seat of this
Court, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 115(b), but, at the present time, there
is no federal building in which judicial officers of this
district can conduct proceedings at Steubenville. Until such
time as a suitable facility is provided, the citizens who
reside in this area of Ohio will continue to be deprived of
convenient access to the federal judicial system. I believe,
therefore, that a suitable federal building in Steubenville
should be established for this purpose. In my view, this does
not require the building of an elaborate, costly structure of
the style frequently associated with United States
courthouses. Instead, I believe that what is required is a
federal building of modest proportions that would be
sufficient to accommodate a courtroom and chambers for a
District Judge, chambers for a Magistrate Judge, chambers for
a Bankruptcy Judge and chambers for an Administrative Law
Judge, Satellite offices for the Clerk and United States
Attorney should also be included. There should also be space
sufficient to house those federal agencies in Steubenville
which are currently using leased property in the city. A
federal building of this nature would be adequate, in my
view, for the needs of the community it would serve.
I also believe that if there is a federal courthouse
constructed at Steubenville, serious consideration should be
given to the authorization of additional judgeship positions
for a District Judge, a Magistrate Judge and a Bankruptcy
Judge to be located at Steubenville. The Judges at Columbus
are extremely busy in an effort to cope with their own
present dockets. For the year ended June 30, 1993, weighted
filings per district judgeship in this district were 388.
This is barely under the standard of 400 weighted filings per
judgeship established by the Judicial Conference Subcommittee
on Judicial Statistics as the threshold indicator that
additional judgeships may be needed for the Court. In
responding to the questionnaire for the 1984 Biennial
Survey of Judgeship Needs, I considered requesting an
additional judgeship at Steubenville, but I felt that the
statistics and the lack of any court facilities at that
location would foreclose consideration of such a request.
If, however, adequate court facilities are established at
Steubenville, I would anticipate an increase of the
court's business at that location which would justify an
additional district court judgeship at that location. The
same justification would support an additional magistrate
judge and bankruptcy judge to be located at Steubenville.
If the Steubenville docket should not require the full
time services of these judges at that location, their work
assignments can be adjusted so that some portion of their
time would be spent in Columbus in order to assist the
Columbus judges in disposing of the business of the Court
at that location. The additional judgeships would benefit
the entire Eastern Division of the Southern District of
Ohio, but especially would be of benefit to the citizens
who live in the eastern and southeastern sections of our
state and who truly need convenient and inexpensive access
to the federal court system.
With highest regards and best wishes.
Sincerely,
John D. Holschuh.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee which considered this
bill and reported this bill out for the consideration of the House, I
want to rise in strong opposition to the Fawell amendment, and state to
my colleagues that we have considered some 50 different courthouse
projects in this bill. We are singling out three for some reason, just
because they have not been authorized officially by the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation.
However, as members of the Subcommittee on Treasury-Postal Service-
General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, we have
consulted with the authorizing committee, and we have determined that
in our view these projects ought to go forward.
None of these projects are in my district. I want to repeat that one
more time: None of these projects are in the district that I represent.
However, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about the Albany
site. They had needed a courthouse in that area for many years. The
city of Albany even donated land upon which a courthouse could be
built. Six million dollars has already been appropriated for this
courthouse, and the project cannot go forward until the other $6
million is appropriated by this body.
Mr. Chairman, the case for the Albany courthouse has already been
made by our good friends who represent that area, the gentlemen from
Georgia, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Rowland, but I want to add there is a dire
need there, and this project should not be singled out. We talk about
$22 million.
Let me say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] if he wants to
save money for the taxpayers, why does he not take out this $53 million
that we are throwing away to the Chicago Federal Center? That is pork.
If the gentleman is looking for pork, why does he not eliminate that
$53 million in the gentleman's own home State?
There is a certain irony here that everyone wants to be a pork buster
in somebody else's State, in somebody else's area. I say, Mr. Chairman,
if the gentleman is really serious about this, let us save $53 million
and eliminate the Chicago Federal Center. That is $30 million more than
the gentleman has proposed. Of course, the gentleman is not going to do
that, because, again, this goes back to the irony of it. Pork is
something in somebody else's State for somebody else's area.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining amount of my time to
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, we are getting to the end of this debate. I
think everybody understands what the debate is about. I think some good
points have been made.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, am opposed to the Fawell amendment, and
reiterate once again, everybody understands that not a nickel can be
spent on any of these courthouses until such time as the authorizors
make a determination that the project should go forward and approve a
prospectus.
That is the bottom line. I say that is the bottom line because
historically, the offense has been that the appropriators would put in
projects, be protected by the rule, pass them into law, and the
authorizing committees would never see them. The authorizers did not
think that was appropriate. We have, over the last two years, agreed
with that, and these three projects must pass muster with the
authorizing committees before more money is spent on acquisition of
land, construction, or design.
{time} 2040
The only thing that money can be spent on is to provide the
prospectus to the committee.
I urge the House, the Committee on the Whole, to reject the Fawell
amendment.
I want to tell Members in all honesty, there are other projects in
this bill that have not been included in this amendment that come from
other areas and other Members projects on that side of the aisle that
are not totally authorized. They are good projects and they ought to
move forward. These projects in particular, however, have not been
authorized in the Senate. The law says both but these projects have not
been authorized in the Senate. I am not sure what the Senators will
think in conference of the other projects.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DARDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. If there are other unauthorized projects, I do not know
of them, but I certainly would like to.
Mr. HOYER. We are going to speak to the gentleman's amendment. I want
to limit myself to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for the opportunity
to speak on his amendment and for all the hard work the gentleman has
done in the fight against pork barrel spending. As cochairman of the
Porkbuster Coalition, he and his staff are to be commended for all of
their hours of hard work.
Mr. Chairman, Congress is worse than the kid who buys a candy bar
with money that mom gave him for a loaf of bread. Some Members of
Congress still have never learned to follow directions and they know we
cannot punish them because all points of order have been waived against
this bill. We can, however, take their money away.
Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee points
out that the bill, as it is written, would require authorization before
we have any funds expended that are appropriated here. But we all know
how this works. Once we get the train going down the track, we get it
through the House of Representatives, it is taken up in conference with
the Senate, those requirements are dropped out, and before we know it,
we are on the way.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations has taken it upon
themselves to tell how best the money should be spent. This is not
their role and they have not been granted the authority to do this.
Unfortunately, the rules that the House has implemented to avoid this
scenario are conveniently being ignored. In addition, not only were
these courthouses not approved for appropriations, they were not
requested by anyone who has the authority to make a request. The Public
Buildings Act of 1959 gave the power to request funding for these
projects to the General Services Administration and the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation. Neither of these authorizing bodies
have asked for the courthouses. Yet somehow $15.8 million found its way
without direction from those who are supposed to be involved in this
process. It is little wonder why these authorizing committees have not
acted when we consider the case of the Ohio courthouse.
We have letters not only from the senior chief judge but we also have
letters from every other judge that serves in that district in Ohio,
and every one of them expresses reservation about that courthouse:
Judge Carl Rubin, Judge George Smith, Judge Arthur Spiegel who says,
``The above is by way of saying that if the Government wants to spend
some money, they could refurbish the Federal courtroom and chambers in
Steubenville rather than spending a fortune building a new courthouse
which is probably unnecessary.''
The same with Judge Sandra Beckwith. The list goes on.
I urge every Member who has heard from his constituents to stop pork
barrel spending to vote for the Fawell amendment. These three projects
are the very definition of pork barrel spending. The President did not
ask for them, the authorizing agency did not ask for them, the
authorizing committee did not ask for them. A vote for the Fawell
amendment will be a vote for responsibility and integrity.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just want, before the other gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] speaks on this, to say to the gentleman, the
gentleman indicated, ``We all know how the game is played.'' I do not
believe this is a game.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I did not call it a game. I said, ``how
the process works.''
Mr. HOYER. ``We all know how the process works.''
I want to tell the gentleman as seriously as I can, that I have
discussed this language with the Chairman of the Senate Committee. This
language requiring prior authorization and a prospectus approval will
be in the conference report that comes back to this House. This
Chairman is not playing games. When I tell the gentleman this is going
to be subject to authorization, as I have told the gentleman from
Corpus Christi, as I have told the gentleman from Steubenville, as I
have told the gentleman from Albany, this project will not go forward
unless the House Committee passes a prospectus.
I want the gentleman to be assured that this language will not be
dropped in conference. We are not playing games, we are not gaming the
process, we are saying that the authorization and the appropriation
will go together.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that the appropriation is
coming here, but it is coming subject to authorization, so that the
appropriations cannot and will not go forward absent the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation action.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his
determination in that regard.
I would ask the chairman why it is we cannot simply wait on the
action of the authorizing committees if there is such controversy
regarding these courthouses.
Mr. HOYER. The determination of the committee, as the gentleman from
Georgia has indicated, is that we felt that these were projects that
had merit. We have, therefore, included them in this bill because it
will accelerate their construction time if, in fact, at some point in
time in the future the Committee on Public Works and Transportation
acts. We thought that appropriate and it did not in any way undermine
our policies.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodlatte was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we adopt the Fawell
amendment, and follow the process that is here. I respect the judgment
of the committee, but I think the judgment of the GSA, the judgment of
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the judgment of the
administration and the judgment of those of us who are concerned about
unauthorized projects be recognized and that this amendment be carried.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate and I have listened to a
lot of misnomer here tonight.
The last I heard, the Office of Management and Budget was an
executive branch agency. they have no constitutional right to tell
Congress where the courthouses shall be and where the judges will sit.
Let me say that again, because we are not listening in this debate,
ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, when Members on that side of the aisle came to me, I
took their cause as if they were a Democrat and I have been completely
fair. I want to say this. Four year ago I raised 71 points of order on
this bill, and it had one of the greatest chairmen in our history,
Chairman Roybal, because everybody legislated in it but they would not
allow a Traficant IRS provision. They were going to strike that. It
came in the size of an encyclopedia and left the size of a comic book
when it went to the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I am for these projects. The Congress of the United
States shall determine not only where the courts will be, but where the
judges will sit. That is our constitutional empowerment and we have
been transferring it to the White House in every code of our government
budget from day one.
Let us look at some facts. Corpus Christi, Albany, Providence, GSA
had them in their request, they said they were needed. The Office of
Management and Budget said, ``Keep them out of the budget.''
Let me ask this to Members: What if the Office of Management and
Budget does not like the vote that a Republican casts on a President's
measure, and they leave your project out? Do you want fairness? You
will get fairness and you have gotten fairness.
Mr. Chairman, let us talk about Steubenville. Those judges in
Columbus are worried they are going to be assigned to Steubenville. It
is not their decision if one of them need be assigned. The people from
Steubenville have to drive 200 miles to have a damn Social Security
appeal hearing, maybe stay overnight. we have asked for a new 11(b)
prospectus on a courthouse in Steubenville. Not one of these projects
will be funded if our committee does not approve them, and that is the
technical legal language.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say one other thing here. We have gotten off
base. Two years ago, I cut courthouse projects 10 percent across the
board. Then I came to this House and some Member stood up with a great
speech for another 2 percent cut. I supported the 2 percent cut, and I
supported the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy's cut today,
even though some would say, ``Well, hell, aren't you doing your job
over there'' because we are cannibalizing everything and we are all
going to go on with this, but here is what I am saying to Members.
{time} 2050
Not one of these projects is funded by Chairman Hoyer. Chairman
Hoyer, in consultation with the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and myself,
deemed that they were appropriate, deemed that they maybe needed
pending approval, and we concurred, and they have given us the
courtesy.
And do you know what? Do you know how much authorization really
exists in these bills? And do you want to jump on Albany, Corpus
Christi, and Steubenville, OH?
If our committee does not approve these projects, they will not be
approved.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me say this is a man who raised 71 points
of order. It may be a record.
The appropriators used to write all the laws. We have come to the
point where appropriators are concurring with authorizing committees,
and we are developing that type of relationship.
I did not raise a point of order. I did not need to. I think Chairman
Hoyer has done a great job with this committee, and it is pretty tough
to replace a Chairman Roybal.
I am asking the Members to vote for our due power process here. We
govern. The President executes and administers the people's law. We
govern. We set policy. We are not beyond the boundaries of that process
here tonight.
So I am asking you to vote no on the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Fawell], and I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] is
one of the most distinguished Members we have. I commend him. But in
this point, in this case here, I say to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Fawell], I believe you are wrong, and I am asking everybody who
had gotten fairness with these Members now looking for that fairness to
remember when you drove up.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant] for that very ringing speech on behalf of his area and
the things he believes in with his courthouse. I think that is very
appropriate.
I would point out he is absolutely historically correct. The change
in the Committee on Rules began at the time that he made his 71 points
of order against this bill 3 years ago, I think it was, and that is
what started it. Ever since then we have been left in sort of a funny
limbo up in the Committee on Rules, and we are no longer playing by the
House rules. We are playing by whatever rules come along that suit a
certain number of people in the majority that day.
Now, that may be fine, but that is not fair to the other Members of
this House.
I think there are probably some in the majority who are a little
surprised the minority is not more grateful for the open amendment
process that we have had on this bill. We are grateful that all Members
have the chance to offer cutting amendments, and there have been
plenty. Given the restrictive tendency, particularly that we have seen
in the past, we are making some progress in getting amendments out, and
that is good.
But this open amendment process is not a gift from the majority on
the Committee on Rules. It is the standing operating procedures of this
House under which spending bills are supposed to be considered. So it
is not anything special.
If we lived by our rules, we would be doing the normal order. In
fact, the reason this bill went to the Committee on Rules in the first
place is not because the appropriators wanted to shut out any
amendments, and there were some that probably should have been shut
out, but this bill went to the Committee on Rules because the
appropriators wanted protection, protection for provisions in the bill
that violate standing House rules, and they got protection from the
majority side of the Committee on Rules.
Among those violations are these unauthorized courthouses, projects
worth $25 million or so that have not been authorized as priorities by
this Congress or by the administration or even by the GSA, and I do not
know what they are doing authorizing things either.
Had the Committee on Rules not granted those courthouses special
protection today, Members would have been able to strike them out of
this bill automatically by raising a point of order as the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] did 3 years ago 71 times. But because of the
protective action by the Committee on Rules, today's Members have to
instead vote on whether or not these courthouses are going to be given
special clearance. Here we are at 9 o'clock at night still debating
these things. It is not automatic. The same privilege is not available
as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] had 3 years ago.
The burden is now on those seeking to uphold the rules of the House,
not on those attempting to break them. That is wrong. It is a dangerous
shift in responsibility when you consider the enormity of our budget
crisis.
I am going to urge my colleagues to support the Fawell amendment from
the point of view of the minority of the Committee on Rules. We need to
send a signal to the House that we do live within our own rules. That
is why we have them. We need to send a signal that says we do not
penalize those who do honor the rules, because every Member has got to
realize that if we keep this up on the trend we are on now, they are
not only going to have to get appropriations from the appropriators for
their projects, they are going to have to get protection, and that has
a bad sound to it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that there is a requirement to answer the
implication just left by the previous speaker.
The gentleman talks about the actions taken by the Committee on Rules
to protect projects which were unauthorized. I would point out that
that is a convenience which is often provided by the Committee on Rules
in order to facilitate a rational order of business.
I just have to say that despite all of the pious posing I have heard
on the floor over the past 9 hours from various Members, I find it
quaint, indeed, but not at all surprising, that the only objections
made to projects which were protected by the Committee on Rules in the
way which the gentleman finds outrageous are to projects in the
districts of Democrats. I find no such outrage expressed by the fact
that those same rules protect a number of projects in the districts of
Members on that side of the aisle. I see three on the page I am looking
at right now.
And yet I see no amendment coming from that side of the aisle to
eliminate projects in Republican districts. One of those projects is in
the district of one of the Republicans sitting on the floor now.
Now, I would suggest that if the gentleman is going to express moral
outrage, that he target it in a balanced way to targets on both sides
of the aisle.
This is the first time I have taken the floor on this bill. I had not
intended to take it at all. The fact is that there are going to be
literally hundreds of projects that come through this House in bills
ranging from this bill to the defense appropriation bill, and if we are
going to be officious and nit-picking about the stage in which some of
those projects are, and if we are going to have selective amendments
offered from that side of the aisle to eliminate only projects in
Democratic districts, then I suggest to you that there are going to be
a lot of amendments offered from this side of the aisle eliminating
projects which are similarly not authorized on that side of the aisle.
I do not think that is the way the game ought to be played. I think
the committees have a right to make a judgment about whether or not a
project is meritorious or not regardless of whether it is located in a
Republican district or a Democratic district.
No Congress has ever changed any President's budget by more than 3
percent. That 3-percent difference is what makes a President and not a
king. I make absolutely no apologies for the fact that the Congress on
occasion exercises judgment and approves an occasional project which
has not yet made it through the authorizing process, even though in the
end most of them probably will.
But I just note with great interest the partisan selectivity of the
amendments before us on the floor tonight, and in the interests of
avoiding partisan nastiness on bills to come, I would urge Members to
recognize that if those targets are going to be exclusively on the
Democratic side of the aisle, there are going to be a lot of targets on
the Republican side of the aisle when the coming bills come to the
House floor.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make only two short statements.
First of all, I do not like to be threatened, and if the individual
wants to threaten, we can handle that real good.
It had not gotten nasty. At least, I had not understood the debate
had gotten nasty until the last speaker spoke. If the gentleman wants
to do something, he can just come right over here.
{time} 2100
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we do not need to do that.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And the chairman does not need to threaten this side
of the aisle, either, I agree. It had not gotten nasty. It had not
gotten nasty, but I do not like to be threatened personally or have my
colleagues on this side of the aisle--and I think the gentleman from
Maryland does not do that. I think it was inappropriate.
Mr. HOYER. Well, then why do we not keep the debate on the issue? We
will all be better off.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And I agree.
The only other statement I wanted to make is that Mr. Traficant is
probably one of the most honest, bipartisan individuals that you have
over there, and I appreciate that. I agree with the gentleman.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take a few seconds to respond. I want
to assure the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
that I have no idea whose districts all of these projects are in, and I
do not know whether they are Republicans or Democrats. The tenor of my
remarks has nothing to do with partisanship. The tenor of my remarks
has everything to do with the rules of the House and how they are
managed by the majority and has a whole lot to do with the question of
the fiscal crisis confronting this country. That is what my motives
are. We have a lot of decisions to make. We do not have a good set of
House rules.
The distinguished chairman at this point has referred to us as nit-
picking, to be suggesting we should be following the rules. If that is
the only regard that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
has for the rules of the House, that every time we are trying to waive
them we are nit-picking, then why do we have a Rules Committee, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I do hope we all can just cool down a bit. The gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant] and I came into the Congress together, I think. I have
watched this man as a fierce, independent person, blaze his way, set up
new concepts, new ideas, because he is truly an independent thinker. I
feel badly that we disagree in this one regard. I went to the Committee
on Rules. I waited 2 or 3 hours to finally ask if I might have the
right to raise a point of order against these 5 projects because they
were not authorized. They were determined by a bipartisan group, by the
way, not a partisan group, and if the chairman would put Republican
projects in the list where no authorization is required, then I can
assure you that as our staff labors over these appropriations in the
little time that we have, we most certainly would include them. And I
think the next amendment that is coming up, Congressman Machtley, for
instance, will be taking a position against us. He happens to be a
Republican against the Rhode Island project. But I simply want to say
that when you are, as a member of the minority, especially,
consistently denied the rules which theoretically are there, I would
have had a right if the rules had been recognized, to simply stand up
here and make a point of order and that would be the end of these
projects for this year.
Now, there are efforts being made, and understandably so, that there
should be a prospectus that will be ultimately issued and, yes, Jim,
you are going to have to deal with GSA, which is an executive branch.
The law says GSA has got to be a part of the prospectus procedure, and
reviewing where that courthouse is going to be, making a very in-depth
analysis. Then when they bring that prospectus to OMB, with a favorable
recommendation--it may not get the approval of OMB. In regard to Corpus
Christi, OMB said, ``no, we don't think it should be funded.'' That is
what OMB said. It is part of the legal process, it is part of what your
committee has to work with, it is part of what we have to work with.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. CUNNINGHAM was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I simply say in response to the gentleman from Florida
that what I find interesting is not the gentleman's nit-picking, but
his selective nit-picking and his selective outrage. I repeat, if the
gentleman is so pious and so concerned about the purity of the rules of
the House, why did he not include in his amendment the three Republican
projects I am looking at, all of which are designated not authorized,
not authorized, not authorized?
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, all I can say is we have the staff of this Porkbusters
group. They worked it over. They are bi-partisan. We did not find any
other projects which had not been approved by the authorizing
committee. There are five--we have four courthouses, we have the Walla
Walla Corps of Engineers facility, but if the gentleman would show me
any other project which has not been authorized by the Public Works
Committee, I would be glad to take a look at them.
Mr. OBEY. I am not impressed by the gentleman's selective piety.
Mr. FAWELL. If there is anybody with selective piety, I know of no
one who has more than the gentleman from Wisconsin.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham] has again expired.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point, the Rules Committee has
been referred to. On the question of being in the minority, the
gentleman may very well on that afternoon have lived through the
testimony given by our colleague [Mr. Traficant] and myself. I would
point out for the record that I am vice chair of the subcommittee of
jurisdiction on this bill. Mr. Traficant and I were turned down on an
amendment that we wanted to offer on this bill. I think that
establishes the judicious nature of the decisionmaking process in the
Committee on Rules.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 271, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 244]
AYES--145
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bentley
Bereuter
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Danner
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoagland
Hoekstra
Horn
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Klug
Knollenberg
Kyl
LaFalce
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Maloney
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Nussle
Oxley
Pallone
Paxon
Penny
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Ridge
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Shuster
Slattery
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Solomon
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Walker
Weldon
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--271
Abercrombie
Andrews (TX)
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Callahan
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoke
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Mann
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quillen
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Roemer
Rogers
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schaefer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Ackerman
Applegate
Berman
Cooper
Dooley
Dornan
Fish
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Glickman
McDade
Neal (NC)
Reynolds
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Saxton
Sharp
Tauzin
Thomas (CA)
Torres
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Whitten
{time} 2126
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Cooper for, with Mr. Ackerman against.
Messrs. GILMAN, EVERETT, PACKARD, FINGERHUT, and TAYLOR of
Mississippi changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HOAGLAND changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. fawell
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell:
Page 31, line 15, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before ``,
of which''.
Page 34, line 16, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before ``,
which shall''.
Page 36, strike line 25 and all that follows through page
37, line 2.
Page 37, strike lines 9 through 11.
Page 38, line 24, insert ``and'' after the 1st semicolon.
Page 38, line 24, strike the last semicolon and all that
follows through ``Building'' on page 39, line 2.
Page 40, line 22, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before
``shall remain''.
Mr. FAWELL (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
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief. I do want to,
however, clear up one point. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
made the statement that three projects being in districts of
Republicans in Covington, Kentucky, London, Kentucky, and Greenville,
Tennessee, were not authorized and yet included in the appropriation.
This is not true. All, and we have just verified this, all were
authorized in the House; all had approved prospectuses.
{time} 2130
Mr. Chairman, these three projects to which the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] referred, the latter being in Greenville,
Tennessee, all had been authorized and gone through the process, fully
approved. And the GSA had issued prospectuses. I am sorry that there
was partisanship introduced in that aspect, because if it is any one
thing that we have tried to do in the porkbuster group is to try to be
fair about the projects that we select. I do not even ask staff of our
different Members which Members of Congress might be affected. And
oftentimes, those projects are in Illinois. Oftentimes, I have received
a lot of criticism even from my fellow colleagues from Illinois. So
enough of that.
I am not going to go into the arguments. Members have heard all the
arguments.
I want to describe, at least I would like Members to know the two
projects that are a part of this amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAWELL. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman gets to those projects,
I want to make the point, I happen to be for all three of the projects
that the gentleman just mentioned. But under the law, they have to be
authorized in both Houses. At an earlier time in the debate, I told the
House that one of the problems here was that a lot of times the other
House simply does not act. Under the law, to be fully authorized and
follow the rules, they must be authorized in both Houses.
The three projects that gentleman mentioned have not been authorized
by the other House. It is this Member's opinion that is not because any
one of those projects lacks merit. They ought to be approved. We
included them in our bill. But technically, under the rules, they are
not fully authorized.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I cannot control the Senate. But what we do
is to look for what we can control and what violates the rules of this
House. And that is what we try to do, that is what we look at. We
certainly cannot control the other body.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
just want to tell the gentleman that under the law, the Chairman was
correct.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully disagree.
The first project deals with an office complex utilized by the Corps
of Engineers in an office complex in Walla Walla, WA, the building
project, although, listed under repairs and alternation under the
federal building fund is for $2.8 million for demolition of the office
complex on lands being returned to the city of Walla Walla. After many,
many years of use by the Corps of Engineers under a long-term agreement
that expressly states that upon the abandonment of the facilities they
would revert to Walla Walla, and I quote, ``And the Federal Government
shall not be required to provide any restoration whatsoever of any of
the facilities conveyed.'' That is a $2.8 million project.
The other project, which is in Providence, Rhode Island, is for $8.6
million in reference to the repair and improvement of the federal
courthouse.
I will end my remarks, briefly, as I promised, by saying that both of
these were never requested by the administration.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Fawell was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. FAWELL. They were not requested by the administration. They were
not requested or authorized by the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation. No prospectus by the GSA has ever been given as
required by the Public Buildings Act, and they are in violation of the
rules which state that an appropriation bill without authority violates
our rules. And they also have legislating in the appropriation. Both of
these have been waived. All of the arguments which Members heard pro
and con before apply here.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is, I think, very honest when he says all
the arguments that were made last time apply here. So that those 271
Members who voted no on the previous amendment should feel comfortable
voting no on this amendment.
The reason is that not a nickel can be spent, as we said previously,
without going to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and
having the Committee on Public Works and Transportation approve both
the Providence, RI, and the Walla Walla projects. We did that because
the gentleman is correct. We want to follow the appropriate process. It
will be an appropriation, but it cannot be spent until such time as, as
the gentleman correctly observed, the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation authorizes that expense.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, if we were to follow what the gentleman has
just said with every appropriation, all the appropriators would ever
have to do is to say, no, there is no authorization. It is over budget,
unrequested and, yes, there is legislating in the appropriation, but
trust us. Sometime, somewhere, some way down that line you will find
magically, through the hands of one or two Members, and I trust this
gentleman, that some authorization will take place. Trust us. And that
is part and parcel of why we are big spenders and are disappointing the
people of this Nation time and time again when we do these kinds of
things.
The rules mean nothing. They mean nothing. And this is a good example
of it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are too late. I
understand that.
The rules do mean something. The rules are being followed. The rules
simply provide for waivers. The rules have been adopted by a majority
of this House.
I am tired of hearing the rules are not being followed. The rules are
being followed, and the rules provide for waivers.
Why? We could not fund Customs if we did not have a waiver. We could
not fund the Mint, if we did not have a waiver in this bill. Why?
Because no authorizing legislation has been enacted.
We could sit there and say, the rules say that we should not fund
Customs because there is no authorization and, therefore, the Customs
agents would not be paid and, therefore, drug interdiction would stop.
NAFTA would not be enforced because the rules were not being followed,
because they have not been authorized.
Yes, we have waived the rules, under the rules. We amend the
Constitution of the United States under the rules of the Constitution
of the United States.
{time} 2140
I am tired, Mr. Chairman, of hearing that the rules are not being
followed. What the gentleman do not like is that the rules provide for
waivers. They then are reported to the floor, and 218 people, or at
least a majority voting on the question, have to vote for them.
We are following the rules here. The gentleman does not like the rule
that has been adopted. He probably voted against it. I understand that.
I respect the gentleman's disagreement with it, but we are following
the rules.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], my
friend and distinguished Member.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I would only add to the discussion that
the issue around the debate, and what the amendment of the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] is over, that we add to an authorization the
clause that we do not appropriate the money until it has been
authorized, or the authorizing committee acts. However, being a member
of the Appropriations Committee, because I had a project that we used
these rules on, it was not authorized, and therefore the money was not
appropriated, so the system we are using does work.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment, and I urge a no
vote on the amendment.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. SOLOMON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if my friend, the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is listening. I am so sorry to hear my
friend, the gentleman from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, say that he is tired
of hearing about these rules being waived. Let me tell the gentleman,
my good friend, and he is my good friend, he is going to hear about it.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield so I can be precise, I said I
was tired of hearing that the rules are not being followed.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
the rules are not being followed, and I will say it over and over and
over again, and I will try to keep my cool in saying it over and over
and over again.
The truth of the matter is that the rules around here are waived
about 80 percent of the time. That means that the rules that the
Democrats, with all due respect, because they are the majority, but the
rules that they adopt on the first day of the beginning of the session
every 2 years are nothing but a subterfuge. They do not intend to
follow the rules. They intend to waive the rules, and they do it 75
percent of the time.
Mr. ARMEY. The Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would like to
reclaim my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman another 5
minutes.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I have 5 minutes, and I would like to have
part of it.
Mr. SOLOMON. I will give the gentleman another 5 minutes beyond that.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to make
the point, there is another bill coming up here.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon], after his generous offer.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, who said regular order over there? Do they
want to come down and discuss it? What is regular and what is irregular
about it?
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that there is a rule coming up in a few
minutes that is going to keep everybody here, except there will not be
a vote here, because we were nice enough to put over the last 15
minutes of the rule until tomorrow, so we do not have to keep the
gentleman waiting. I see the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] there,
and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
Now we have the rules of the House, but in this rule that is coming
up in a few minutes, we are going to mistreat just 1 Member of the 435
Members of this body. We are going to mistreat the gentleman sitting
here, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], because he is the only
person that we do not waive the rules for in this transportation
appropriation bill that is coming up in a few minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to waive the rule for the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], so he can have his parochial piece of legislation
approved in the bill, but we are not going to do that for the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], because he happens to be a Republican.
Therefore, I would say to the gentleman, Steny Hoyer, not to stand up
here with all this drama and say he is tired of hearing that we are not
obeying the rules. We are misusing the rules by waiving them time after
time after time, 75 percent of the time.
It is a subterfuge. The gentleman knows it, and every Member of this
body knows it. All the special interest people, the good government
groups, know it. They came and testified before our committee to reform
this House. They all said so.
The gentleman knows it, so he should not stand up here and be
outraged. We are abusing the rules, and the gentleman knows it.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I think I can be very brief here. I have
watched this debate for a long time, and I have for ten years now
admired my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] and enjoyed
working with him.
Mr. Chairman, the protocols of our House admonish us not to question
a Member's motives. Most of us are very diligent in observing that,
almost all the time.
In addition to the protocols of our House that govern our discourse,
we would all agree that it is, Mr. Chairman, bad form, at least, to
threaten in debate Members with reprisal on either a personal, a
partisan, or a parochial basis.
The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] would never have done
that. Mr. Natcher would never have done that. Unhappily for this body,
the new chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], has done that tonight. I think that is a tragic
betrayal of the legacy of both the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Whitten] and Mr. Natcher.
It is also unfortunate that should be done in direction to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], because for those of us who have
had the privilege of working and working closely with the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] experience tells us that there can be no
basis by which we can question either the thoroughness, the accuracy,
or the objectivity of his work.
The gentleman from Illinois has been patient here, has been thorough
in his research, has been patient in the Committee on Rules, has
suffered his disappointments in not getting leave of the waivers that
protected his right to offer a point of order, and has waited
throughout most of this day to offer in the most good faith, based on
the greatest diligence of workmanship, his amendments. He neither
deserves to have his motives challenged, to be threatened with
reprisal, or to have anybody question the quality of his work.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] has
been consumed.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me encourage the body to vote for honest
hard work, good intentions, and sincere purpose. Vote yes on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just have to say that I think what Members need more
than anything else to get through this debate tonight is simply a good
fat sense of humor.
Mr. Chairman, I have just heard the remarks from the economist from
Texas [Mr. Armey], indicating that somehow I am not living up to the
fine traditions of the Committee on Appropriations when I take the time
to point out selective piety among the body.
What I said was very simple. I noted that there were a number of
unauthorized projects in this bill, projects in Democratic districts,
projects in Republican districts. I noted the selective piety that led
the author of the amendment to reach a high level of moral outrage
concerning three projects in Democratic districts, and I simply asked
why it was that that piety did not extend itself to unauthorized
projects in Republican districts. I have yet to receive an answer.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman has had his time.
Mr. FAWELL. I will give you the answer right now.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will ask for order until I have completed
my statement. I will be happy to yield when I have completed my
statement, but I have had to listen to the gentleman a long time, and
he is going to listen to me for 2 minutes.
Mr. FAWELL. Okay. Okay.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply then made the observation, to recite
what happened on the previous amendment, I simply made the observation
that I thought that projects ought to be reviewed by this committee,
whether Republican or Democratic, on the basis of their merit.
Then I went on to say: But if, however, we were going to get from the
Minority side a review of projects which was focused only on one side
of the aisle, then I thought that the Members on that side of the aisle
had much, much more to lose than do Members on this side of the aisle,
because, frankly, we have more votes than they do. I do not think those
votes ought to be exercised in an abusive or unfair way, but I do think
they should be exercised to enforce consistency.
I would simply say, repeating what I said earlier, that I think the
committees ought to feel free to review projects on their merit. This
Congress has the right on occasion to make a judgment which differs
from that of the executive branch. But in the end, if we see Members
insisting on going after only Democratic projects, then all I suggested
is that there are an awful lot of Republican projects in appropriation
bills yet to come, and I think we have a right to take note of that
when those bills come before the body.
{time} 2150
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman was not here when I
made my comments that the three projects to which the gentleman made
reference, I have checked this with staff, are all authorized in the
House, all approved by means of a prospectus issued by GSA in
accordance with the Public Building Act. I mean this very sincerely, if
the gentleman can show to me anywhere in there where there are projects
which we have missed, I will be glad to take a look at them.
Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, I will simply say, the gentleman very
carefully said the Republican projects that I referred to, the
gentleman very carefully said were authorized ``in the House.'' But the
objection on the gentleman's side of the aisle earlier was that somehow
the Committee on Rules had violated normal processes, because they had
not allowed the gentleman to make a point of order against unauthorized
projects.
My point is that if the gentleman is allowed to make a point of order
against unauthorized projects, those three projects would have been
just as vulnerable as those on the Democratic side of the aisle, and if
the gentleman does not know that, he should.
Mr. FAWELL. They are authorized, fully authorized.
Mr. OBEY. No, they are not.
Mr. FAWELL. Check with the committee.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just came to talk about a little place called Walla
Walla. I kind of feel like the person that showed up at a white tie
affair with brown shoes. Maybe we can get back here to what we were
talking about.
When I was in college, I used to announce at KUJ in Walla Walla, my
first job in radio so I have an affection for the town. If Members want
to consider a mental hazard, because we are all public speakers, one
gets certain things in his mind, afraid of mispronouncing a word and he
does try sitting for a half hour listening to the network knowing that
all you have got to say in a half hour is ``This is KUJ in Walla
Walla.'' One cannot say Walla Walla if he thinks about it for 10
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, what we have in this particular amendment is a project
that, in fact, is subject to authorization, what we have been saying
all evening long, nothing is going to happen, no dollars are going to
be spent unless the Public Works Committee, unless the Committee on
Public Works authorizes it.
Mr. Chairman, what this is all about is the people in Walla Walla
deeded this property to the Federal Government in 1949 for a buck. The
terms of the contract state that the property will revert to the local
community on abandonment by the Federal Government. Both parties in
good faith intended that the facility would revert to the local
community in a few years. No one anticipated that the Corps of
Engineers who was the occupant was going to inhabit this temporary
World War II era barracks for 40 years. The buildings were constructed
in 1941 and 1942 and at that time they were intended to be used for a
period of 15 to 20 years. Fifty-two years later, they are still
standing. The buildings are asbestos-ridden, major maintenance has been
deferred because of the temporary, the 52-year temporary nature of this
arrangement, and the site does not even begin to approach contemporary
code standards.
In 1985 The GSA commissioned a professional fire safety engineer to
do a report on the site when the following items showed up:
Deteriorating electrical wiring, highly combustible wood paneling,
highly combustible cane ceiling tile, no automatic sprinkler system in
six buildings, no manual fire system, no emergency or exit lighting.
In short, 50 years later this community is now saddled with a site
that is structurally unsafe. The community that gave the property for a
buck 45 years ago, the community is saddled with buildings that are
structurally unsafe, environmentally hazardous, and on which stand a
series of buildings whose useful life ended 20 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, what this appropriation subject to authorization would
do is tear them down and give the property back to Walla Walla. Let us
vote one for Walla Walla tonight. Vote no.
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will try and be brief as the previous gentleman who
tried to express the facts in the case of Walla Walla. I would like to
express the facts in the case of the Providence courthouse.
Mr. Chairman, this is not in my district, but because we only have
one Federal courthouse in the State of Rhode Island, it is in fact
imperative that this body understand the facts on which this amendment
is being based. I have the greatest respect for my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], but the courthouse
in Rhode Island is in serious need of repair. In fact, yesterday during
the rain, the computer room flooded and was unusable. If we are going
to have a crime bill which is going to put billions of dollars to try
and deal with crime in our Nation, we must have a facility which can
administer justice.
In this particular courthouse, which was built in 1908, this is not a
new building, this is merely an appropriation to repair an existing
structure. This building has 56,000 square feet of office space which
house 107 Federal employees who are involved in trying to administer
justice in Rhode Island. It is one of the busiest courthouses in the
country. These renovation plans have been in the system for over 10
years. For the last 4 years, GSA has been working on them.
Mr. Chairman, the alternatives to not funding this renovation are,
first, to build a new courthouse which would be almost four times as
expensive as these renovations. The second alternative would be to
vacate this courthouse and lease spaces which over a 30-year present
value figure would again be four times the expense of renovating this
courthouse.
We have a situation where a jury which is trying to be empaneled,
which would normally take 70 to 100 people, can only sit in one
individual room 40 people, we have people in the corridors waiting to
hear jury instructions. When our prisoners are brought into this
courthouse, they must ride in public elevators and stand with the
public because there are no facilities.
Yes, there are times when I think we ought to look beyond rules which
would limit our ability to deal with serious issues, and I would
suggest this is one of those times. No one who is running a company
would say that we should bind ourselves and not fix and protect our
assets. No one who is a legislator would say we should become so
involved that we do not take appropriate action when we see necessary
repairs needed. Yes, if we are going to dispense justice in this
country and we have, I believe, some of the finest jurists in the
Nation in Rhode Island, we should give them the tools that they need to
dispense that justice, and that is a facility that has a courtroom, a
facility which could administer justice properly, and one which is in
repair. We should not let this facility become deteriorated to the
point of uselessness. We should, in fact, appropriate this money.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I join my
colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island, and express the same
concern.
Mr. Chairman, the status of the authorization versus the
appropriation has been well discussed by Chairman Hoyer and others. I
want to reinforce some of the facts my colleague raised.
This building was built in 1904. It has undergone no major structural
renovations since the last part of the 1970's. It is one of the busiest
courts in the country. It ranks 8 out of 94 courthouses in this country
in terms of trials per judge. It is, and I confirmed this Monday
morning by walking through the building, in dire need of serious
structural repairs and other repairs. The walls are bespotted by
watermarks as the rain creeps through the buildings. The bricks need to
be repointed. The library on the top floor was recently subject to a
flood when the roof leaked seriously. There is poor ventilation in the
building. In the computer room that my colleague referred to, it is
enclosed within an interior space without windows. They literally have
to have an external air circulator brought into the floor to circulate
the air so that people can work in the building.
Mr. Chairman, we swore in a new Federal judge last Monday. Her
courtroom is barely the size of a small garage. It has no windows. It
has no jury box. They simply roll in chairs to seat the jury. Her jury
room in which the jury debates the fate of citizens before the bar is a
corridor. They put a chair between, right outside the ladies' room and
the men's room in the hall and they lock off two doors and post guards
so the jury can deliberate. If those are the standards and the
atmosphere for appropriate rendering of justice, I think not.
{time} 2200
I urge that this amendment be rejected. These repairs are desperately
needed. We should go forward and reject this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 136,
noes 276, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 245]
AYES--136
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Danner
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Horn
Huffington
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kyl
Leach
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Morella
Nussle
Oxley
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Walker
Weldon
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--276
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Blute
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Callahan
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoke
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Hunter
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCollum
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quillen
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Snowe
Spratt
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--27
Berman
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Cooper
Fish
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Glickman
McCloskey
McDade
Moran
Neal (NC)
Pelosi
Penny
Pickle
Reynolds
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Saxton
Sharp
Stark
Tauzin
Torres
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Whitten
Williams
{time} 2219
Mr. DORNAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2220
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Buildings Fund
LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF REVENUE
(RESCISSION)
Of the funds made available under this heading for new
construction in Public Law 103-123, the Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1994, $4,900,000 are rescinded for the
following projects in the following amounts:
Iowa:
Burlington, Federal Parking Facility, $2,400,000
Indiana:
Hammond, U.S. Courthouse, $2,500,000.
Of the funds made available under this heading for new
construction in Public Law 102-393, the Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1993, $24,295,000 are rescinded for the
following projects in the following amounts:
District of Columbia:
United States Secret Service, Headquarters, $13,958,000
White House Remote Delivery and Vehicle Maintenance
Facilities, $4,918,000
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Field Office, $4,419,000
Florida:
Hollywood, Federal Building, $1,000,000.
Of the funds made available under this heading for new
construction in Public Law 101-509, the Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1991, $30,100,000 are rescinded for the
following project in the following amount:
Maryland:
Prince George's County, Internal Revenue Service,
Headquarters, $30,100,000.
Of the funds made available under this heading for new
construction in Public Law 100-440, the Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1989, $4,400,000 is rescinded for the
following project in the following amount:
Florida:
Lakeland, Federal Building, $4,400,000.
Of the funds made available under this heading for repairs
and alterations in Public Law 103-123, the Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994, $4,715,000 are rescinded
for the following projects in the following amounts:
Arizona:
Lukeville, Commercial Lot Expansion, $1,219,000
San Luis, Primary lane expansion and administrative office
space, $3,496,000.
Of the funds made available under this heading for repairs
and alterations in Public Law 101-509, the Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991, $7,707,000 are rescinded
for the following projects in the following amounts:
New Mexico:
Santa Teresa, New Border Station, $6,000,000
Texas:
Del Rio, Border Station, $1,707,000.
Of the funds made available under this heading for repairs
and alterations in Public Law 101-136, the Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, $2,088,000 are rescinded
for the following project in the following amount:
New Mexico:
Santa Teresa, New Border Station, $2,088,000.
operating expenses
For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for,
necessary for asset management activities; utilization of
excess and disposal of surplus personal property;
transportation management activities; procurement and supply
management activities; Government-wide and internal
responsibilities relating to automated data management,
telecommunications, information resources management, and
related activities; the Information Security Oversight Office
established pursuant to Executive Order No. 12356; the
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; $123,020,000:
Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this
account, $172,000 are permanently canceled.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $33,090,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 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
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;
$2,215,000: 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.
expenses of transportation audit contracts and contract administration
Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year
1995 are reduced by $30,000.
general supply fund
Of the offsetting collections credited to this account,
$1,009,000 are permanently canceled.
information resources management service information technology fund
Of the offsetting collections credited to this account,
$609,000 are permanently canceled.
working capital fund
Amounts received for administrative support services
provided under this head shall be credited to and merged with
the Fund, to remain available until expended, for operating
costs and capital outlays of the Fund and for the necessary
expenses of administrative support services including
accounting, budget, personnel, legal support and other
related services; and the maintenance and operation of
printing and reproduction facilities in support of the
functions of the General Services Administration, other
Federal agencies, and other entities; and other such
administrative and management services that the Administrator
of GSA deems appropriate and advantageous (subject to prior
notice to the Office of Management and Budget): Provided,
That entities for which such services are performed shall be
charged at rates which will return in full the cost of
operations.
General Services Administration--General Provisions
Section 1. 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. 2. Funds available to the General Services
Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger
motor vehicles.
Sec. 3. Not to exceed 2 per centum of funds made available
in appropriations for operating expenses and salaries and
expenses, during the current fiscal year, may be transferred
between such appropriations for mandatory program
requirements. Any proposed transfers shall be approved in
advance by the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
Senate.
Sec. 4. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made available
for fiscal year 1995 for Federal Buildings Fund activities
may be transferred between such activities only to the extent
necessary to meet program requirements. Any proposed
transfers shall be approved in advance by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate.
Sec. 5. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the
General Services Administration during fiscal year 1995,
$8,959,000 are permanently canceled.
(b) The Administrator of the General Services
Administration shall allocate the amount of budgetary
resources canceled among the agency's accounts available for
procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts
available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in
each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to
such account.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of
``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of
acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of
determining a need for a product or services and ending with
contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C.
403(2).
Sec. 6. Rent rates charged by the General Services
Administration for fiscal year 1995 shall reflect the
reductions contained in the President's budget amendment
dated March 16, 1994, Estimate No. 9, 103rd Congress, 2nd
Session.
Sec. 7. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
obligated or expended in any way for the purpose of the sale,
excessing, surplusing, or disposal of lands in the vicinity
of Norfolk Lake, Arkansas, administered by the Corps of
Engineers, Department of the Army, without the specific
approval of the Congress.
Sec. 8. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
obligated or expended in any way for the purpose of the sale,
excessing, surplusing, or disposal of lands in the vicinity
of Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas, administered by the Corps of
Engineers, Department of the Army, without the specific
approval of the Congress.
Sec. 9. No funds made available by this Act shall be used
to transmit a fiscal year 1996 request for United States
Courthouse construction that does not meet the standards for
construction as established by the General Services
Administration and the Office of Management and Budget.
Sec. 10. The Administrator of the General Services
Administration is directed to obligate the funds appropriated
in Public Law 103-123 for the purposes stated in section 804
of that Act.
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, $24,549,000, together with not to exceed
$2,420,000 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.
National Archives and Records Administration
operating expenses
For necessary expenses in connection with National Archives
and Records Administration 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, $194,638,000: 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 move into the facility: Provided further, That
of the budgetary resources available in fiscal year 1995 in
this account, $325,000 are permanently canceled: Provided
further, That amounts available for procurement and
procurement-related expenses in this account are reduced by
such amount: Provided further, That as used herein,
``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of
acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of
determining a need for a product or services and ending with
contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C.
403(2): Provided further, That of the offsetting collections
credited to this account, $441,000 are permanently canceled.
national historical publications and records commission
For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for
historical publications and records as authorized by 44
U.S.C. 2504, as amended, $7,000,000 to remain available until
expended: Provided, That $2,000,000 shall be a grant to the
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Library.
national archives trust fund
Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year
1995 are reduced by $16,000.
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 by Public Law 100-598, and the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989, Public Law 101-194, 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; $8,104,000.
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, and advances for reimbursements to applicable funds
of the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order
10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended; $115,139,000, and in
addition $93,934,000 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 health benefits printing, for
the retirement and insurance programs, of which $10,956,000
shall be transferred at such times as the Office of Personnel
Management deems appropriate, and shall remain available
until expended for the costs of automating the retirement
recordkeeping systems, together with remaining amounts
authorized in previous Acts for the recordkeeping systems:
Provided, That the provisions of this appropriation shall not
affect the authority to use applicable trust funds as
provided by section 8348(a)(1)(B) of title 5, United States
Code: Provided further, That, except as may be consistent
with 5 U.S.C. 8902a(f)(1) and (i), no payment may be made
from the Employees Health Benefits Fund to any physician,
hospital, or other provider of health care services or
supplies who is, at the time such services or supplies are
provided to an individual covered under chapter 89 of title
5, United States Code, excluded, pursuant to section 1128 or
1128A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7-1320a-
7a), from participation in any program under title XVIII of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.): 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 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 11183 of October 3, 1964, may, during the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 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; $4,009,000, and in
addition, not to exceed $6,156,000 for administrative
expenses to audit 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, $4,210,560,000 to
remain available until expended.
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, $19,159,000, to
remain available until expended.
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. 771-75), may hereafter be paid out of the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
revolving fund
Of the offsetting collections credited to this account,
$649,000 are permanently canceled.
Office of Personnel Management
general provisions
Section 1. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the
Office of Personnel Management during fiscal year 1995,
$1,256,000 are permanently canceled.
(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled
among the agency's accounts available for procurement and
procurement-related expenses. Amounts available for
procurement and procurement-related expenses in each such
account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to such
account.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of
``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of
acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of
determining a need for a product or services and ending with
contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C.
403(2).
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), and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (Public
Law 101-12), 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; $7,955,000.
United States Tax Court
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and
other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $33,650,000:
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, 1995''.
Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of title IV of the bill 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
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the remainder of title IV?
amendment offered by mr. hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer: On page 50, after line 23,
insert the following:
john f. kennedy assassination records review board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out the John F. Kennedy
Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, $2,418,000, to
remain available until expended.
Mr. HOYER (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
Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take much time on this. I think
we have agreement. It is noncontroversial.
Subsequent to our markup, Mr. Chairman, we were given the
responsibility in the Committee on Appropriations for the John F.
Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. As a result, we had not
appropriated any funds for this. This amendment simply proposes $2.418
million for the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. This is
pursuant to getting these records out to the public, cataloging them.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this with the
majority, and we have no objection to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Act
Section 501. No part of any appropriation made available in
this Act shall be used for the purchase or sale of real
estate or for the purpose of establishing new offices inside
or outside the District of Columbia: Provided, That this
limitation shall not apply to programs which have been
approved by the Congress and appropriations made therefor.
Sec. 502. 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. 503. 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. 504. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for the procurement of, or for the
payment of, the salary of any person engaged in the
procurement of any hand or measuring tool(s) not produced in
the United States or its possessions except to the extent
that the Administrator of General Services or his designee
shall determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient
quantity of hand or measuring tools produced in the United
States or its possessions cannot be procured as and when
needed from sources in the United States and its possessions,
or except in accordance with procedures prescribed by section
6-104.4(b) of Armed Services Procurement Regulation dated
January 1, 1969, as such regulation existed on June 15, 1970:
Provided, That a factor of 75 per centum in lieu of 50 per
centum shall be used for evaluating foreign source end
products against a domestic source end product. This section
shall be applicable to all solicitations for bids opened
after its enactment.
Sec. 505. None of the funds made available to the General
Services Administration pursuant to section 210(f) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
shall be obligated or expended after the date of enactment of
this Act for the procurement by contract of any guard,
elevator operator, messenger or custodial services if any
permanent veterans preference employee of the General
Services Administration at said date, would be terminated as
a result of the procurement of such services, except that
such funds may be obligated or expended for the procurement
by contract of the covered services with sheltered workshops
employing the severely handicapped under Public Law 92-28.
Only if such workshops decline to contract for the provision
of the covered services may the General Services
Administration procure the services by competitive contract,
for a period not to exceed 5 years. At such time as such
competitive contract expires or is terminated for any reason,
the General Services Administration shall again offer to
contract for the services from a sheltered workshop prior to
offering such services for competitive procurement.
Sec. 506. 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. 507. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available for the purpose of transferring control
over the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center located at
Glynco, Georgia, Tucson, Arizona, and Artesia, New Mexico,
out of the Treasury Department.
Sec. 508. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within
the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 509. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of any
officer or employee of the United States Postal Service,
who--
(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to
prohibit or prevent, any officer or employee of the United
States Postal Service from having any direct oral or written
communication or contact with any Member or committee of
Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the
employment of such officer or employee or pertaining to the
United States Postal Service in any way, irrespective of
whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of
such officer or employee or in response to the request or
inquiry of such Member or committee; 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 officer or employee of the
United States Postal Service, or attempts or threatens to
commit any of the foregoing actions with respect to such
officer or employee, by reason of any communication or
contact of such officer or employee with any Member or
committee of Congress as described in paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
Sec. 510. Funds under this Act shall be available as
authorized by sections 4501-4506 of title 5, United States
Code, when the achievement involved is certified, or when an
award for such achievement is otherwise payable, in
accordance with such sections. Such funds may not be used for
any purpose with respect to which the preceding sentence
relates beyond fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of the Treasury by this or any
other Act shall be obligated or expended to contract out
positions in, or downgrade the position classifications of,
members of the United States Mint Police Force and the Bureau
of Engraving and Printing Police Force, or for studying the
feasibility of contracting out such positions.
Sec. 512. The Office of Personnel Management may, during
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, accept donations
of supplies, services, land and equipment for the Federal
Executive Institute, the Federal Quality Institute, and
Management Development Centers to assist in enhancing the
quality of Federal management.
Sec. 513. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for the procurement of, or for the
payment of, the salary of any person engaged in the
procurement of stainless steel flatware not produced in the
United States or its possessions, except to the extent that
the Administrator of General Services or his designee shall
determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity
of stainless steel flatware produced in the United States or
its possessions, cannot be procured as and when needed from
sources in the United States or its possessions or except in
accordance with procedures provided by section 6-104.4(b) of
Armed Services Procurement Regulations, dated January 1,
1969. This section shall be applicable to all solicitations
for bids issued after its enactment.
Sec. 514. The United States Secret Service may, during the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, accept donations of
money to off-set costs incurred while protecting former
Presidents and spouses of former Presidents when the former
President or spouse travels for the purpose of making an
appearance or speech for a payment of money or any thing of
value.
Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act for
``Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents'' may be
used for partisan political activities.
Sec. 516. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to withdraw the designation of the Virginia Inland
Port at Front Royal, Virginia, as a United States Customs
Service port of entry.
Sec. 517. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
1995 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act.
Sec. 518. None of the funds made available to the Postal
Service by this Act shall be used to transfer mail processing
capabilities from the Las Cruces, New Mexico postal facility,
and that every effort will be made by the Postal Service to
recognize the rapid rate of population growth in Las Cruces
and to automate the Las Cruces, New Mexico postal facility in
order that mail processing can be expedited and handled in
Las Cruces.
Sec. 519. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
reduce the rank or rate of pay of a career appointee in the
SES upon reassignment or transfer.
Sec. 520. 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 ninety
days after his release from such service or from
hospitalization continuing after discharge for a period of
not more than one 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. 521. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may, with respect to an individual employed by the Bureau of
the Public Debt in the Washington Metropolitan Region on
April 10, 1991, be used to separate, reduce the grade or pay
of, or carry out any other adverse personnel action against
such individual for declining to accept a directed
reassignment to a position outside such region, pursuant to a
transfer of any such Bureau's operations or functions to
Parkersburg, West Virginia.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any
individual who, on or after the date of enactment of this
Act, declines an offer of another position in the Department
of the Treasury which is of at least equal pay and which is
within the Washington Metropolitan Region.
Sec. 522. None of the funds made available in this 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 House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 523. Compliance With Buy American Act.--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 Act of March 3, 1993 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly
known as the ``Buy American Act'').
Sec. 524. Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding
Notice.--(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. 525. Prohibition of Contracts.--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 section 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 526. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
relocate any Federal agency, bureau, office or other entity
funded in this Act if the sole reason for the relocation is
that locality pay was increased.
Sec. 527. (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is
amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new
heading:
`` 99 Woven fabrics of synthetic filament ''
yarn (provided for in subheading .
5407.42.00), certified at the time of
entry by the importer to be intended
for use in the manufacture of hot air
balloons (of the type provided for in
subheading 8801.90.00)................
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the fifteenth (15th)
day after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 528. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
available at the end of fiscal year 1995 from appropriations
made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 1995
in this Act, shall remain available through September 30,
1996 for each such account for the purposes authorized:
Provided, That notice of the amounts available pursuant to
this section shall be given to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That not to
exceed 2 percent of the funds so carried over may be used to
pay cash awards to employees, as authorized by law, and not
to exceed 3 percent of the funds so carried over may be used
for employee training programs.
Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that title V of the bill be considered as read, printed in the Record,
and open to amendment at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order to title V?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]
has, I believe, points of order.
points of order
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to interpose a
point of order on title I, page 4, lines 6 to 9.
I spoke with the majority and minority earlier.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the gentleman from California
[Mr. Matsui] that permission has already been secured. The gentleman
may state his point of order.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I and the ranking member are aware of the
points of order to be raised by the gentleman from California. We would
prefer that he did not make them, but he is going to make them, and he
is correct.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against lines 6
through 9 on page 4 of H.R. 4539 that require the Secretary of the
Treasury to transfer $32,960,000 from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to
the General Fund of the Treasury, on the grounds that this provision
violates clause 2 of Rule Twenty-One of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Under present law, the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, which is the
successor to the Customs Forfeiture Fund, contains deposits of
forfeiture proceeds under tariff and narcotics laws generated by the
Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, and the Secret Service to be used for specific
law enforcement activities of those agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The bill would require a transfer of certain of these funds to the
Treasury General Fund notwithstanding existing law, which does not
authorize such a transfer.
This provision constitutes legislation, which is within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, on an appropriations
bill in violation of clause 2, Rule Twenty-One. I urge that this point
of order be sustained.
Mr. HOYER. We concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Studds). The point of order is conceded and
sustained.
The section is stricken.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 527
of H.R. 4539 on the grounds that it violates paragraph (b), clause 5 of
Rule Twenty-One of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Section 527 amends the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States to create a new tariff classification changing the rate of duty
on imports of woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn intended for use
in the manufacture of hot air balloons.
Paragraph (b), clause 5 of Rule Twenty-One makes tax or tariff
measures in any bill or resolution reported by any committee not having
jurisdiction to report tax and tariff measures subject to a point of
order.
The proposed tariff reclassification is clearly a tariff measure that
would have a direct impact on customs revenues. Such a measure is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
For these reasons, section 527 clearly violates the rule against
tariff measures on bills not reported by the committee of jurisdiction.
I urge that this point of order be sustained.
Mr. HOYER. We concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Studds). The point of order is conceded and
sustained.
The section is stricken.
Are there amendments to title V?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE VI--GOVERNMENTWIDE GENERAL PROVISIONS
Departments, Agencies, and Corporations
Section 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 1995 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. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1345, any agency,
department or instrumentality of the United States which
provides or proposes to provide child care services for
Federal employees may reimburse any Federal employee or any
person employed to provide such services for travel,
transportation, and subsistence expenses incurred for
training classes, conferences or other meetings in connection
with the provision of such services: Provided, That any per
diem allowance made pursuant to this section shall not exceed
the rate specified in regulations prescribed pursuant to
section 5707 of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 604. 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 five 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. 605. 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. 5922-24.
Sec. 606. 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, or (5) South Vietnamese, Cambodian, and
Laotian refugees paroled in the United States after January
1, 1975, or (6) nationals of the People's Republic of China
that qualify 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 one 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, the
Republic of the Philippines or to nationals of those
countries allied with the United States in the 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 sixty days) as a result of
emergencies.
Sec. 607. 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. 608. 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 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 12873
(October 20, 1993), 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.
The Administrator of General Services or his designee is
authorized to transfer funds received into the Federal
Buildings Fund pursuant to section 11 of GSA--General
Provisions, Public Law 102-141, October 28, 1991, 105 Stat.
856, 40 U.S.C., sec. 490(f) (7) and (8), or sec. 490g, prior
to the effective date of this legislation, to other Federal
agencies for use by those agencies for the purposes set forth
in those statutes. Such funds shall be available until
expended and shall be in addition to any amounts appropriated
for such purposes.
Sec. 609. 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. 610. 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. 611. Any department or agency to which the
Administrator of General Services has delegated the authority
to operate, maintain or repair any building or facility
pursuant to section 205(d) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, shall retain
that portion of the GSA rental payment available for
operation, maintenance or repair of the building or facility,
as determined by the Administrator, and expend such funds
directly for the operation, maintenance or repair of the
building or facility. Any funds retained under this section
shall remain available until expended for such purposes.
Sec. 612. Pursuant to section 1415 of the Act of July 15,
1952 (66 Stat. 662), foreign credits (including currencies)
owed to or owned by the United States may be used by Federal
agencies for any purpose for which appropriations are made
for the current fiscal year (including the carrying out of
Acts requiring or authorizing the use of such credits), only
when reimbursement therefor is made to the Treasury from
applicable appropriations of the agency concerned: Provided,
That such credits received as exchanged allowances or
proceeds of sales of personal property may be used in whole
or part payment for acquisition of similar items, to the
extent and in the manner authorized by law, without
reimbursement to the Treasury.
Sec. 613. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of
boards, commissions, councils, committees, or similar groups
(whether or not they are interagency entities) which do not
have a prior and specific statutory approval to receive
financial support from more than one agency or
instrumentality.
Sec. 614. 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, 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. 615. 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. 616. No part of any appropriation contained in, or
funds made available by, this or any other Act, shall be
available for any agency to pay to the Administrator of the
General Services Administration a higher rate per square foot
for rental of space and services (established pursuant to
section 210(j) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended) than the rate per square
foot established for the space and services by the General
Services Administration for the fiscal year for which
appropriations were granted.
Sec. 617. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of
any of the funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending on
September 30, 1995, 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 615 of the Treasury, Postal
Service and General Government Appropriations Act, 1994,
until the normal effective date of the applicable wage survey
adjustment that is to take effect in fiscal year 1995, in an
amount that exceeds the rate payable for the applicable grade
and step of the applicable wage schedule in accordance with
such section 615; and
(2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal
year 1995, 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
1995 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 1995 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 1994
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, 1994, 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, 1994,
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, 1994.
(f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law
(including section 8431 of title 5, United States Code, and
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. 618. 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 of the House and Senate. 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. 619. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
112 and 113 of title 3, United States Code, each Executive
agency detailing any personnel shall submit a report on an
annual basis in each fiscal year to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations on all employees or members of
the armed services detailed to Executive agencies, listing
the grade, position, and offices of each person detailed and
the agency to which each such person is detailed.
(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 the Treasury, the Department of
Transportation, and the Department of Energy performing
intelligence functions; and
(7) the Director of Central Intelligence.
(c) The exemptions in part (b) of this section are not
intended to apply to information on the use of personnel
detailed to or from the intelligence agencies which is
currently being supplied to the Senate and House Intelligence
and Appropriations Committees by the executive branch through
budget justification materials and other reports.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the term ``Executive
agency'' has the same meaning as defined under section 105 of
title 5, United States Code (except that the provisions of
section 104(2) of title 5, United States Code, shall not
apply), and includes the White House Office, the Executive
Residence, and any office, council, or organizational unit of
the Executive Office of the President.
Sec. 620. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act
for fiscal year 1995 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
12356; 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. section 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.''
Sec. 621. 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 House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 622. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be expended by any Federal agency to procure
any product or service that is subject to the provisions of
Public Law 89-306 and that will be available under the
procurement by the Administrator of General Services known as
``FTS2000'' unless--
(1) such product or service is procured by the
Administrator of General Services as part of the procurement
known as ``FTS2000''; or
(2) that agency establishes to the satisfaction of the
Administrator of General Services that--
(A) the agency's requirements for such procurement are
unique and cannot be satisfied by property and service
procured by the Administrator of General Services as part of
the procurement known as ``FTS2000''; and
(B) the agency procurement, pursuant to such delegation,
would be cost-effective and would not adversely affect the
cost-effectiveness of the FTS2000 procurement.
(b) After July 31, 1995, subsection (a) shall apply only if
the Administrator of General Services has reported that the
FTS2000 procurement is producing prices that allow the
Government to satisfy its requirements for such procurement
in the most cost-effective manner.
Sec. 623. (a) No amount of any grant made by a Federal
agency shall be used to finance the acquisition of goods or
services (including construction services) unless the
recipient of the grant agrees, as a condition for the receipt
of such grant, to--
(1) specify in any announcement of the awarding of the
contract for the procurement of the goods and services
involved (including construction services) the amount of
Federal funds that will be used to finance the acquisition;
and
(2) express the amount announced pursuant to paragraph (1)
as a percentage of the total costs of the planned
acquisition.
(b) The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to a
procurement for goods or services (including construction
services) that has an aggregate value of less than $500,000.
Sec. 624. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United
States Code, funds made available for fiscal year 1995 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 Numbered 12472 (April 3, 1984).
Sec. 625. Notwithstanding any provisions of this or any
other Act, during fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, any
department, division, bureau, or office may use funds
appropriated by this or any other Act to install telephone
lines, and necessary equipment, and to pay monthly charges,
in any private residence or private apartment of an employee
who has been authorized to work at home in accordance with
guidelines issued by the Office of Personnel Management:
Provided, That the head of the department, division, bureau,
or office certifies that adequate safeguards against private
misuse exist, and that the service is necessary for direct
support of the agency's mission.
Sec. 626. (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. 627. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be used to relocate the Department of Justice
Immigration Judges from offices located in Phoenix, Arizona
to new quarters in Florence, Arizona without the prior
approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 628. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any
other Act for fiscal year 1995 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. 629. (a) Beginning in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter,
for each Federal agency, except the Department of Defense, an
amount equal to 50 percent of--
(1) the amount of each utility rebate received by the
agency for energy efficiency and water conservation measures,
which the agency has implemented; and
(2) the amount of the agency's share of the measured energy
savings resulting from energy savings performance contracts
may be retained and credited to accounts that fund energy and
water conservation activities at the agency's facilities, and
shall remain available until expended for additional specific
energy efficiency or water conservation projects or
activities, including improvements and retrofits, facility
surveys, additional or improved utility metering, and
employee training and awareness programs, as authorized by
section 152(f) of the Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486).
(b) The remaining 50 percent of each rebate, and the amount
of the agency's share of savings from energy savings
performance contracts shall be transferred to the General
Fund of the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year in which
received.
Sec. 630. (a)(1) Subchapter II of chapter 63 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 6327. Absence in connection with serving as a bone-
marrow or organ donor
``(a) An employee in or under an Executive agency is
entitled to leave without loss of or reduction in pay, leave
to which otherwise entitled, credit for time or service, or
performance or efficiency rating, for the time necessary to
permit such employee to serve as a bone-marrow or organ
donor.
``(b) Not to exceed 7 days of leave may be used under this
section by an employee in a calendar year.
``(c) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe
regulations for the administration of this section.''.
(2)(A) Section 6129 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``6327,'' after ``6326,''.
(B) The table of sections for chapter 63 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding after the item relating to
section 6326 the following:
``6327. Absence in connection with serving as a bone-marrow or organ
donor.''.
(b)(1) Section 6307 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
(B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Sick leave provided by this section may be used for
purposes relating to the adoption of a child.''; and
(C) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated by subparagraph
(A)) by inserting ``or for purposes relating to the adoption
of a child,'' after ``ailment,''.
(2) Section 6129 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``6307 (a) and (c),'' and inserting ``6307 (a)
and (d),''.
(3)(A) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe
regulations under which any employee who used or uses annual
leave for an adoption-related purpose, after September 30,
1991, and before the date as of which sick leave first
becomes available for such purpose as a result of the
enactment of this subsection may, upon appropriate written
application, elect to have such employee's leave accounts
adjusted to reflect the amount of annual leave and sick
leave, respectively, which would remain had sick leave been
used instead of all or any portion of the annual leave
actually used, as designated by the employee.
(B) An application under this paragraph may not be approved
unless it is submitted--
(i) within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act or such later date as the Office may prescribe;
(ii) in such form and manner as the Office shall require;
and
(iii) by an individual who is an employee as of the time of
application.
(C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term
``employee'' has the meaning given such term by section
6301(2) of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 631. (a)(1) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for
the statutory pay systems that takes effect in fiscal year
1995 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall
be an increase of 2 percent.
(2) For purposes of each provision of law amended by
section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C.
5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5,
United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect
in fiscal year 1995 in the rates of basic pay for the
statutory pay systems.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``statutory
pay system'' shall have the meaning given such term by
section 5302(1) of title 5, United States Code.
(b) For purposes of any locality-based comparability
payments taking effect in fiscal year 1995 under subchapter I
of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code (whether by
adjustment or otherwise)--
(1) section 5304(a)(3)(B) of such title shall be deemed to
be amended by striking ``\3/10\'' and inserting ``\1/4\'';
and
(2) section 5304a of such title shall be deemed to be
without force or effect.
Sec. 632. Section 5(f) of the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Applicability of backfill prevention provisions to
agencies otherwise exempted from fte reduction.--
``(A) In general.--If any agency is otherwise exempted by
any law from the limitations on full-time equivalent
positions or the restrictions on hiring established by this
section--
``(i) paragraph (1) shall apply to vacancies created in
such agency; and
``(ii) the reductions required pursuant to clause (i) shall
be made in the number of funded employee positions in such
agency.
``(B) Waiver authority.--In the case of a particular
position in an agency, subparagraph (A) may be waived upon a
determination by the head of the agency that the performance
of a critical agency mission requires the waiver.
``(C) Relation to other law.--No law may be construed as
suspending or modifying this paragraph unless such law
specifically amends this paragraph.''.
Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that title VI of the bill through line 7 on page 92 be considered as
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
Point of Order
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the rule, I make a
point of order against section 629 of the bill, beginning on page 87,
line 3, through page 88, line 2, on the grounds that this section
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill in violation of rule
XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House.
HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] is
correct, and we concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Studds). The point of order is conceded and
sustained.
The language is stricken.
Are there further points of order?
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, but I want to alert the
Members of the House to an outrageous practice by the Resolution Trust
Corporation which I had hoped to address in an amendment before this
body, but points of order were not waived.
Mr. Chairman, there are 3,000,000 Federal employees, and these
3,000,000 Federal employees are paid at one pay scale, and the 3,000
employees of the Resolution Trust Corporation are paid 10 percent more.
Now that may be justified, but in addition to being paid 10 percent
more for doing the same work, Mr. Chairman, this body has also given
that agency the right to set their own geographical cost-of-living pay
increases, and, Mr. Chairman and Members of this House, they have
tremendously abused their discretion, and let me give my colleagues one
example.
An employee of the Resolution Trust Corporation working in
Washington, making a salary of $30,000, receives an additional 10
percent above employees of other Federal agencies, and then they
receive an 18-percent cost-of-living adjustment, 18 percent, making
their salary $38,400. How about an employee of the Agriculture
Department? How about an employee of the Energy Department? They make
$30,000, but they do not get the 10-percent bonus, and they only get a
4-percent cost-of-living increase. So, where we pay all other Federal
employees $31,200, Mr. Chairman, we pay these employees $38,400. That
is a difference per employee of $7,200.
In San Francisco an employee of the Resolution Trust Corporation gets
the 10-percent bonus, and then that agency gives them a 31-percent
cost-of-living increase where all other Federal employees working in
San Francisco get an 8-percent cost-of-living adjustment. Now, Mr.
Chairman and Members of this House, what is the cost-of-living
adjustment that is needed in San Francisco? Is it the 31 percent that
RTC employees get, or is it the 8 percent that all other government
workers get?
Should we continue to pay 3,000 employees of this government a 10-
percent bonus and, in addition to that, pay them a cost-of-living
adjustment that is four times what we pay other Federal employees?
{time} 2230
Mr. Chairman, this is an insult to the 3 million Federal employees.
There is no equity here. There is no fairness here. This is an abuse
and an outrage.
Finally, I would say this to you, to tell you what we are talking
about in money terms. I have a son who is working this summer between
his junior and senior years of school. He is paying $40 each week in
Federal income tax. It would take his salary and the salary of 19 other
teenagers making that same salary to compensate for RTC employee's
extra compensation that we pay them over what we pay for the same work
at other Federal agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I close simply by saying this chosen few at the RTC,
this privileged few among our Federal employees, this is an abuse that
I hope we end in fairness to the other 3 million Federal employees, and
in fairness to the taxpayers who are paying millions of dollars each
year in grossly exaggerated cost of living adjustments and bonuses.
Last year this body, and I commend it, ended the abusive practices of
large bonuses over at the RTC, after years of abusing that. The time is
now for us to put the hammer down on more abuse at this runaway agency.
amendment offered by mr. hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer: Page 92, after line 7,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 633. (a) In General.--Hereafter, the employment of any
individual within the Executive Office of the President shall
be placed in leave without pay status if the individual--
(1) has not, within 30 days of commencing such employment
or by October 31, 1994 (whichever occurs later), submitted a
completed questionnaire for sensitive positions (SF-86); or
(2) has not, within 6 months of commencing such employment
or by October 31, 1994 (whichever occurs later), had his or
her background investigation, if completed, forwarded by the
counsel to the President to the United States Secret Service
for issuance of the appropriate White House pass.
(b) Exemption.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
individual specifically exempted from such subsection by the
President or his designee.
Mr. HOYER (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
Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is agreed upon. This is
language that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I have agreed
upon. The gentleman has expressed great concerns about security
provisions at the White House. I have discussed this with the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]
and I believe we have agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, at the end of the proceedings I am going to offer a
limitation amendment which is at the desk. But, very briefly, to
explain it, much of the debate today I think has been about oversight.
We have been here 12 hours and a few minutes now, so maybe this is a
new record of some kind.
During the previous 12 years of Republican administrations, there
were some 36 oversight hearings held by the Congress, including 6 by a
GOP controlled Senate. Again, I think much of the debate today has been
over the oversight issue. Other than the amendment we just accepted on
behalf of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the bill contains
virtually no language on many of the White House concerns that have
surfaced.
During the past 18 months, we really have had a pretty poor record.
The only hearing I am aware of is the one we held in our subcommittee,
and, again, I wanted to thank Chairman Hoyer for his cooperation in
that respect.
I think we must do better. We are responsible for dishing out
taxpayers' dollars. The American people expect accountability. So it is
important that we are able to show that accountability in oversight.
At this point, I am urging Members to defeat the motion to rise so we
can address some of these issues.
Also, in closing, again I would like to thank the chairman for his
cooperation through this, and the good work of the staff, and maybe
this is a new record in the book. I am not sure.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final two lines of the bill.
The clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury, Postal Service and
General Government Appropriations Act, 1995.''
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise and report
the bill with amendments back to the House with sundry amendments, with
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to, and that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 175, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 246]
AYES--245
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--175
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--19
Berman
Blackwell
Collins (IL)
Cooper
Fish
Ford (MI)
Glickman
McDade
Moran
Neal (NC)
Reynolds
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Saxton
Sharp
Swift
Torres
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Whitten
{time} 2251
Messrs. HEFLEY, BLILEY, and BLUTE, and Ms. SNOWE changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CARR of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to rise and report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2254
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gephardt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Studds, 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. 4539)
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, 1995,
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 447, 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.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. myers of indiana
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Myers of Indiana moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4539,
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
examine funding levels for accounts included under Title III
of the bill in light of current White House policy regarding
the use of White House legal counsel on matters not related
to the performance of official duties and promptly report it
back to the House with such recommendations as may be
necessary to ensure that all applicable executive orders,
directives, regulations and laws regarding the use of White
House legal counsel are complied with.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this motion is straightforward. It
sends the bill back to the Committee with instructions to report it
back to the House after examining key White House operations on: The
use of White House legal counsel on matters not related to the
performance of official duties.
The vote on this motion is a vote on this House's willingness to
provide effective oversight of federal programs and agencies and,
specifically, oversight of the operations of the Executive Office of
the President.
This not a partisan issue. The fact that this motion targets White
House operations has nothing to do with politics. But it has everything
to do with applying the same operational standards to the White House
that are applied to other federal agencies. It has to do with good
government.
The bill before us today does a remarkable job of addressing the
potential operational inefficiencies and inadequacies of programs and
agencies within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service and General Government.
A quick look through the report accompanying this bill confirms this:
On page 6, the Committee noted that it would not tolerate wasteful
spending on unnecessary travel government wide.
On page 35, the Committee noted its concern over the ability of IRS
to increase revenue collections based on past performance.
On page 35, the Committee noted it has frequently expressed its
concerns over Tax Systems Modernization (and in fact cut the program by
$517 million).
On page 40, the Committee noted its concern over certain Postal
Service regulations.
On page 49, the Committee noted its concern that a certain agency
failed to return transcripts of hearings in a timely and appropriate
manner.
On page 55, the Committee is concerned that an agency doesn't apply
stringent performance management criteria to its operations.
The list goes on.
The point is this: this committee has gone through programs within
its jurisdiction and noted its concerns over operational
inefficiencies, as appropriate. The only exception is the Executive
Office of the President. On this, the Committee is silent.
Why? Some are claiming that a review of White House operations has
not been done before. That simply isn't the case. On July 1, 1992, this
body debated an amendment to restore funding for the Vice President's
Council on Competitiveness, which had been terminated by the full
Appropriations Committee. The objections over the Council on
Competitiveness were strenuous and strong as voiced during debate on
this floor and the amendment failed.
The Council refused to cooperate with congressional committees
exercising their constitutional oversight responsibilities.
The Council's executive director may have violated the Federal
conflict of interest statute.
The Council operated in secrecy and wouldn't turn over its records to
congressional committees.
Again, the Committee and this body believed that there were serious
operational inefficiencies and conflicts of interests associated with
the Council on Competitiveness and took the bold step of outright
terminating the Council. Some thought this was an extreme measure. The
Republicans defended it, saying that the President had the right to
organize his office and cabinet any way he chooses. But, the bottom
line was that there were perceived problems and this committee and the
House took action to terminate the Council.
If we could address White House operations in 1992, why can we not
address White House operations in 1994? What has changed?
I urge my colleagues to return this bill to committee and insist that
the committee do what is necessary to ensure that the White House
operates in a way that is in compliance with the expectations of good
government and the expectations of the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]
opposed to the motion to recommit?
Mr. HOYER. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized in opposition to
the motion.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit. This is an open rule, Mr. Speaker. We have considered every
amendment that has been offered. We have extensively reviewed this
bill.
I do not think there is any doubt but we have looked at this very,
very closely.
I want to say with respect to the legal counsel, Mr. Speaker, I will
tell the Members that we are assured that no funds are being expended
for any private use of the counsel. We do not believe this is
necessary. I ask Members to vote against the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276,
noes 139, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 247]
AYES--276
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grandy
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Inslee
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Michel
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quillen
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Roemer
Rogers
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Solomon
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--139
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kim
King
Klug
Knollenberg
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
McCandless
McCurdy
McInnis
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Pallone
Paxon
Penny
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Ridge
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Slattery
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Swett
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Torkildsen
Upton
Walker
Weldon
Wolf
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--19
Berman
Blackwell
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Cooper
Fish
Ford (MI)
Glickman
McDade
Moran
Neal (NC)
Reynolds
Saxton
Sharp
Thomas (CA)
Torres
Washington
Whitten
Wilson
{time} 2313
Mr. KASICH and Mr. REGULA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________