[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 68 (Thursday, May 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 444 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. 4454.
{time} 1228
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. 4454) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman for California [Mr. Fazio] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chair, I want to begin by saying it is a pleasure to
bring H.R. 4454, the legislative branch appropriations bill for this
coming fiscal year 1995, to the floor; but if I said that, it would
probably not be quite accurate. It is not really my pleasure, but it is
our responsibility and, regrettably, it always falls to the majority to
take responsibility for the maintenance of the institution.
So, the almost party-line vote that we saw on the rule should not be
surprising. It is normally going to be the job of the majority to stand
and fight for those elements of the institution that must be protected
if this coequal branch is to be able to exercise its responsibilities.
I do hope, at the end of the day, by the time we have gone through a
number of amendments, we will have some bipartisan support for this
bill. I think it is important because, frankly, up to this point we
have operated in a very bipartisan manner.
I would like, first of all, to express my personal appreciation to
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], who is in the first Congress of
his acting as ranking member on this legislative branch Appropriations
Subcommittee.
{time} 1230
It is not a chosen task on his part. It was an obligation he
accepted, and I want to pay tribute to him because, as a member of our
committee for many years, 20 years I believe, it was certainly not his
responsibility to take up this burden, but he has taken it up and
performed it in the best possible manner, and I have enjoyed very much
working closely with him as we fashioned this bill and brought it to
the floor.
I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran],
my colleague who has been the ranking member for the first time in this
Congress. This is the second bill that he has helped us bring to the
floor, and he has been a true friend and colleague sitting through all
the hearings and participating in a very meaningful way in our work.
I also want to thank the other members of our commitee: The gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] who is chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] who presided over the rule;
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Chapman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. McDade], who also contributed to the bill and helped us bring it
to this point.
I also want to point out, Madam Chair, that we worked very closely
with the Committee on House Administration, and other subcommittees,
other standing committees, but none more important than the Committee
on House Administration, and so I want to thank that committee,
primarily its chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose]
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the minority ranking
member of that committee and all those who contribute to the
committee's work, particularly the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] and
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the chairman and the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Accounts, the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Manton] and the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], the chair
and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police, and
then, of course, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay]
and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], chairman and ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, which is
important to a major element of this bill.
Madam Chairman, this, of course, is the annual appropriation for the
operations of the legislative branch of the Federal Government. We are
a small part of the total budget picture. Despite all the hue and cry
and the lengthy debate that will last all day and into the night, this
bill only constitutes .12 percent of the entire Federal budget. That is
twelve one-hundredths of 1 percent, or one-eighth of 1 percent, of the
Federal budget, and yet we are one-third of the Federal system under
the Constitution. This is a fundamental branch, necessary to carry out
the constitutional duties of the Federal Government. We enact laws, we
conduct the oversight. The Executive spends the money and, of course,
executes the programs, and the judiciary upholds and interprets the
laws of the land. But we have a fundamental coequal responsibility, and
this very important bill provides for it.
Included in it, of course, Madam Chair, are the House of
Representatives and the Senate, the support agencies, such as the
Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office
of Technology Assessment, the Congressional Research Service, and then,
of course, a number of agencies that we look to ferret out waste, and
fraud and abuse, conduct financial audits; for example, the General
Accounting Office. We have included in this bill the Government
Printing Office and the Library of Congress. Decisions by our Founding
Fathers to include them in this branch have remained intact for over
200 years. Also, of course, important entities like the Copyright
Office, the Books for the Blind, and physically handicapped program,
the National Library Service, the depository library program, that
serves so many regional and other Federal document libraries around the
country, and the Botanic Garden.
Madam Chair, the bill before us totals $1.88 billion in budget
authority for fiscal year 1995. At this point, these figures do not
include Senate items which will be added when the Senate takes up this
bill in the other body. The budget request was just under $2 billion.
It has been reduced by some $87.1 million. That is a 4.4-percent
reduction under the detailed requests that were submitted in the
President's budget. Under the Budget Act, Madam Chair, our committee
has allocated 2.4 billion for the legislative bill. The bill before us
contains 1.8 million in discretionary budget authority. That means we
are $587 million under the target. A large amount of that, of course,
is because Senate operations are not included in the bill before us.
But if we add the Senate request, we would be $45.6 billion below the
amount that has been allocated to us under the budget process by the
full Committee on Appropriations. That is a 2.4-percent reduction below
our share of the total pie. We did a similar analysis on our outlay
target, and our calculation is that the bill is about $45 million under
the 602(b), so called, outlay ceiling, a 2.3-percent reduction.
Now we heard a lot of rhetoric on the rule today about the burgeoning
size of the legislative branch and the need to provide leadership. I
think we are doing that, and over the next few minutes I hope to show
in greater detail just how that has been accomplished and how much
progress has been made.
In the past 2 years, beginning with 1992 as a basis point, we have
reduced the legislative full-time employment by a least 5.6 percent.
That is over 1,600 employees. That is due to a 4-percent reduction plan
in last year's bill and an additional full-time equivalent employee
savings due to budget cutbacks and a retirement incentive program.
Appropriations funding for the last two fiscal years, 1992 through
1994, have actually reduced legislative branch operation funds by $27
million. That is an absolute cut. In 1992 we provided $1.81 billion in
operational funds. By 1994 the operating funds levels have been reduced
to $1.78 billion. Several rescissions were enacted which subsequently
reduced the appropriated amounts even further. They came after the
fact. If we go back to fiscal year 1992, when the Federal downsizing
effort began, the fiscal year 1995 legislative bill is now $224.5
million below the CBO baseline projected from 1992. That, in effect
using the same standard which is used for the other bills that will
come to this floor, reflects a 10.7-percent drop in budget authority
under where we would be if we had maintained normal current service
growth in the past 3 years. That is, I think, testimony to the
willingness of this Congress to show leadership.
I would like to use this chart and several others that follow to show
in more graphic terms the way we have made progress in reducing not
only the number of dollars spent on this branch of government, but also
the number of people employed here.
The first chart shows how appropriations have declined over the last
15 years. We actually have a very abrupt reduction from 1979 to 1994 in
millions of dollars in terms of what is now being spent on the
legislative branch, and perhaps the best way to indicate how we have
made that is to put it in the context of other bills that will be
coming before us.
As my colleagues can see, this is practically flat. The legislative
bill in the House has been actually almost flat compared to the
consumer price index which has gone up rather markedly, more than
double, and the executive branch which shows a rather dramatic decline
from 1978 to 1995.
To more specifically cite where we stand in light of the other
branches of Government and the increases that they have made in
appropriations, the legislative branch has actually shown a 1.4-percent
reduction in real dollars while the executive branch has gone up almost
30 percent and the judicial branch almost 166 percent since 1979. This
shows that we have once again been providing leadership.
The next chart will show even more graphically just how well we have
done in terms of other administration agencies that really are in some
ways comparable to us. This shows the percent of increase for a number
of agencies in the last 4 years. Ours has gone up 3.7 percent while
OMB, which is the administrative servant of the executive branch, 10.6
percent; the average Cabinet secretariat, the administrative employees
in each Cabinet, by over 14 percent; the judicial branch, 44 percent;
and White House policy people, almost 51 percent.
{time} 1240
Most of this, of course, occurred in the last Bush administration.
Now, trends in the appropriation as it relates to staff for
committees and Members also shows dramatically the degree to which we
have provided the very leadership that others were demanding of us in
the debate on the rule just a minute ago. The committee staff, since
1979, in real dollars, adjusted for inflation, shows a 5-percent
reduction. Members' personal staff in real dollars is down 6.4 percent.
That is a dramatic example of just where we have made the tight fit
that people have demanded of this legislative branch of Government.
The next chart once again shows how we compare with the judicial
branch and the executive branch in terms of increased staff since 1979.
The judicial staff has gone up almost 100 percent. Perhaps the effort
to fight crime is reflected in those statistics. The executive branch
has gone up a modest 3.3 percent.
This branch of Government, despite all the rhetoric we have heard,
has gone down 8.6 percent since 1979. We hear the constant rhetoric
about the burgeoning staff, the overloaded congressional staff, with
nothing to do except serve the needs, the political needs often, it is
said, of the Members. We have shown leadership since 1979. And let us
show once again how that leadership compares to other agencies that are
essentially administrative.
The Treasury Department, essentially an administrative agency, shows
a dramatic increase since 1981, through 1995. The Justice Department
again has part of that effort to fight crime, goes up rather
significantly. The judiciary in general is clearly on the rise. The
House tracks almost straight across-the-board. We have actually seen a
reduction in our staff, and that can be seen even more clearly on this
chart where we can see that in 1981 there were 11,000 people working
for the House and now just a little over 10,700. The legislative branch
in general is below where it was in 1981 by almost 3,000.
The executive branch, of course, if we look at this chart, while it
jumped up in the 1980's and into the 1990's, has gone back down again
in the reinvention of Government to the level it was at in 1981.
This chart here is also reflective of the real effort that has been
made here in every area of our bill, and certainly in the House of
Representatives, to find the necessary restraint. Members' staff is
lower today than it was in 1981 by several hundred. Committee staffs is
lower than it was in 1981 by several hundred.
The only increase in our branch of Government that has occurred at
all is in the support agencies that do not individually support Members
but help the entire administration on a bipartisan basis. This is where
we get the efficiency and productivity to serve the needs of the
committees and to make the public policy decisions that are essential.
I would like to go on and give the Members a little information about
the components of this bill because they are also misunderstood. The
most important thing to point out is that almost 75 percent of this
bill is in people whom we employ to work in this branch of Government.
We are spending money on the people whose intelligence contributes to
the efficient effort of our responsibilities and the policy formulation
that the Founding Fathers gave us to do. So 75 percent of this bill is
simply the compensation, the total package of pay and benefits for our
employees, which, as we have indicated in our prior charts, have been
reduced in number.
We also have 15 percent of this bill providing information, support,
telephones, computers, business equipment, things that make it possible
for these people to be efficient in the use of their time. And the
reason we have been able to take on the tremendous burdens of this
Congress in the last 10 to 15 years is reflected in the information
support that increased the productivity of all these individuals and
made it possible for them to get the ever-larger job done.
The maintenance of structures here at the Capitol, the capital outlay
kinds of expenditures, these are very, very small. We have probably
been guilty of neglecting our physical plant. Today we will do what we
can to repair some of that, because in fact this is not just an office
building for Congress, it is a National Monument and something that is
there for the American people hopefully to have perpetuated for
generations.
But this leads to a problem that I think is inherent in this bill.
When 75 percent of this bill goes to pay people for their compensation,
including their benefits package, we can see immediately
how complicated that is when it comes to budget, because the typical
Federal employee, when we total up their COLA's, their locality pay,
their longevity, which means a merit increase on average, not all of
them getting them every year but some getting them periodically, and
the cost of benefits which increasingly falls on the House, given the
requirement under the Social Security law that we joined in the mid-
1980's that we are the employer and contribute for the employee, and
also under the new Federal Employee Retirement System, where we provide
the employer match, not the Treasury under the old Civil Service
System, and yes, as well, in the health care area where all the Federal
employees' health care costs continue to up. We pay, if we were to
fully fund all these categories, before we do anything else in a new
fiscal year, a 6.2-percent increase per every one of those employees
that make up 75 percent of our branch of Government.
We did not do that in this year's bill, and I want to outline, if I
can, what we did do. This does remain subject to adjustment as general
decisions about employee pay are made, but the most important thing to
point out now is that this committee did not provide 6.2 percent, it
provided 3.76 percent, and we did that by providing a 1.6-percent COLA
and no locality pay. That has provided us relief to the tune of $20 to
$30 million in this bill.
I am hopeful that we will be able to reconcile whatever was done here
with those decisions that were made for the entire Federal work force.
The most important thing I would point out is that there is
documentation available to show that those people who work in
comparable positions for the House of Representatives are paid 40
percent less than those in the other body, the Senate. We have probably
been overly parsimonious with the people who work here, and, therefore,
we have a lot of turnover and fewer senior people to provide us with
the intelligence we need. I can see among us people shaking their heads
who are directly affected by our tight-fisted approach.
The last chart I would like to show is one that goes to the question
of mail. Poll after poll shows that 70 to 75 percent of the American
people, when questioned about the frank, indicate that they would like
at least as much or more communication with their Members of Congress,
and yet when we come to the floor to debate these bills, all we hear
about is the need to cut or eliminate our ability to do that. I want to
show what we have accomplished since Mr. Frenzel, a former Republican
Member from Minnesota, and I worked to reform the franking system.
{time} 1350
The bottom line is in 5 years since that reform has been in place, we
have saved $269 million that would have been spend on the frank. We did
not do it by any magic. We did it by simply giving each individual
Member an amount they could spend, that they were individually
accountable for. And as a result, I think you can see, there has been
an abrupt decline in the amount that has been spent annually on the
frank.
People are using it responsibly for town hall meetings, to
communicate substantively with their constituents. The profligate use
which a few engaged in to the detriment of all is over. I think you can
see we have now operated at a rather low level in light of what is
currently available to spend. Members are being responsible.
Last, I would like to show a trend that I think is maybe the most
effective way of showing the American people how we have progressed in
getting the message that they have been sending us about setting an
example in this branch of Government, not leading the trend to
increased spending, but leading the trend to reduce spending on us,
those of us who are the direct representatives of the people.
This shows that in 1979, when I first came to Congress, we were
spending $6.82 as the cost of representation, really as representative
of the entire legislative branch. This includes all those agencies that
do not just support us, like the Library of Congress that does the
cataloguing for all our local libraries, and like the General
Accounting Office that ferrets out waste. But for purposes of argument,
we put them all together: $6.82.
Today, in constant dollars, it is almost one dollar less, $5.94. If
you really indicated exactly what is being spent on the House of
Representatives itself, it would be somewhere in this area, probably
less than $3. It is not a lot, when you are considering this entire
branch of Government.
So let me say, Madam Chairman, I would at this point place my remarks
in the Record, and indicate that I think this is a bill that Members
can be very proud of. I think it is the kind of bill that really does
speak to what the American people have been telling us. We understand
this is an occasion for rhetoric and hyperbole. It always has been
thus, it will continue to be. It is apparently part of the American
political fabric.
It seems to me we will have a number of votes today that will
probably pare this bill back quite dramatically from a 5.7 percent
budget authority increase to much less. I do think when we get to the
end and Members have expressed themselves on the 10 or 11 amendments
that have been made in order, we will have an opportunity to show
whether or not we want to take political advantage, and certainly those
in the minority are in a position to do that. They do not have to do
the heavy lifting. Those who are in the majority have the burden of
carrying the responsibility that our Founding Fathers thrust upon us.
I may not have enjoyed the task, but I am proud of the work. I am
proud of the service that has been rendered by members of this
committee.
components of increase over 1994
There is an increase of $101.6 million in the bill: $56.4 million of
the increase is for mandatory items--COLA's, 1.6 percent,
annualizations of last year's locality pay, recurring longevity, merit,
step increases, benefit costs, and an overdue printing bill owed to the
Government Printing Office; $17.1 million for changes in prices to
acquire the same services as in 1994--printing rate increase, postal
rate increase, book acquisitions, talking book machine prices.
The balance, +$32.8 million, is for several much needed projects.
$6.58 million for six new elevators at Longworth; $7 million to begin
reconstructing the Botanic Garden Conservatory; $4.65 million to begin
a phased upgrade of the House telephone switch; $2.94 million for
several other House equipment purchases; $2 million for additional
depository library documents; $3.2 million for various other physical
plant projects; $4.3 million for the asbestos removal and building
renovation at the GAO building; and $3 million for the roll-out of a
new ADP network at GAO.
These increases are offset by decreases of $4.6 million--primarily a
reduction in House mail volume and some program efficiencies at the
Library of Congress.
major items in bill
House of Representatives: The bill provides $735.5 million for the
operations of the House. This will cover payroll costs for about 10,730
full-time equivalent positions, pay increase capped at 1.6 percent,
merit increases funded. That's 2,565 less than authorized. We have
included funds for an upgrade to our telephone switch, and various
other equipment expenditures. House franked mail is reduced by $5
million under this year's level, even with a 10.2 percent rate
increase. CRS has estimated we have saved $69 million because of the
franked mail reform enacted in January 1990.
Joint Items: Allowing $82.8 million for joint items, including the
Capitol Police, the joint committees of House and Senate, the Guide
Service, and the Attending Physician.
Architect of the Capitol: Allowing $131.3 million overall, includes
Botanic Garden and Library buildings and grounds maintenance. We have
to keep up with repairs to our physical plant--which has been neglected
for several years because of budget cutbacks. Allowed--start renovation
of conservatory, $7 million; six new elevators at Longworth, $6.6
million; escalator and elevator modernization; some drainage
improvement projects, and continuation of work on ADA and the Cannon
rewiring projects.
Study agencies: CRS, OTA, and CBO will be funded at current service
levels.
Library of Congress (Non-CRS part): $260.2 million allowed and
authority to spend another $132 million in receipts. The Library has
assured us that this budget provides enough to keep arrearage reduction
project on schedule. Also, we have provided the funds needed to improve
their affirmative action and human resources goals and to pursue
methods to digitize collections, the future input to the information
superhighway.
Government Printing Office: The depository library program will have
a $3 million increase. We also allowed funds for a printing rate
increase for GPO charges for congressional printing.
General Accounting Office: $439.5 million--allows ``roll out'' of an
agency-wide ADP audit data collection network; and continuation of the
asbestos removal and building renovation project.
legislative branch staffing
This is the second year of a 4-percent staffing [FTE] reduction
program. Overall, legislative branch FTE's will be down by about 1,680
employees--without including the Senate reductions which are unknown at
this time. The 1,680 represents a 5.6 percent staffing [FTE] reduction
from 1992 in the legislative branch payroll. The House share of this
reduction is 452 FTEs.
general and administrative provisions
Section 101: an administrative provision transferring authority over
the majority and minority printers to the Director of Non-Legislative
and Financial Services and charging a reasonable monthly fee for rental
of offices and utilities.
Section 103: adds a grade 12 salary level to the current grade 11
authority for the nurses in the attending physician's office.
Section 305: repeals the provision of section 307 in last year's act
that requires 10 percent of all full-time equivalent reductions be made
in positions that are GS-14 and above in salary grade levels.
Section 306: transfers leave balances for four employees who were
transferred from the House Post Office to the Architect of the Capitol
last year.
Several housekeeping provisions that facilitate the operations of the
House and other agencies.
interesting comparisons
Since 1978: CPI has increased 5.2 percent per year, on average; the
legislative branch appropriation--Senate excluded--has increased by 4.6
percent per year--that means we have reduced our budget in real dollar
terms; Congressional Operations has averaged 5.1 percent per year--
that's also a decline in real terms compared with the 5.2 percent;
executive branch budget, 6.7 percent per year;
40 percent higher rate of growth than legislative branch.
In last 2 years--between fiscal 1992 and 1994: we have begun a
statutorily required 4 percent FTE reduction program; we have exceeded
the 4 percent--we are now estimating 5.6 percent; we reduced House
budget from $709 million in 1992 to $686 million in 1994; at $735
million in 1995--that's only a growth of 1.2 percent per year, not
enough to keep up with modest growth in current staff salaries.
summary
The bill: $1.88 billion.
BA compared to: 1994 operating level: A $102 million, 5.7 percent
increase; 1995 request: An $87 million, -4.4 percent reduction; 1995
CBO baseline: A $27.9 million, 1.5 percent increase; 1995 baseline
projected from 1992 bill: A $224.5 million decrease, -10.7 percent; and
1995 602(b): A $45.6 million, -2.4 percent reduction--Senate excluded.
Outlays compared to: 1994 operating level: A $78.3 million, 4.4
percent increase; 1995 request: A $78.7 million, -4.4 percent
reduction; 1995 CBO baseline: A $23.4 million, 1.3 percent increase;
1995 baseline projected from 1992 bill: A $104.5 million decrease, -5.3
percent; and 1995 602(b): A $45 million -2.3 percent decrease--Senate
excluded.
conclusion
We have a good bill. There will be amendments. But after we deal with
the amendments--I believe we can pass this bill--and defend it on the
merits.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
Mr. GRAMS. Madam Chairman, during consideration of the fiscal year
1993 legislative branch appropriations bill, I offered, and this body
passed, an amendment to prohibit midterm office moves in the House of
Representatives--with an average savings of $15,000 per vacancy.
I am pleased to say to my colleagues that it worked. Both Vern Ehlers
and Frank Lucas now occupy the offices of their predecessors, and they
will continue to do so until the end of this Congress. Our newest
colleague, Ron Lewis, will move into the office of the late William
Natcher--and I am willing to bet anyone that this will save the
taxpayer more than $15,000.
Sure, it may seem like a drop in the bucket. But last year's
amendment showed the American people that Congress is starting to hear
and heed their concerns, that Members of the House are capable of
spending their money as wisely as we spend our own.
It's about time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this prohibition expires in October. So
I urge the House Building Commission to make this commonsense reform a
permanent change that does not need to be renewed annually. I also urge
the Commission to rethink the House office lottery system to make it
less costly to the American taxpayer.
It is a small step, but an important one--and one which has already
saved precious taxpayer dollars.
For those reasons, let us change the way the House allocates office
assignments--before another freshman from the seventh floor of
Longworth offers the same amendment to the fiscal year 1996 bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Madam Chairman, I would like to echo the comments of my good friend
and chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] about the
members of the committee and how diligent they have all been in trying
to present to the House a bill that would be acceptable to the Members,
and especially to the chairman, who is a real gentleman and has been
very, very helpful and constructive with those of us in the minority as
we work to make this bill happen.
I would like to call attention to the members of the staff as well,
which the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] mentioned. In addition
to those, Mrs. Liz Dawson, who has worked this committee bill for some
time. This will be the last time she works this bill. She is moving on
to another assignment. Also Mr. Greg Lankler, who has learned a lot
quickly about this particular bill.
This is not a bad piece of legislation. We have worked hard to make
the House of Representatives and the Senate, the legislative body, be
recognized as such. I really do not like the many, many attacks that we
see on the House of Representatives as an institution, for whatever the
reason, whether it is rhetoric or whether it is a cheap shot or for
political purposes, because I have a tremendous respect for this, the
people's House. And I might not agree with everything that this House
does, and I do not, but I have a great respect for the House and a
great respect for the Senate. And it is important that we fund these
bodies, because we are the people's representatives.
Because we are the people's representatives, though, we have an
obligation I think to set an example for the other agencies of the
Government, and especially in these really hard fiscal times when we do
not have the money that we would like to have to fund all of the
programs that we would like to fund.
With that in mind, I would have to report that this bill is an
increase over last year's bill. Now, if you relate that increase to the
national defense budget, it is a little blip on the screen, barely
that. But if you relate it to the small amount of this bill, and I want
to say again what the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has already
said, this is a very small amount. The legislative branch
appropriations bill, if you drew a chart, would barely be a blip on the
line. That is how small it is relative to the rest of the Federal
Government. But nevertheless, a small increase in a small account adds
up to a 5.7-percent increase over what we appropriated last year.
Now, during the subcommittee markup and the subcommittee
consideration, we basically went along with this, with the
understanding that the Members of the House would have an opportunity
to work on this bill to bring it down below the 5.7 percent increase
that it represents today. And we have some amendments today that we
hope will be considered seriously by the House, that are not rhetoric,
that are not cheap shots, and they are not political. But they are an
attempt to have the House set an example for the rest of the Government
agencies, that we could get by with a little bit less.
Some of the amendments that we hoped would be made in order were not.
We fought that battle and we lost that battle, which is usual. But,
nevertheless, there are still some other amendments we would like to
see considered today.
Before we get into the amendments, I would like to say that there are
some parts of this bill where actually we have made some reductions. We
reduced the official mail account by a small amount; the LBJ intern
program has basically been eliminated for this year; former Speaker's
staff has been reduced by $127,000; the office of the attending
physician has been reduced by $167,000.
In closing, we do some constructive things here. We have included
language to transfer the authority over the majority and minority
printers to the director of nonlegislative services and require they be
charged a reasonable monthly rent for the space and utilities that they
use. That is a step in the right direction toward getting more
accountability.
{time} 1300
We also directed the Acting Director of Nonlegislative Services to
conduct a study for the purpose of possibly consolidating and/or
contracting out the printing, folding, and mailing services of the
House. We believe that this is another step in the right direction. We
applaud the inclusion of these items in this bill.
Still, there is a lot to be done. We can set the example that we
ought to be setting. We can reduce this bill by some of the amendments
that will be presented and go on to hopefully fund the legislative
branch of Government in a responsible way, while still setting the
example for the people that we represent that we really can get by with
less.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California,
the distinguished chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee of the
Committee on Appropriations, for yielding time to me, and also thank
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for this courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to amendments 11, 12, and
others which would significantly cut this legislation. I am
particularly opposed to 11 and 12, because they would attack the
funding in the General Accounting Office.
Madam Chairman, these kinds of amendments are directed at blinding
the Congress, at denying us the ability to gather the information we
need to legislate well. What does the General Accounting Office do? The
General Accounting Office is the arm of the Congress whose purpose and
function it is to go out and audit, both on a performance basis and on
a simple bean-counting basis, the expenditures of public money.
This is the agency which has worked with us to catch cost overruns in
defense, contracting misbehavior of the Defense Department, contracting
misbehavior at the EPA, contracting misexpenditure of money in
connection with grants and public colleges, misexpenditures in
connection with defense, misexpenditures in connection with space,
misexpenditures in connection with leases of public lands,
misexpenditures in connection with expenditures under Medicare and
Medicaid.
To cut an agency of this kind is absolutely wrong. If a Member of
this body professes to be in favor of saving money, the way to save
money is to see to it that we have a strong, active GAO--an agency
which engages vigorously in pursuing wrongdoing, waste, fraud, and
abuse. Our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the committee chaired by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the Committee on Government
Operations, use this agency for the purpose of seeing to it that
wrongdoing is cut, that misexpenditures and misappropriations of public
money and the wastage of public resources, is brought to a halt.
If we are serious in this Congress about preventing waste, fraud, and
abuse, if Members are sincere about cutting public expenditures and
reducing the deficit, then the one tool that is available to us that
works better than any other, is the General Accounting Office.
I find it most strange, Mr. Speaker, that attempts are made in this
Chamber by Members sitting on this side of the aisle, Members who
profess to be outraged about deficits, to cut the General Accounting
Office, to reduce its ability to serve this Congress, to eliminate its
ability to catch wrongdoing, to catch waste, to catch fraud, and to
catch abuse.
An expenditure on GAO saves money for the taxpayers. It produces a
much more efficient government. It enables the Congress to know what is
going on with regard to public expenditures. It enables us to have a
tool which not only can audit expenditures of public money, but which
can engage in analysis of expenditures of public money and expenditure
policies, so we know what it is in fact we are doing.
Without this kind of tool, without this kind of ability, this body is
not able to take the steps that have to be taken to reduce public
expenditures and to see to it that the will of the Congress, the will
of the people, and the public moneys are properly dealt with.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Madam Chairman, I would hope that maybe I could ask the gentleman
from California [Mr. Fazio] a couple of questions about a news report
that appeared today indicating that there are $13 million in unpaid
bills in the HIS system.
Can the gentleman from California tell us whether or not he can
confirm that that is the reality?
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I have no knowledge, have not read the
news report, nor have I any knowledge about that issue. I would suggest
it should be addressed to the chairman of the Committee on House
Administration. That is the responsible party for HIS.
Mr. WALKER. What occurs to me, Madam Chairman, is we have the
appropriation bill before us today. This is the only time we are going
to get to address it. If I understand correctly what the chairman of
the Committee on House Administration has stated, it is that the
Architect of the Capitol owes HIS $7.4 million; the Finance Office owes
$3.6 million, the Joint Tax Committee owes $1.4 million; the House
Administration Committee, the chairman's own committee, owes $305,000;
the House Clerk owes $28,000; the postal operations owe $51,000; the
Attending Physician owes $23,000; office furnishings owes $36,000; and
the office systems management owes $277,000.
The chairman of the Committee on House Administration describes these
people as deadbeats who need to be paying this money to the proper
authority. The question that I have is, would not one way of assuring
that these deadbeats get done justice would be to cut $13 million out
of that account and force HIS to go and get this money?
Mr. FAZIO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Madam Chairman, I
certainly want to reiterate my initial comment. I do not have any
information at all about what the gentleman is pointing to.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Chairman, none of the testimony that the gentleman
took indicated this kind of shortfall?
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we
took no testimony to the effect that those bills were outstanding and
remain due. I would suggest, however, that if that money is actually
due, and there will have to be, obviously, some effort to determine
that, the way to make sure it can be paid is certainly not to be
cutting their appropriation. Those agencies need to be able to make
those payments, if in fact they are due.
Mr. WALKER. What I was suggesting was that HIS should be cut, that
HIS maybe should be reduced to force them to go out and get this money.
It appears to me that part of the problem here is that HIS has not been
very diligent about going after the money. If you have the House
Architect owing $7.4 million, I assume that that is probably more than
a 1-year kind of problem, and it just occurs to me that maybe HIS has
not been particularly of a mind to go get the money that is owed them
from all these various places. That is a pretty long list of people who
are now being described as deadbeats.
Mr. FAZIO. If the gentleman will yield further, it may well be that
those bills are outstanding and do need to be paid. I certainly would
hope that they would be.
However, the budget that we are submitting today is for 1995, for the
next fiscal year, and I believe that the budget request that has been
made is a reasonable one. HIS is really a utility to us.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, how much is in
it for HIS?
Mr. FAZIO. If the gentleman will yield further, $16 million, I
believe. That is basically the cost of running the utility that serves
all of us with computers.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Chairman, let me understand. They have a total
appropriation of $16 million and $13 million worth of deadbeats? Do I
understand correctly, Madam Chairman, that the entire budget is $16
million, and they have $13 million of money owed them?
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, this
is an entity which bills customers. It is like a utility, as I was
saying earlier. We have for the first time in the last Congress begun
to actually appropriate for them in this bill, but I really would not
be able to speak to the question of how much may be owed.
I believe the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], who has just
joined us, may be able to handle that question.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Rose], I was just asking if this is something where HIS
at this point is owed $13 million.
Mr. ROSE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentlemen from North Carolina.
Mr. ROSE. Madam Chairman, we do believe that is the case.
Mr. WALKER. The question is, Madam Chairman, for how long have these
bills been accumulating?
Mr. ROSE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think some of
them are 3 or 4 years old. I will be very candid with the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has
expired. The time is controlled by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] or the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. ROSE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding time to
me.
Madam Chairman, I want to say first that I strongly support the
passage of the legislative appropriation bill. I think the Chairman has
done an excellent job.
Madam Chairman, we are going to make sure in the future that
appropriations and authorizations track each other more carefully for
purposes of avoiding the kinds of shortfalls that we have experienced
for fiscal year 1994.
Madam Chairman, the question of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] is how long have these things been owing. The Senate has had
the Architect do things for them that the Architect has paid for out of
its budget. We believe that these things fall into that category.
{time} 1310
In other words, we believe that the Architect, even House
Administration, have had things done for it by HIS that they should now
pay for.
We believe that in an austerity-type situation we are in in 1994,
that the best answer is to bill these entities for work that they have
done to HIS. That is a short-term solution, it is not a long-term
solution, but we believe that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young]
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] have crafted what can be
a long-term solution for 1995 and a model of that followed for the
future.
But I restate: We do need to talk more in the future about a matching
of authorizations and appropriations. We have always allowed some slack
because that gave the committee flexibility to reprogram some funds,
but we may have to change that in the future.
Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Madam Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the time.
Madam Chairman, during the marathon discussion of this bill in the
Rules Committee, we had an impassioned debate about commitment to this
institution and the merits of trying to change the way Congress works
to improve its present low standing with the people. In frustration
with the low performance ratings Americans continuously give us, some
of my friends on the other side of the aisle, lashed out against those
they say seek to take cheap shots at Congress and grandstand about
reform. I understand their frustration with the lack of trust this
Congress engenders with the people it is meant to serve--but I
sincerely believe such criticism is off-target. It is, in fact,
tantamount to shooting the messenger. I submit to my colleagues that
the ill-repute with which so many Americans hold this institution is
not caused by those who point out its failings, but rather by those
failings themselves and the fact that we continuously appear to take
better care of ourselves than we do of the people we serve across this
Nation. Americans are dissatisfied with Congress because they do not
see desired results--and one reason our job approval ratings are
dismally low is that we have failed to get control of the Nation's
budget. So, in this time of belt-tightening and fiscal constraint, as
we consider the bill that includes funding for our own offices, our
staff, our salaries and our mail, should we not be leading by example,
as Bill Young suggests? Some 30 amendments to tighten up that were
offered in good faith by colleagues on both sides of the aisle were
denied by the Rules Committee last night. Despite efforts on the part
of the minority to negotiate a fair compromise--in which major,
significant cutting amendments for the entire legislative branch, the
GAO, franking, the GPO and legislative service organizations could have
been considered. The majority would not yield or granted only minor
concession. And so, once again, the majority is limiting Members'
accountability for making tough choices in full view of the
constituents. Once again, the majority is exempting Congress from
laws--such as the Freedom of Information Act that other Americans are
required to obey. Once again the majority is denying scrutiny and
debate of their special interests--things like the legislative service
organizations. Once again the majority has preempted the right of all
Members under the standing rules of the House to come straight to the
floor to offer cutting amendments.
This appropriations bill does a few good things toward cutting costs
and I congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. But there is missed opportunity
to do so much more to restore faith that we really can be trusted with
the tax dollars of hard working Americans.
After 40 years of majority party management of the House, the facts
are we are bigger and further in debt than ever. This bill does not
turn that around and it does not deserve a yes vote.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the chairman of the Committee on
Government Operations.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, we cannot begin this discussion without
paying tribute to the chair and the floor manager of the Committee on
Appropriations Legislative Subcommittee. The gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio] goes through this every year. The gentleman is asked
questions about subject matter that are not truly appropriate to his
jurisdiction, and the gentleman gives a good account of himself.
Madam Chairman, I join in the support of the measure that is now
before the House, but I strongly oppose any attempts by amendments that
will affect negatively the General Accounting Office. Here is why: I
oppose any attempt to sabotage Congress' ability to ferret out fraud,
waste, and abuse in any Federal program. That is what the Congressional
Committee on Government Operations does. That is exactly what we would
do, is sabotage our own ability if we were to adopt amendments that
will be coming from my colleagues from Nebraska and New York who would
further cut GAO funding which has already been reduced in the bill that
is before us.
Madam Chairman, the GAO has been already hit hard by budget cuts.
Adjusting for inflation, past cuts have slashed 20 percent from the
GAO's budget since fiscal year 1992. This has forced the GAO to reduce
its staff by over 500 employees, while spending for travel, training,
and other programs have been cut by 40 percent.
Madam Chairman, there is another part of this that bothers me about
the amendment of the gentleman from New York that may come up further.
The gentleman's amendment would cut the GAO budget by 11 percent and it
would begin in my judgment the dismantling of GAO. If this amendment
were to succeed, over 600 of GAO's remaining employees would have to be
reduced through the discriminatory process of a reduction in force
where the most recently hired would be the first fired.
Please join us in opposing these amendments when they come up to
reduce GAO.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I support many of the cuts proposed here
today, but my concern is also the manner in which taxpayer dollars are
being expended.
I serve on the House Committee on Government Operations. The
important mission of the House Committee on Government Operations is
different from any other committee in the House. It is responsible for
investigation and oversight. It performs a critical audit function in
the House of Representatives and for the Congress. It had a long, rich
history. In fact, it was broken off in 1814 from the Committee on Ways
and Means at that time to perform this important audit function.
Democrats now control the White House, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives. They are unquestionably the majority party. But it is
crucial that the committee responsible for overseeing and auditing the
executive branch be completely bipartisan and balanced in staffing and
funding.
At stake, ladies and gentlemen, really is a question of fairness and
the very integrity of this body. This question goes to the very heart
of the system of checks and balances, the very foundation of our system
of government.
Majority and minority staff disparities make a mockery of the
congressional process of oversight and investigations. Look at these
charts. This is the way the money is being divided here. I will update
this chart. They have given the minority one additional staffer, 10 to
52, represents the number and distribution of these investigative
staffers.
Look at how the money is being spent here: 14 percent to the
minority, 85 percent to the majority; several hundred thousands of
dollars to the minority, and millions to the majority.
Madam Chairman, the House has voted twice to grant the minority one-
third of investigative committee staff, and again we are denied in this
bill that provision.
The other body has granted the minority at least one-third of the
committee staff since 1977.
Madam Chairman, I am not here asking for another penny. I am asking
here for fairness. I am asking here for integrity. We have had
investigations thwarted, we have had requests for additional
information thwarted. Here we are asking about the question of fairness
and equity and the very system of checks and balances on which this
country and this system of government is founded.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 30
seconds, to my good friend, the gentleman from Poland, OH, Mr.
Traficant.
{time} 1320
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, in a spirit of comity, I yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] so that he
will have a total of 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam President, even though I get screwed once again
by Chairman Fazio, he does a great job, and I am going to support his
bill. I know that he is concerned when he gets out his little pointer
and his little graphs and starts like Ross Perot on the floor. You
know, doggone things--I was waiting for him to say that.
But, you know, let me tell you what I do with my money. I help my
constituents work out their Social Security problems, their
unemployment compensation problems, their veterans' problems, their
Medicare problems, their financial concerns, the problems they have
with the Labor Department, their pension matters, and a number of other
issues because my staff and I are basically just helpers and we utilize
the money that we get through this bill. We do not abuse it, we use it
to help keep our constituents free.
I do not want to cut any of this money. Chairman Fazio and ranking
Member, Mr. Young, I think they have done a good job, a great job. I am
proud to support them.
Now, I did have a concern that dealt with the Capitol Police, and
later in this debate I am hoping Chairman Rose may be back on the
floor, and I am going to ask for an opportunity to engage in a colloquy
because I believe that the Capitol Police believe they are being
discriminated against at times, treated like kids, and that we have a
serious morale problem.
Now, a lot of the leaders around here may not agree with that at this
point, but let me say this to you, especially as deals with our Capitol
Police: An ounce of prevention, Congress, is worth a pound of cure. And
our Capitol Police do have a serious morale problem.
So I plan to support the bill even though the chairman was walking
and talking like Ross Perot. It is a good bill, and I appreciate the
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this legislative
appropriations bill and to commend my colleagues, especially my
freshman colleagues, who have joined in the fight to change the way
that Congress works.
In the time that I have been in Congress, it seems we have grown too
fond of the idea that average, hard-working Americans should sacrifice
more. Pay more taxes, sacrificing the well-being of their families to
the well-being of the Government. Accept cuts in your Social Security,
sacrificing your security for the Government.
Well it is past time for us to start sharing in those sacrifices.
Instead, we have before us a bill increasing funding for Congress by
5.7 percent. That is more than twice the increase in inflation. And
what are these increases going for? Here are a few of the dubious
items--
$11.1 million for increased workload. Did we add new territory to the
United States that has caused this increased workload?
We also have an increase of $8.4 million for the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol, an agency that has been roundly criticized
for its management practices.
It is long past time for Congress to accept its fair share of
sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this appropriations
bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I have several other requests
for time, but those speakers are not here. I do have time left, and I
wonder if the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] would like me to
share some time with him.
Mr. FAZIO. If the gentleman would, I have unanimous consent requests.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this legislation.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition
to the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
I object not only to the level of funding provided in the bill but to
the unfair manner in which this critically important legislation was
brought before this body today.
First, there is nothing more important than addressing the $4.5
trillion national debt, which is keeping badly needed capital out of
the hands of the private sector of our economy, the engine of growth
and job creation. But, the goal of deficit reduction will only be met
if we are willing to make some very difficult choices in our spending
priorities.
Today, we have the opportunity to prove to our constituents that we
are serious about the addressing the national debt by leading by
example and making cuts to our own budget. Yet, this bill includes a
5.7-percent increase over last year's expenditures. It seems
hypocritical for this body to demand of other Federal agencies and
programs that they hold the line on spending, and even to make cuts, at
a time when Congress chooses to give itself a 5.7-percent increase.
Second, there were numerous amendments that Members of Congress
wanted to offer that would have gone a long way to bring not only some
fiscal responsibility to this budget but also make reforms to the way
Congress does business. Yet, fully 31 amendments were not even
permitted to be brought to the floor for consideration. Perhaps the
reason that votes on these measures were not permitted was the fear
that they might actually pass.
But, for whatever reason, we are not being afforded the opportunity
to make meaningful cuts to the Congress' budget. We cannot cut the
funds used to purchase and mail out calendars at taxpayer expense. We
cannot even vote on an innovative proposal that would eliminate a
congressional committee, or one that would ban the practice by which
Members of Congress shift their office funds around to boost the amount
they spend on free mailings.
As we return to our districts for this Memorial Day, I believe that
our constituents will rightfully be demanding explanations for what has
occurred here today. At a time when the House is asking others to make
significant sacrifices, I am disappointed that this body isn't
responsible enough to tighten its own belt. Today, I will vote against
the legislative branch appropriations bill. I would hope that in the
future, the House will lead by example rather than give itself special
treatment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon Congressman Chris Cox and
his wife Rebecca were blessed with the birth of their second child. We
all offer our congratulations and best wishes for a healthy and happy
little girl.
My friend did advise me, however, that if he had been present this
afternoon, he would have voted in favor of a number of the amendments
that came before us on the House floor.
Mr. Cox would have voted against the rule for H.R. 4454, because it
prevented more than a dozen Members from offering amendments to the
bill.
He would have voted in support of the Thurman amendment which would
have reduced congressional staff salaries by $2.9 million. He also
would have supported Mr. Strickland's amendment to strike $6.6 million
in funding for six new elevators to be located in the Longworth
Building.
Because he believes in reducing the opportunity of Members to use
franked mail in furtherance of their reelection campaigns, he would
have voted ``yes'' on the amendment offered by Congressman Pomeroy and
Congressman Quinn. This would have reduced official mail costs by $4
million.
As a member of the House Committee on Government Operations, Chris
has long been a supporter of efforts to reduce funding for the General
Accounting Office. Mr. Bereuter from Nebraska offered an amendment
making a modest reduction of 5 percent in the GAO's budget for the 1995
fiscal year. Mr. Cox would have voted in favor of the amendment.
He would have also supported Mr. Bill Young's effort to reduce
funding for additional computer systems for the House information
system by $13 million.
Mr. Cox was prepared to offer an amendment cutting legislative branch
spending by 25 percent--matching the cuts President Clinton promised to
make in the White House operating budget. Unfortunately, the majority
of the House Rules Committee refused to make this amendment in order.
Instead, the committee made in order another amendment freezing House
spending at its 1994 level. Mr. Boehner graciously agreed to offer this
amendment in Congressman Cox's absence. Mr. Cox would, of course, have
strongly supported this reasonable effort to restrain the burgeoning
budget of the House and associated agencies. Indeed, total
congressional spending each year tops $2.3 billion, and in this bill,
the House was voting to grant itself a $101 million perk increase for
next year.
As a result, Congressman Cox relayed to me that he would have opposed
final passage of this wasteful piece of legislation. And he will
continue to work to bring fiscal sanity to our Nation's Capital.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4454,
the legislative branch appropriations bill.
We have begun our annual exercise in self flagellation--consideration
of the legislative branch appropriations bill. Over the next few hours
we will undoubtedly be treated to some amendments intended solely to
cripple this institution's ability to operate. Others, perhaps, may be
offered in an attempt to embarrass this House and its leadership. In
recent years some Members have used this bill to try to score political
points at the expense of the House. I hope this will not be the case
again this year.
The Committee on Appropriations has brought us a good bill, and I
want to commend the work of Chairman Fazio, ranking member Young, and
the members of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch who each year
face the thankless task of developing this legislation.
This is the leanest legislative branch bill I can remember in my 30
years in the House. It continues the multi-year downsizing which began
with last year's bill and will result in the elimination of more than
1,500 positions.
I am concerned, however, that in our efforts to demonstrate to our
constituents that we are fiscally responsible we will impair our
ability to operate and to oversee the executive branch. If we adopt
some of the amendments which have been noticed, we could shoot
ourselves in the foot.
Some, particularly on the other side of the aisle, may want to impair
our ability to conduct effective oversight. From a partisan standpoint
that is understandable. It was the Democratic Congress that exposed
executive branch scandals such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, the HUD
scandal, and the savings and loan debacle. But it is the responsibility
of the Congress to oversee the executive branch, and it would be
irresponsible to adopt amendments which impair our ability to meet that
responsibility.
An example of such an amendment is one that may be offered to cut the
General Accounting Office [GAO] budget by 5 percent. This amendment
would gut GAO's ability to serve as the investigative arm of the
Congress. I have always been impressed by the impartiality and
professionalism of GAO. When I chaired the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service, GAO investigators unearthed the inappropriate financial
relationship between top presidential advisors, Mr. Deaver and Mr.
Meese, and the Chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors whose
appointment, coincidentally, had been recommended by Mr. Deaver. It was
GAO which examined the sweetheart contract Ross Perot entered into with
the Postal Service, a contract which virtually guaranteed that Mr.
Perot's company would have a monopoly on Postal Service business. That
contract was nullified when the full details of the contract became
public.
GAO has been instrumental in enabling the Committee on Education and
Labor to pursue savings and improvements in the Departments of Labor
and Education. For example:
Over $700 million in financial benefits were realized in programs
providing financial assistance to postsecondary students--the Pell
grant and guaranteed student loan programs. These financial benefits
consisted of: First, $140 million in reduced federal expenditures when
legislation was enacted requiring that Pell grant recipients have a
high school diploma; second, $305 million in increased defaulted
student loan collections due to the extension of the Internal Revenue
Service's income tax refund offset programs; and third, $279 million in
guaranty agencies' reserves in excess of their needs.
Funding for the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA] was reduced by
13.8 million in fiscal year 1990 to reinforce GAO's finding that local
programs were entering into contracts for excessive on-the-job training
to place participants into low skill jobs.
As a result of GAO's work concerning the employment conditions of
foreign workers brought into the United States to harvest sugar cane,
the largest user of this labor revamped certain aspects of its contract
with the workers to improve the accountability of workers' wage
deductions.
On the basis of GAO briefings, testimonies, and a report on the Carl
D. Perkins Vocational Education Act, the Congress made major revisions
to the act, such as improving allocation of program funds.
Using information from GAO reports on the limited extent of advance
notice provided by employers to workers concerning plant closings,
legislation was enacted requiring large employers to provide 60 days'
advance notice to workers in the event of a plant closing or mass
layoff.
Based in part on GAO reports and testimony, Congress raised the
maximum penalties for violations of workplace safety and health
regulations and child labor laws.
The GAO report on legislative and administrative options for
improving workers' safety and health led to the first comprehensive re-
examination of OSHA's authorizing legislation in its 20-year history.
Both the Senate and the House legislators drew heavily on the options
GAO identified, incorporating most of them in H.R. 1280, the
Comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health Act.
My colleagues, this is a good bill. Support Chairman Fazio. Oppose
those amendments which hinder Congress' ability to do its job. And,
vote for the bill.
Mr. KIM. Madam Chairman, I am concerned that at a time when the House
is unable to fund the President's request for 100,000 new police
officers in the crime bill, that Congress is seeking an increase of
$100 million in spending.
This week we voted on a military construction bill that was $600
million lower than last year in real dollars. We voted last night on a
foreign operations bill that was more than $380 million below the
President's request. We have also been considering on the floor this
week a defense authorization bill that will slash many important
defense programs.
Furthermore, although Congress has instituted automatic cost-of-
living adjustment increases for its Members, COLA's for Federal
retirees are being delayed, as are COLA's for veterans and military
retirees. How can we ask people who have laid their lives on the line
for our country to wait for their COLA's when politicians don't have
to?
Madam Chairman, with all due respect to this institution, I cannot
express enough my firmly held conviction that we must hold the
legislative branch to the same fiscal restraint and budgetary standards
that we are requiring the American people and the rest of the Federal
Government to live under. This is the only way that we can be truly
honest in our effort to control Federal spending and to reduce the
budget deficit.
I must urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this
measure, so that we may be able to draft legislation that deals with
the needs of this House of Representatives in the context of the fiscal
realities the rest of the Government faces.
Mr. PACKARD. Madam Chairman, as we take up the legislative branch
appropriations bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank
subcommittee Chairman Vic Fazio and ranking member Bill Young for their
stewardship on this legislation. As a member of the subcommittee, I
have certainly appreciated all of the hard work they and their staffs
have put into this bill.
In the last 2 years, Congress was able to tighten its belt and cut
spending. But this bill increases it--a 5.7-percent rise from fiscal
year 1994. While most of the Federal Government has been forced to cut
its profligate spending habit, Congress is increasing it.
Even if this legislation is amended to include cuts in franking and
funding for minor construction within the Capitol complex, these
cosmetic reductions fall far short of the kind fiscal constraints
Members must practice.
At the beginning of the 103d Congress, I substantially cut my own
staff and expenses in an effort to send a message to the American
taxpayer, that the money they send to Congress is being spent in an
efficient and cost-effective way. I believe the whole House must take
the same kind of initiative.
Therefore, I reluctantly cannot support this bill. Congress must show
the American people that we can get a handle on our own spending.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate having expired, pursuant to
the rule, the bill is considered as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment and is considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4454
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 Legislative
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for
other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Payments to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress
For payment to the estate of William H. Natcher, late a
Representative from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, $133,600.
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives,
$735,410,000, as follows:
house leadership offices
For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law,
$6,096,000, including: Office of the Speaker, $1,444,000,
including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker;
Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $1,042,000, including
$10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office
of the Minority Floor Leader, $1,429,000, including $10,000
for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the
Majority Whip, $1,284,000, including $5,000 for official
expenses of the Majority Whip and not to exceed $563,000 for
the Chief Deputy Majority Whips; and Office of the Minority
Whip, $897,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the
Minority Whip and not to exceed $104,000 for the Chief Deputy
Minority Whip.
members' clerk hire
For staff employed by each Member in the discharge of
official and representative duties, $240,417,000.
committee employees
For professional and clerical employees of standing
committees, including the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on the Budget, $73,925,000.
committee on the budget (studies)
For salaries, expenses, and studies by the Committee on the
Budget, and temporary personal services for such committee to
be expended in accordance with sections 101(c), 606, 703, and
901(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and to be
available for reimbursement to agencies for services
performed, $401,000.
standing committees, special and select
For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special
and select, authorized by the House, $53,191,000.
committee on house administration
house information systems
For salaries, expenses and temporary personal services of
House Information Systems, under the direction of the
Committee on House Administration, $22,437,000, of which
$16,017,000 is provided herein: Provided, That House
Information Systems is authorized to receive reimbursement
for services provided from Members of the House of
Representatives and other Governmental entities and such
reimbursement shall be deposited in the Treasury for credit
to this account: Provided further, That amounts so credited
for fiscal year 1994 and not obligated shall be available for
obligation in fiscal year 1995.
allowances and expenses
For allowances and expenses as authorized by House
resolution or law, $244,572,000, including: Official Expenses
of Members, $79,800,000; supplies, materials, administrative
costs and Federal tort claims, $6,103,000; net expenses of
purchase, lease and maintenance of office equipment,
$11,779,000; net expenses for telecommunications,
$10,872,000; furniture and furnishings, $2,012,000;
stenographic reporting of committee hearings, $1,100,000;
reemployed annuitants reimbursements, $1,279,000; Government
contributions to employees' life insurance fund, retirement
funds, Social Security fund, Medicare fund, health benefits
fund, and worker's and unemployment compensation,
$130,849,000; and miscellaneous items including purchase,
exchange, maintenance, repair and operation of House motor
vehicles, interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to
heirs of deceased employees of the House, $778,000.
child care center
For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives
Child Care Center, such amounts as are deposited in the
account established by section 312(d)(1) of the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, 1992 (40 U.S.C. 184g(d)(1)),
subject to the level specified in the budget of the Center,
as submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives.
committee on appropriations (studies and investigations)
For salaries and expenses, studies and examinations of
executive agencies, by the Committee on Appropriations, and
temporary personal services for such committee, to be
expended in accordance with section 202(b) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 and to be available for
reimbursement to agencies for services performed, $6,495,000:
Provided, That the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, may in any fiscal
year pay all administrative uncontrollable overtime accrued
by its employees while on detail to the Committee on
Appropriations.
OFFICIAL MAIL COSTS
For expenses necessary for official mail costs of the House
of Representatives, as authorized by law, $35,000,000.
salaries, officers and employees
For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as
authorized by law, $59,296,000, including: for salaries and
expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not to exceed
$1,000 for official representation and reception expenses,
$14,936,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms, including not to exceed $500 for official
representation and reception expenses, $1,502,000; for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Doorkeeper,
including overtime as authorized by law, $12,621,000; for
salaries and expenses of the Office of Director of Non-
legislative and Financial Services, $17,267,000; for salaries
and expenses of the Office of Inspector General, $295,000;
for salaries and expenses of the Office of General Counsel,
$762,000; Office of the Chaplain, $124,000; Office of the
Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian and $2,000 for
preparing the Digest of Rules, $983,000; for salaries and
expenses of the Office of the Historian, $359,000; for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Law Revision
Counsel of the House, $1,730,000; for salaries and expenses
of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House,
$4,420,000; six minority employees, $747,000; the House
Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and the Democratic
Caucus, $1,523,000; the House Republican Conference,
$1,523,000; and other authorized employees, $504,000.
Administrative Provision
Sec. 101. (a) Transfer of Majority and Minority Printers to
Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services.--As soon
as practicable, but not later than October 1, 1994, authority
over the Majority and Minority Printers of the House of
Representatives shall be transferred to the Director of Non-
legislative and Financial Services of the House.
(b) Fees for Offices and Utilities.--
(1) In general.--Upon the transfer required by subsection
(a), the Director shall charge the Majority and Minority
Printers a reasonable monthly fee for the rental of offices
and utilities.
(2) Availability of receipts.--The amounts received under
this subsection shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States for credit to the appropriation for ``Salaries
and Expenses of the House of Representatives'', and shall be
available for expenditure in any fiscal year to the extent
provided in appropriations Acts.
(c) Applicability.--This section shall take effect upon the
date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any
fiscal year.
JOINT ITEMS
For Joint Committees, as follows:
joint economic committee
For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee,
$4,090,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.
joint committee on printing
For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on
Printing, $1,370,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the
Senate.
joint committee on taxation
For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on
Taxation, $6,019,000, to be disbursed by the Clerk of the
House.
For other joint items, as follows:
Office of the Attending Physician
For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of
the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his
assistants, including (1) an allowance of $1,500 per month to
the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $500 per month
each to two medical officers while on duty in the Attending
Physician's office; (3) an allowance of $500 per month each
to two assistants and $400 per month each not to exceed nine
assistants on the basis heretofore provided for such
assistance; and (4) $918,000 for reimbursement to the
Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and
equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician,
which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable
appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries,
allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be
available for all the purposes thereof, $1,335,000, to be
disbursed by the Clerk of the House.
Capitol Police Board
Capitol Police
salaries
For the Capitol Police Board for salaries, including
overtime, and Government contributions to employees' benefits
funds, as authorized by law, of officers, members, and
employees of the Capitol Police, $65,991,000, of which
$31,833,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms of the House
of Representatives, to be disbursed by the Clerk of the
House, and $34,158,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms
and Doorkeeper of the Senate, to be disbursed by the
Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That of the amounts
appropriated for fiscal year 1995 for salaries, including
overtime, and Government contributions to employees' benefits
funds under this heading, such amounts as may be necessary
may be transferred between the Sergeant at Arms of the House
of Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
the Senate, upon approval of the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
general expenses
For the Capitol Police Board for necessary expenses of the
Capitol Police, including motor vehicles, communications and
other equipment, uniforms, weapons, supplies, materials,
training, medical services, the employee assistance program,
not more than $2,000 for the awards program, postage,
telephone service, travel advances, relocation of instructor
and liaison personnel for the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, and $85 per month for extra services
performed for the Capitol Police Board by an employee of the
Sergeant at Arms of the Senate or the House of
Representatives designated by the Chairman of the Board,
$2,000,000, to be disbursed by the Clerk of the House of
Representatives: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the cost of basic training for the Capitol
Police at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for
fiscal year 1995 shall be paid by the Secretary of the
Treasury from funds available to the Department of the
Treasury.
administrative provision
Sec. 102. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1995 for the
Capitol Police Board under the heading ``Capitol Police'' may
be transferred between the headings ``salaries'' and
``general expenses'', upon approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
Capitol Guide Service
For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service,
$1,628,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be used to employ
more than thirty-three individuals: Provided further, That
the Capitol Guide Board is authorized, during emergencies, to
employ not more than two additional individuals for not more
than one hundred twenty days each, and not more than ten
additional individuals for not more than six months each, for
the Capitol Guide Service.
Special Services Office
For salaries and expenses of the Special Services Office,
$363,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (Public
Law 92-484), including official reception and representation
expenses (not to exceed $5,500 from the Trust Fund), and
expenses incurred in administering an employee incentive
awards program (not to exceed $2,500), and rental of space in
the District of Columbia, $21,931,000: Provided, That none of
the funds in this Act shall be available for salaries or
expenses of any employee of the Office of Technology
Assessment in excess of 143 staff employees: Provided
further, That no part of this appropriation shall be
available for assessments or activities not initiated and
approved in accordance with section 3(d) of Public Law 92-
484: Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act
shall be available for salaries or expenses of employees of
the Office of Technology Assessment in connection with any
reimbursable study for which funds are provided from sources
other than appropriations made under this Act, or shall be
available for any other administrative expenses incurred by
the Office of Technology Assessment in carrying out such a
study.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public
Law 93-344), including not to exceed $2,500 to be expended on
the certification of the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office in connection with official representation and
reception expenses, $23,133,000: Provided, That none of these
funds shall be available for the purchase or hire of a
passenger motor vehicle: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act shall be available for salaries or expenses
of any employee of the Congressional Budget Office in excess
of 221 fulltime equivalent positions: Provided further, That
any sale or lease of property, supplies, or services to the
Congressional Budget Office shall be deemed to be a sale or
lease of such property, supplies, or services to the Congress
subject to section 903 of Public Law 98-63: Provided further,
That the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall
have the authority, within the limits of available
appropriations, to dispose of surplus or obsolete personal
property by inter-agency transfer, donation, or discarding.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Office of the Architect of the Capitol
salaries
For the Architect of the Capitol, the Assistant Architect
of the Capitol, and other personal services, at rates of pay
provided by law, $8,927,000.
travel
Appropriations under the control of the Architect of the
Capitol shall be available for expenses of travel on official
business not to exceed in the aggregate under all funds the
sum of $20,000.
Contingent Expenses
To enable the Architect of the Capitol to make surveys and
studies, and to meet unforeseen expenses in connection with
activities under his care, $100,000, to remain available
until expended.
Capitol Buildings and Grounds
capitol buildings
For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the Capitol and electrical substations of the
Senate and House office buildings, under the jurisdiction of
the Architect of the Capitol, including furnishings and
office equipment; including not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, to be expended as the
Architect of the Capitol may approve; purchase or exchange,
maintenance and operation of a passenger motor vehicle;
security installations which are approved by the Capitol
Police Board, authorized by House Concurrent Resolution 550,
Ninety-Second Congress, agreed to September 19, 1972, the
cost limitation of which is hereby further increased by
$200,000; and attendance, when specifically authorized by the
Architect of the Capitol, at meetings or conventions in
connection with subjects related to work under the Architect
of the Capitol, $22,340,000, of which $2,763,000 shall remain
available until expended.
capitol grounds
For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of
grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office
buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $5,201,000, of which
$25,000 shall remain available until expended.
house office buildings
For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the House office buildings, including the
position of Superintendent of Garages as authorized by law,
$41,364,000, of which $10,260,000 shall remain available
until expended.
capitol power plant
For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating,
power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water
and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office
buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds
about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air
conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of
such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and
Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water
for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, Union
Station complex, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
and the Folger Shakespeare Library, expenses for which shall
be advanced or reimbursed upon request of the Architect of
the Capitol and amounts so received shall be deposited into
the Treasury to the credit of this appropriation,
$33,342,000, of which $865,000 shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $3,200,000 of the
funds credited or to be reimbursed to this appropriation as
herein provided shall be available for obligation during
fiscal year 1995.
Administrative Provision
Sec. 103. The matter in chapter III of title I of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1975 under ``Capitol
Buildings and Grounds'' under the heading ``ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL'' (40 U.S.C. 166b-2) is amended by striking ``to
grade 11'' and inserting ``at not to exceed grade 12''.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Congressional Research Service
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated
Constitution of the United States of America, $58,938,000:
Provided, That no part of this appropriation may be used to
pay any salary or expense in connection with any publication,
or preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of
Public General Bills), to be issued by the Library of
Congress unless such publication has obtained prior approval
of either the Committee on House Administration of the House
of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the compensation
of the Director of the Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress, shall be at an annual rate which is
equal to the annual rate of basic pay for positions at level
IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Congressional Printing and Binding
For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and
the distribution of Congressional information in any format;
printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol;
expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthly and session
index to the Congressional Record, as authorized by law (44
U.S.C. 902); printing and binding of Government publications
authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress;
and printing, binding, and distribution of Government
publications authorized by law to be distributed without
charge to the recipient, $95,158,000: Provided, That this
appropriation shall not be available for printing and binding
part 2 of the annual report of the Secretary of Agriculture
(known as the Yearbook of Agriculture) nor for copies of the
permanent edition of the Congressional Record for individual
Representatives, Resident Commissioners or Delegates
authorized under 44 U.S.C. 906: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for the payment of
obligations incurred under the appropriations for similar
purposes for preceding fiscal years.
This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Operations
Appropriations Act, 1995''.
TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES
BOTANIC GARDEN
Salaries and Expenses
For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings,
grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange,
maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor
vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on
the Library, $10,182,000, of which $7,000,000 shall remain
available until expended.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress, not
otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance
of the Union Catalogs; custody and custodial care of the
Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and
repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the
custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the
American Folklife Center in the Library; preparation and
distribution of catalog cards and other publications of the
Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and
expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not
properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by
the Board, $207,857,000, of which not more than $7,869,000
shall be derived from collections credited to this
appropriation during fiscal year 1995 under the Act of June
28, 1902 (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150):
Provided, That the total amount available for obligation
shall be reduced by the amount by which collections are less
than the $7,869,000: Provided further, That of the total
amount appropriated, $8,458,000 is to remain available until
expended for acquisition of books, periodicals, and
newspapers, and all other materials including subscriptions
for bibliographic services for the Library, including $40,000
to be available solely for the purchase, when specifically
approved by the Librarian, of special and unique materials
for additions to the collections.
Copyright Office
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, including
publication of the decisions of the United States courts
involving copyrights, $27,186,000, of which not more than
$14,500,000 shall be derived from collections credited to
this appropriation during fiscal year 1995 under 17 U.S.C.
708(c), and not more than $2,891,000 shall be derived from
collections during fiscal year 1995 under 17 U.S.C.
111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), and 1005: Provided, That the
total amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the
amount by which collections are less than $17,391,000:
Provided further, That up to $100,000 of the amount
appropriated is available for the maintenance of an
``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright Office
of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training
nationals of developing countries in intellectual property
laws and policies: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,250 may be expended on the certification of the Librarian
of Congress or his designee, in connection with official
representation and reception expenses for activities of the
International Copyright Institute.
Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
salaries and expenses
For salaries and expenses to carry out the provisions of
the Act of March 3, 1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2
U.S.C. 135a), $44,622,000, of which $10,896,000 shall remain
available until expended.
Furniture and Furnishings
For necessary expenses for the purchase and repair of
furniture, furnishings, office and library equipment,
$5,825,000, of which $1,886,000 shall be available until
expended only for the purchase and supply of furniture,
shelving, furnishings, and related costs necessary for the
renovation and restoration of the Thomas Jefferson and John
Adams Library buildings.
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 201. Appropriations in this Act available to the
Library of Congress shall be available, in an amount not to
exceed $194,290, of which $58,100 is for the Congressional
Research Service, when specifically authorized by the
Librarian, for attendance at meetings concerned with the
function or activity for which the appropriation is made.
Sec. 202. (a) No part of the funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by the Library of Congress to administer any
flexible or compressed work schedule which--
(1) applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the
grade or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15; and
(2) grants such manager or supervisor the right to not be
at work for all or a portion of a workday because of time
worked by the manager or supervisor on another workday.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``manager or
supervisor'' means any management official or supervisor, as
such terms are defined in section 7103(a) (10) and (11) of
title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 203. Appropriated funds received by the Library of
Congress from other Federal agencies to cover general and
administrative overhead costs generated by performing
reimbursable work for other agencies under the authority of
31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536 shall not be used to employ more than
65 employees and may be expended or obligated--
(1) in the case of a reimbursement, only to such extent or
in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; or
(2) in the case of an advance payment, only--
(A) to pay for such general or administrative overhead
costs as are attributable to the work performed for such
agency; or
(B) to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in
appropriations Acts, with respect to any purpose not
allowable under subparagraph (A).
Sec. 204. Not to exceed $5,000 of any funds appropriated to
the Library of Congress may be expended, on the certification
of the Librarian of Congress, in connection with official
representation and reception expenses for the Library of
Congress incentive awards program.
Sec. 205. Not to exceed $12,000 of funds appropriated to
the Library of Congress may be expended, on the certification
of the Librarian of Congress or his designee, in connection
with official representation and reception expenses for the
Overseas Field Offices.
Sec. 206. Under the heading ``Library of Congress''
obligational authority shall be available, in an amount not
to exceed $75,236,000 for reimbursable activities, $8,706,000
for revolving fund activities, and $6,150,000 for non-
expenditure transfer activities in support of parliamentary
development during the current fiscal year.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Library Buildings and Grounds
structural and mechanical care
For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and
structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library
buildings and grounds, $9,860,000, of which $941,000 shall
remain available until expended.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Office of Superintendent of Documents
salaries and expenses
For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents
necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of
Government publications and their distribution to the public,
Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and
designated depository and international exchange libraries as
authorized by law, $32,100,000: Provided, That travel
expenses, including travel expenses of the Depository Library
Council to the Public Printer, shall not exceed $130,000:
Provided further, That funds, not to exceed $2,000,000, from
current year appropriations are authorized for producing and
disseminating Congressional Serial Sets and other related
Congressional/non-Congressional publications for 1993 and
1994 to depository and other designated libraries.
Government Printing Office Revolving Fund
The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make
such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and
in accord with the law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs and
purposes set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year
for the ``Government Printing Office revolving fund'':
Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 may be expended on the
certification of the Public Printer in connection with
official representation and reception expenses: Provided
further, That the revolving fund shall be available for the
hire or purchase of passenger motor vehicles, not to exceed a
fleet of twelve: Provided further, That expenditures in
connection with travel expenses of the advisory councils to
the Public Printer shall be deemed necessary to carry out the
provisions of title 44, United States Code: Provided further,
That the revolving fund shall be available for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for level
V of the Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5316): Provided
further, That the revolving fund and the funds provided under
the paragraph entitled ``office of superintendent of
documents, salaries and expenses'' together may not be
available for the full-time equivalent employment of more
than 4,493 workyears: Provided further, That the revolving
fund shall be available for expenses not to exceed $500,000
for the development of plans and design of a multi-purpose
facility: Provided further, That activities financed through
the revolving fund may provide information in any format:
Provided further, That the revolving fund shall not be used
to administer any flexible or compressed work schedule which
applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the grade
or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15: Provided
further, That expenses for attendance at meetings shall not
exceed $75,000.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office,
including not to exceed $7,000 to be expended on the
certification of the Comptroller General of the United States
in connection with official representation and reception
expenses; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at
rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule
(5 U.S.C. 5315); hire of one passenger motor vehicle; advance
payments in foreign countries in accordance with 31 U.S.C.
3324; benefits comparable to those payable under sections
901(5), 901(6) and 901(8) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980
(22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 4081(6) and 4081(8)); and under
regulations prescribed by the Comptroller General of the
United States, rental of living quarters in foreign countries
and travel benefits comparable with those which are now or
hereafter may be granted single employees of the Agency for
International Development, including single Foreign Service
personnel assigned to AID projects, by the Administrator of
the Agency for International Development--or his designee--
under the authority of section 636(b) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2396(b)); $439,525,000:
Provided, That not more than $1,000,000 of reimbursements
received incident to the operation of the General Accounting
Office Building shall be available for use in fiscal year
1995: Provided further, That this appropriation and
appropriations for administrative expenses of any other
department or agency which is a member of the Joint Financial
Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) shall be available to
finance an appropriate share of JFMIP costs as determined by
the JFMIP, including the salary of the Executive Director and
secretarial support: Provided further, That this
appropriation and appropriations for administrative expenses
of any other department or agency which is a member of the
National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional
Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance
an appropriate share of Forum costs as determined by the
Forum, including necessary travel expenses of non-Federal
participants. Payments hereunder to either the Forum or the
JFMIP may be credited as reimbursements to any appropriation
from which costs involved are initially financed: Provided
further, That to the extent that funds are otherwise
available for obligation, agreements or contracts for the
removal of asbestos, and renovation of the building and
building systems (including the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning system, electrical system and other major
building systems) of the General Accounting Office Building
may be made for periods not exceeding five years: Provided
further, That this appropriation and appropriations for
administrative expenses of any other department or agency
which is a member of the American Consortium on International
Public Administration (ACIPA) shall be available to finance
an appropriate share of ACIPA costs as determined by the
ACIPA, including any expenses attributable to membership of
ACIPA in the International Institute of Administrative
Sciences.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used for the maintenance or care of private
vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may
be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities
for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on
House Administration and for the Senate issued by the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
Sec. 302. 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. 303. Whenever any office or position not specifically
established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 is
appropriated for herein or whenever the rate of compensation
or designation of any position appropriated for herein is
different from that specifically established for such
position by such Act, the rate of compensation and the
designation of the position, or either, appropriated for or
provided herein, shall be the permanent law with respect
thereto: Provided, That the provisions herein for the various
items of official expenses of Members, officers, and
committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and
clerk hire for Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives shall be the permanent law with respect
thereto.
Sec. 304. 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. 305. The last sentence of section 307(a) of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 (2 U.S.C. 60-1
note) is repealed.
Sec. 306. Annual and sick leave balances of employees
transferred from the Office of the Director of Non-
legislative and Financial Services, House Postal Operations,
to the Architect of the Capitol, as of October 31, 1993,
shall be credited to the leave accounts of such personnel,
subject to the provisions of section 6304 of title 5, United
States Code, upon their transfer to the appropriation for
House office buildings.
This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1995''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those amendments
printed in House Report 103-532. The amendments may be considered in
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall not be
subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not
be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
Debate time for each amendment shall be equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution.
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall be not
less than 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1, printed in House
Report 103-532.
amendment offered by mr. pomeroy
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order
pursuant to the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pomeroy: Page 5, line 21, strike
``$35,000,000'' and insert ``$31,000,000''.
Conform the aggregate amount set forth on page 2, line 10,
accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from North Dakota
[Mr. Pomeroy] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague,
Representative Jack Quinn, in offering an amendment to cut the franking
budget by $4 million.
The bipartisan Quinn-Pomeroy amendment would bring the fiscal year
1995 appropriation down to $31 million, representing nearly a 25-
percent reduction from last year's appropriation. Members of this body
will recall that last year I offered a similar amendment. We brought
the official mail account for 1994 down to an all-time election year
low of $40 million.
Madam Chairman, the population I serve is broadly dispersed
throughout an entire State. In my district, the State of North Dakota,
there are 9 people, I repeat, 9 people per square mile. This compares
to around 58,000 people per mile for the 11th District of New York. If
anyone needs to communicate with their constituents through the mail,
it's me. But I have made a commitment to return 25 percent of my
franking allowance each year. And I think all of Congress can accept a
significant reduction as well.
The simple reason for my commitment is this: We need to make cuts in
Congress' budget and the frank is a good place to start. I am convinced
we will not threaten our ability to communicate with our constituents,
rather we will do it at a much more economical level. If we are to
meaningfully reduce the deficit, Members need to step to the plate and
show our willingness to do our part.
Madam Chairman, as little as 3 years ago, the House appropriated $80
million for the frank. Since that time, the official mail account has
come down substantially. The committee itself cut the frank $5 million
below last year's appropriation. I still believe more can be done. That
is why I am pleased to join Representative Quinn in offering this
amendment. I urge its adoption.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I ask that I be permitted to
control the 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the Republican sponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Quinn].
Mr. QUINN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment I would like to
offer with my colleague, the distinguished Member from North Dakota
[Mr. Pomeroy].
Madam Chairman, each year the Congress spends millions of dollars on
franked mail telling our constituents how much we are doing in
Washington, how much we are changing and reforming.
We hear a lot of talk about cutting the cost of Government in various
ways. This amendment is a good first step in the right direction. It is
action and not just talk.
Communications with our constituents is very important, but more than
anything my constituents want us here in Congress to live like they do
everyday. Many Members have recognized the need to cut back--but we
need to do more to change the way Congress works and spends money.
This amendment strikes $4 million from the official mail account,
Madam Chairman.
In fiscal year 1993, the House spent $24 million on franked mail. For
fiscal year 1994, the current estimate is that the mail cost will be
about $41.5 million. The Committee on Appropriations has recommended
$35 million for fiscal year 1995. This amendment would reduce the frank
in fiscal year 1995 to $31 million, which should address the postal
needs for the House.
This amendment will reduce our frank by $10 million from last year,
which is approximately 25 percent.
This amendment is an opportunity to show the American people that we
can cut spending in our own operations, in our own House, while we
pursue cuts in other areas. It is an opportunity to lead by example.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Quinn-Pomeroy amendment.
{time} 1330
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Chairman, I would just like to add that I am very proud of the
fact that in the office account that I have control over, for the 10th
District of Florida, each year I am able to spend about 65 percent of
that account, and I return unspent about 35 percent, and so it
certainly would not hurt my operation, and I do not think it should
hurt anybody else's, and I think it is a really good amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Inglis].
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Young] for yielding this time to me.
I rise in strong support of the Quinn-Pomeroy amendment. I think this
makes a whole lot of sense, and, as the gentleman from Florida just
said, this amendment really is not going to affect any of us as long as
we do not do unsolicited mass mailings. I say to my colleagues, ``If
you do unsolicited mass mailings, you will be affected by this, but
that's what your constituents don't want to hear from you anymore. They
don't want to hear from Members of this body that we need to be able to
mail to them at their expense, you know, one of those reports from
Washington. It may as well have emblazoned across it, `I'm running for
reelection, vote for me, we have already got public financing of
campaigns.'''
Madam Chairman, this is an 11-percent cut in the franking privilege.
It is certainly something that is reasonable. I would love to see a 75-
percent cut, and so I have proposed a 75-percent cut, and, as the
gentleman from Florida just indicated, even that cut would not affect
me because we returned 95 percent of the franking budget allocated to
my office.
Reason:
We did not do any unsolicited mass mailings. We cut those out, we
save a lot of money.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
As I said earlier, I returned about 35 percent of my account. I want
to clarify that in the mailing account I actually return maybe 90
percent of my main account and still maintained a very good mail
communication with the people in my district.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the last minute of my time.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
(Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, this amendment strikes $4 million from the
official mail account.
We have brought our mail costs down significantly since 1990--because
the Members have cut back.
In fiscal year 1993, the House spent $24 million on franked mail.
This year, the current estimate is that the mail cost will be about
$41.5 million. So this will be $10 million, or 25 percent below fiscal
1994.
Even with the announced 10.2 percent increase in postal rates, $31
million should be enough for fiscal year 1994.
The current allowance for Members' franked mail is about $72 million.
So the $31 million left in the bill is $41 million below the potential
expenditure.
And current law authorizes over $92 million. This would be $61
million below that. We would be funding one-third of the statutory
limit.
With this amendment, the House will be saving $41 million under the
authorized allowance.
Madam Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds of the 1
minute that I have remaining to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Blute].
Mr. BLUTE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Quinn-
Pomeroy amendment and believe it is very important that we reform the
franking privilege in the House. It is a privilege that has been abused
over the years, and we could save millions of taxpayer dollars by
adopting this commonsense amendment.
Madam Chairman, earlier today we heard how more than 30 amendments
that would have brought needed reforms to the way this House does
business were rejected by the gridlock committee, I mean the Rules
Committee. These were 30 reasonable ideas aimed at making this body
truly representative. And we continue to wonder why this body's public
perception is at historic lows.
However, in one bright moment, the Rules Committee saw fit to make
the Quinn-Pomeroy amendment in order. This cut of $4 million in the
House franking budget is long overdue. Last year the House spent more
than $38 million sending out franked mail and only a fraction of this
was in response to direct constituent inquiries.
Such a large franking budget has become an anachronism in light of
today's technology. Telephones, faxes, computers, and other methods of
communication have made many uses of the frank unnecessary. Instead of
informing constituents, Members now use the free mailing privilege as a
campaign tool.
Statistical proof of this abuse is seen in the large spike in
expenditures during election years. Visual proof can be found in the
connecting halls between the Longworth and Rayburn buildings at the end
of the year and just prior to the 60-day cutoff in September when the
newsletters stack up 7 feet high.
In responding to all of the letters I received from constituents I
spent slightly more than $12,000 and returned more than $153,000. The
amount I returned is more than 4 percent to the amount Mr. Quinn and
Mr. Pomeroy are seeking to cut. Only 25 other Members would have to
return a similar amount and we could easily save the $4 million.
Clearly, this amendment does not represent too drastic a reduction in
the ability of Members of Congress to inform the American public.
I would like the opportunity to vote on deeper cuts in franking but
the Rules Committee said ``no.'' I strongly support this amendment and
urge my colleagues to support it.
Voting for this cut will show your support for fiscal responsibility
and your desire to see the electoral playing field leveled somewhat.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield my last 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Madam Chairman, a number of us have been supporting these types of
amendments before they were popular. Last year I returned over a
$100,000 again for the third year in a row, and yet I spent less than
25 percent of my allotment. It is time for all of us to tighten our
belts. As we looked at limited resources for health care, for welfare
reform, to fight crime, it is about time that we in this Chamber look
at our own budgets so that the sacrifice can be equal and fair, and I
urge my colleagues to support this fine amendment offered by my good
friends.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I commend my cosponsor on this amendment, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] and all who has spoken in its
favor. I urge its adoption, and I will request a recorded vote.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 444, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr.
Pomeroy] will be postponed until after the debate on amendment No. 2.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 103-532.
amendment offered by mrs. thurman
Mrs. THURMAN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Thurman: Page 5, line 24 strike
``$59,296,000'' and insert ``$56,354,000''.
Page 6, line 1, strike ``$14,936,000'' and insert
``$14,158,000''.
Page 6, line 6, strike ``$12,621,000'' and insert
``$11,506,000''.
Page 6, line 8, strike ``$17,267,000'' and insert
``$16,360,000''.
Page 6, line 14, strike ``$359,000'' and insert
``$337,000''.
Page 6, line 16, strike ``$1,730,000'' and insert
``$1,630,000''.
Page 6, line 17, strike ``$4,420,000'' and insert
``$4,400,000''.
Conform the aggregate amount set forth on page 2, line 10,
accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs.
Thurman] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
Mrs. THURMAN. Madam Chairman, the amendment I am offering to H.R.
4454 is straightforward: It reduces the salaries, officers, and
employees appropriation by $2,942,000. The funds I am seeking to reduce
were intended for equipment and software purchases for various
administrative offices of the House. The offices affected are: the
Clerk's, the Doorkeeper, the Director of Non-Legislative Services, the
Office of Law Revision Counsel, and Legislative Counsel.
The figure of $2,942,000 was chosen because, in testimony before the
Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee, the requesting offices did not
provide clear justification for purchases they requested.
In its report, the subcommittee stated:
* * * equipment purchases and upgrades to existing systems
are sometimes necessary. However, it is essential that
appropriate review be made of the justification and potential
costs and savings associated with these acquisitions and that
appropriate authorization be acquired.
To me, this is a question of accountability. The American public
demands accountability from its Government and we need to respond to
those demands.
I strongly endorse the subcommittee's position that these new
purchases should not be made until the requesting offices provide
proper cost-benefit information on these products.
The subcommittee report further states:
The committee directs that the Director of Non-Legislative
and Financial Services, as defacto budget officer, assure in
the future that review and authorization of equipment items
is given prior to including these items in budget request.
The equipment requested by these offices may indeed prove necessary
in helping the House carry out its duties and once sufficient need is
demonstrated, then the purchases can be made. That money would have to
come from reprogrammed savings identified by the Director of Non-
Legislative Services. Once the Director finds the money, then these
equipment purchases can be made.
We are facing a significant budget deficit in the House's budget this
fiscal year. It certainly seems to me that we should be more prudent in
allocating every dollar that goes into the operation of the House for
the year ahead. Without clear reasons for the necessity for this
equipment, we simply cannot afford any questionable outlays at this
time.
However, as soon as these offices can provide proper justification
and the House Administration Committee approves the purchases, then, if
any savings in other areas of the House budget can be found by the
Director, the equipment can be purchased.
The bill simply ``fences in'' these funds and that is not right. If
the reasons for the spending had been provided earlier, the money would
have probably been provided. However, justification was not given and I
cannot see allowing this money to be appropriated, even within a fence.
That is why I offer this amendment: to make our own House more
accountable.
Madam Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, will my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Florida, yield?
Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and I rise to say I am happy to advise her that on our side
we are very happy to accept her amendment.
Mrs. THURMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, let me ask the gentlewoman, will she
yield time to me?
Mrs. THURMAN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr.
Abercrombie].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the
time.
We are dealing here with the Clerk's Office and the Doorkeeper, among
other institutions, including the Legislative Counsel. I have seen a
pattern develop here in which we eviscerate ourselves and our employees
from the institutional assistance we get here in the House of
Representatives.
If someone can show me how we are better able to serve our
constituencies by constantly chipping away at the financial
underpinnings of those who are here to aid us and assist us in our
work, I would like to see it. In this particular instance, I have had
nothing but the best of cooperation, particularly from the Clerk's
Office and from the Doorkeeper, and most especially from Legislative
Counsel.
Madam Chairman, I think this is exactly the wrong way to go. If they
need equipment to serve us better, we should be with them.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any member rise in opposition to the amendment? If
not, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] is recognized for the
balance of her time, 1 minute.
Mrs. THURMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I take the time just to point out to my colleague,
the gentleman from Hawaii, that I suggest that maybe he look at the
report where the subcommittee stated that they believed maybe some of
these were necessary. However, it was not demonstrated through the
testimony before the committee, and that is why we have looked at this.
But we have also allowed the flexibility so they can go back into some
of their other office expenses, or whatever, if they can justify these
expenses.
I totally agree with the gentleman. I think we have fine staffs, and
I do not want to take tools away from them, but I also think we have to
be accountable to the American public and make sure that our hired
folks around here are also accountable and can justify what their
expenses are.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. THURMAN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 444, the Chair announces
that she will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time
within which any vote by electronic device may be taken on the
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings. This is
a 15-minute vote on the Thurman amendment.
Members will record their vote by electronic device.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 383,
noes 46, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 211]
AYES--383
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
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
Fish
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watt
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--46
Abercrombie
Berman
Bonior
Clay
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Dellums
Dingell
Edwards (CA)
Flake
Foglietta
Hastings
Johnson, E. B.
Kopetski
Martinez
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Mollohan
Murtha
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pickle
Rangel
Reynolds
Rostenkowski
Sabo
Serrano
Stokes
Swift
Synar
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Unsoeld
Visclosky
Washington
Waters
Waxman
Yates
NOT VOTING--10
Blackwell
Clement
Cox
de Lugo (VI)
Dicks
Grandy
Horn
Slattery
Whitten
Wilson
{time} 1405
Ms. PELOSI and Messrs. MARTINEZ, TOWNS, PAYNE of New Jersey, and
YATES changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. pomeroy
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] for a recorded vote on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ``ayes'' prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] has
demanded a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce that this will be a 5-minute
vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 375,
noes 48, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 212]
AYES--375
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Valentine
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--48
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Applegate
Berman
Bonior
Clay
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Dellums
Dingell
Engel
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hastings
Johnson, E. B.
King
Kopetski
Martinez
McKinney
Meek
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Oxley
Payne (NJ)
Rangel
Reynolds
Rush
Sabo
Serrano
Stokes
Swift
Synar
Towns
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Washington
Waters
Yates
NOT VOTING--16
Bachus (AL)
Blackwell
Clement
Cox
de Lugo (VI)
Dornan
Grandy
Hoke
Horn
Johnston
McDermott
Rowland
Slattery
Underwood (GU)
Whitten
Wilson
{time} 1415
Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. LANCASTER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 212 on H.R.
4454, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted
yes.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House report 103-532.
amendment offered by mr. strickland
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by
the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Strickland: Page 15, line 1,
strike out ``$41,364,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$34,784,000''.
Page 15, line 1, strike out ``$10,260,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$3,680,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Strickland] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Young] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Strickland].
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer a very simple and
straightforward amendment. It would eliminate from the bill $6,580,000
for the installation of six additional elevators in the Longworth
Building.
Madam Chairman, there is absolutely no question that the Longworth
elevators are the slowest of all the House office buildings and are in
dire need of improvement. There is $700,000 in this bill that would
continue the elevator modernization project on the eight existing
elevators in the building which when complete will improve their
efficiency. I support the modernization project. My amendment leaves
those funds in the bill. However, I do not support the $6.58 million in
the bill to build six additional elevators in the Longworth Building.
This money is unnecessary at this time. Let us wait until the
modernization project on the eight existing elevators is complete. That
will be done by the end of 1995. Let us do that before we determine
that we need to spend over $6 million for six additional elevators.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Chairman, I would just like to say that we have been trying to
replace and repair these elevators in the Longworth Building for a long
time. During the discussion on the rule earlier, I said that every
Member that wanted to offer an amendment should have that right, and I
agree with that strongly, but I also pointed out that I did not think I
was going to support all of them, and I cannot support this.
Madam Chairman, the Members who are normally freshman Members in the
Longworth Building ought to have elevators that work and not only the
Members, themselves, but their constituents. A lot of people come to
visit Members who reside in the Longworth Building, and those elevators
ought to be safe, they ought to operate efficiently. Members should not
have to miss votes or have visitation with constituents delayed because
the elevators are old, antiquated, and need to be replaced.
Madam Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. While hopefully we
can find many other ways to reduce this bill, this particular amendment
I think is not a good amendment.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
{time} 1420
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the
Strickland amendment. I rise in support of the Strickland amendment
that would eliminate $6.5 million for the installation of six
additional elevators in Longworth. This is a reasonable cost-cutting
measure. It leaves in the bill $700,000 to complete the modernization
of all existing elevators in Longworth.
The time to decide whether Longworth needs an additional six
elevators is after modernization of the existing eight is complete, not
now. After completing the modernization project, we will be able to
evaluate the results of this project in terms of improved movement in
the building.
Why spend $6.5 million on new elevators before the existing ones have
been modernized?
As an occupant of the Longworth Building, I support the Strickland
amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
Madam Chairman, I hope the rumble you hear is the rumble of
discontent. I hope none of you that occupy buildings other than
Longworth will be voting for this. If you are in the Longworth
Building, you know we need at least six elevators.
Modernization? How about modernization of function? One of the things
that both sides said they were not going to do here today is
grandstand, and this is a grandstand amendment.
Now, your own constituents are being stuck out there, and we cannot
do proper business in the Longworth Building.
I also reside in the Longworth Building. I like the Longworth
Building. I enjoy being in the Longworth Building.
What I do not enjoy is seeing people who are trying to do their
work--and there has been criticism of the efficiency of the people
working here in the Congress right straight along--being held up minute
after minute, hour after hour, trying to get the mail in, trying to do
the ordinary business in the Longworth Building, everybody being jammed
up and stuck.
We cannot get the $6.5 million to get the additional elevators that
we need to do the proper business we need to today. If you want to
modernize, do not worry about the elevators we already have. Put in the
six that we need.
Vote down this amendment and vote to modernize Longworth.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, grandstanding is a matter of value
judgment.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Barca], an individual who is eminently qualified to speak about the
Longworth Building because he has an office on the seventh floor of the
Longworth Building.
Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, Members, I am in the
Longworth Building. I am on the seventh floor.
Currently two elevators are inoperable, and that has produced delays,
and it is a problem. But it is my understanding that this amendment
would allow those elevators not only to be fixed but would allow them
to be modernized so we could speed up that process.
Would it be nice to have six new elevators? Sure, it would be very
nice. It is not essential.
We have to make some cutbacks. I wish there were more amendments
perhaps, but this is a good amendment. It is an amendment we can all
live with.
I hope it passes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].
Mr. BAKER of California. Madam Chairman, I am a reformer. I believe
in term limits. I believe in cutting the expenditures of government.
But we found out on the Los Angeles Freeway you can only put off
retrofitting so long.
Two elevators today are down in Longworth, two of them are down, one
for the reform, which will only take about 1\1/2\ years to get that one
back in service because we are doing it in-house, and the second just
quit.
Do we want to modernize? Do we want to put some people to work
working on elevators? Do we want to spend $6 million so our
constituents can come here and visit us and lobby us and participate in
government?
I am a freshman. I am on the seventh floor. I have got a conflict of
interest, because there is no fire pole, there is no way I can get up
there 10 times a day, because you run such a crummy schedule here. I
have got to run back and forth, back and forth, to the seventh floor
and down.
Vote no.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, let me say that I am not a Congress-basher and I am
not for term limits. And I think we can mix up apples and oranges in
this debate.
What we are talking about is the matter of priorities.
Now, I hear a lot of people stand at that podium and talk about
saving money, and yet when it comes to a matter of having some personal
inconvenience, suddenly they change their tune.
What we are talking about is whether or not it is wise to spend this
amount of money at this point in time to build six new elevators in the
Longworth building. We are not talking about retrofitting existing
elevators.
The Longworth building needs work done on its existing elevators.
Every body agrees with that.
But the question is, at this point in time when we are asking a lot
of people to make a lot of sacrifices, should we be spending $6.58
million to build six additional elevators? The building has eight
elevators. Does it need 14 elevators? I think not.
This is a commonsense legislation. It is something that we ought to
do simply because it makes sense.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Madam Chairman, I, too, am in the Longworth Building. I have always
been in the Longworth Building, and anyone who has ever gone to the
Longworth Building knows that it is a disaster.
Ladies and gentlemen, what are we talking about here? This is the
Capitol of the United States. The Longworth Building is a disgrace. It
is an embarrassment when constituents come, when people come from all
over the country.
We have elevators, ``Members only'' elevators. We do not have
difficulty getting up and down those stairways or up and down the
different floors. It is our constituents who come here to visit the
Capitol of the United States, and they have to wait, 10, 15, and 20
minutes to get outside from the Longworth Building.
Do we not have any pride? This is a showplace for the country. This
is where the seat of government is. When our constituents come into
this building, they cannot even get in or out.
I know this is election year. Everybody is looking to show the folks
back home we are tightening our belts, but this is not the place to do
it.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson].
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I simply want to
say I am a freshmen on the seventh floor of the Longworth Building. I
think you can be penny-wise and pound-foolish, and this is the
amendment that proves it.
Vote no on this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield the remainder of my
time, 30 seconds, to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
{time} 1430
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I thank my colleague from Dallas, who is on
the seventh floor. I do not want to slide down a fire rail with her,
but I think the point has to be made that the largest disparity is in
the number of elevators in each House building per number of Members.
The Rayburn has 30 elevators for 168 Members, the Cannon has 14
elevators for 140 Members, and for nearly 140 Members in the Longworth
Building there are 10 elevators.
I think that is a good case for voting against this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Strickland].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 103-532.
amendment offered by mr. lancaster
Mr. LANCASTER. Madam Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lancaster. Page 17, line 16,
strike ``$95,158,000'' and insert ``$90,717,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Lancaster] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a member in
opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Lancaster].
(Mr. LANCASTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LANCASTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman and Members of the House, the amendment that is
offered before you now would strike $4,441,000 from the appropriation
for the Government Printing Office for congressional printing. The bill
reported provides for $95,158,000 for printing, which is an increase of
more than $6 million over the current year. $4,441,000 is in fact an
increase that was included in the bill to cover a rate increase for
printing. However, the Joint Printing Office refused to approve that
rate increase, and these funds represent those dollars.
Since that rate increase was not approved, these dollars are not
needed and may be removed from the bill without doing any jeopardy to
the printing needs of our Members.
Madam Chairman, I do rise in support of the amendment and would urge
my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I ask that I may be allowed to
control the 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Madam Chairman, in this body I think we face a dilemma over the next
several years that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Lancaster]
and I recognize, and that is the reason we offer this amendment; that
is, the fact that the Government Printing Office continues to lose
money. In fact, this year, the Government Printing Office is projected
to lose $29 million and next year will lose more than $30 million. And
here is the fundamental dilemma: Fewer and fewer people are using the
presses of the Government Printing Office, in part because they are
extraordinarily unproductive and in part because more and more
Government agencies are choosing to contract out for their services.
Finally, as we see a technological revolution which has made desktop
publishing possible, it is clear that GPO's client base will shrink
increasingly over the next several years.
Now, GPO itself projects a workload decline in fiscal 1995, and to
make up for these revenue shortfalls they have come back and, instead,
asked Congress to approve a 5-percent increase. Essentially, while
business is going down, they are making the intriguing move to raise
prices. I think anybody who has taken any economics course will tell
you if you raise prices while your business is going down, your
business is only going to go down further.
So I think what this will do is, instead, send a strong message to
GPO that what they should do is concentrate on reducing their overhead
costs, contracting out work which is more cost-effective. In fact, in
the near future, I would like to see us debate the idea of totally
forcing GPO to contract all of its services and moving to
privatization.
Finally, send a signal to GPO that if they reduce costs, they can cut
overhead by 50 cents on every dollar and that will bring them more
business instead of paradoxically raising their rates on the idea that
it will bring in more business.
I congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, in
offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to strike $4.41
million in price increases which are clearly not justified.
Mr. LANCASTER. Madam Chairman, I had intended to yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin, but since he had already spoken, I have no
further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Lancaster].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5, printed
in House Report 103-532.
amendment offered by mr. johnson of georgia
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer
an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia: Page 17, line
16, strike the pending dollar figure and insert an amount
equal to that dollar figure less $3,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Johnson] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Johnson].
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, the House in the previous amendment was to cut more
than $4.4 million from the Government Printing Office budget for fiscal
1995. This is a worthwhile effort, but I believe it does not go far
enough in cutting the size of the GPO budget during these times of
dwindling resources. This amendment provides for an additional $3
million reduction. The GPO budget has asked for $3 million to pay down
a shortfall which they claim is owed because of printing done in prior
years. This so-called shortfall appears to be a subsidy to cover the
losses incurred on executive branch printing which they are passing on
to the congressional printing charge.
Madam Chairman, the GPO must become more efficient. The GPO needs to
downsize and employ only the appropriate number of workers to do the
printing of the three branches of Government in the most cost-effective
manner possible. Perhaps more of the work of the legislative branch
could be done by the private sector. I understand the work done at GPO
usually runs twice the cost to produce the same job printed by the
private sector under contract to GPO. We simply have to control costs
at GPO.
Just 2 weeks ago the Joint Committee on Printing and Oversight for
the GPO directed the agency to take immediate and forceful steps to
find cost savings within the agency. This action comes in anticipation
of a $22 million shortfall projected for the GPO. This amendment
supports the goals of the joint committee and reduces the appropriation
for the agency an additional $3 million.
I understand the Legislative Branch Appropriations Committee desire
to fund the GPO at a reasonable level. Government Printing Office
projects a workload decline in fact for fiscal year 1995, which is the
typical pattern during the first year of a new Congress. Therefore,
this amendment is to bring in line the expected costs for congressional
products for fiscal year 1995 with the experience that we have had in
fiscal year 1993.
{time} 1440
In that year the new Congress only utilized 90 percent of the
appropriation of $89 million for the GPO and binding accounting. I
believe that the funds in the congressional printing and binding
account for fiscal year 1995 will be more than adequate to do the work
of Congress but will take away the funds that might be used to
subsidize the executive branch.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Madam Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Johnson] for yielding time. I would also like to
thank both the ranking member and chairman of the Rules Committee for
allowing this important amendment to be made in order.
We must cut spending to reduce the deficit. To restore some
credibility with Congress, we must begin by cutting our own budget.
Only when taxpayers see that Members of Congress are willing to spend
less on their own appropriations will they believe Congress is serious
about cutting spending.
This amendment seeks to strike $3 million from the appropriation for
congressional printing at the Government Printing Office. As reported,
the bill provides an increase of $6.8 million over the current year--an
increase of 7.6 percent over the previous year.
I am particularly concerned with GPO's funding request for $3 million
to pay down a shortfall which they claim is owed because of printing
done in prior years. This so-called shortfall looks like a bailout of
the losses incurred on executive branch printing that GPO is trying to
pass on as a congressional printing charge.
It is worth noting that Congress declined to fund a GPO request last
year to make up for a similar shortfall problem. This move was done to
reduce management and overhead costs at GPO. Moreover, it remains
unclear whether the executive branch is paying their fair share of
GPO's overhead costs.
No private business can rely on such a bailout to remedy inadequate
management. Holding GPO accountable to identify the proper offsets is
entirely reasonable given the fiscal constraints placed on our Federal
Government. High overhead costs and pricing policies may need to be
reevaluated as part of this effort to responsibly bring GPO's budget on
track. This is in the best interest of all taxpayers.
Furthermore, previous congressional refusal to fund similar
shortfalls at GPO has actually shown positive results. In fiscal year
1993, GPO had an estimated $21.4 million shortfall that Congress would
not cover. The next year, the shortfall was $11.9 million less.
This amendment is simply a responsible effort to help bring fiscal
accountability to the legislative branch. For that reason, I ask that
my colleagues join me in supporting this initiative.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I urge an aye vote on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Johnson].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 6 printed
in House Report 103-532.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Torkildsen] rise?
amendment offered by mr. torkildsen
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Torkildsen: Page 18, line 11,
strike ``$10,182,000'' and all that follows through line 12
and insert ``$3,182,000.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Torkildsen] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Torkildsen].
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise today with the gentlewoman
from Virginia [Ms. Bryne] to offer an amendment to H.R. 4454. I would
like to thank Mr. Young, the ranking member of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Subcommittee, for his assistance on this important
matter.
My amendment seeks to reduce the $10.2 million appropriation for the
Botanic Garden by $7 million. This $7 million is intended for design
and construction plans for renovation of the garden's conservatory.
This funding would begin a prospective $28 million project whose costs
have only been estimated by the Architect of the Capitol. I strongly
believe that we need detailed design and construction plans of the
project in advance of this substantial appropriation.
I am not saying the Botanic Garden should never initiate this
important renovation. I am concerned, however, that this public
expenditure be made prudently, given the huge Federal deficit, and in a
way that provides the greatest return for the taxpayers. As Members of
this institution we are obliged to preserve the historic nature of the
Capitol but within fiscally responsible limits. It is my understanding
that House conferees removed similar funding in a previous legislative
branch appropriations conference committee because of concerns with the
project's costs and schedule. The same concerns about the project exist
today.
I would also note that other options may be exercised with regard to
the funding for the Botanic Garden renovation. The outstanding efforts
of the Capitol Preservation Commission to obtain private funding for
their undertakings should serve as a model of a way to fund renovations
of other projects. I believe this should be considered for the Botanic
Gardens, and we should have realistic estimates of private support
before committing these funds.
For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment
to strike this unnecessary appropriation.
Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne].
Mrs. BYRNE. Madam Chairman, the Byrne-Torkildsen amendment will
eliminate $7 million in appropriations for the renovation of the U.S.
Botanic Garden conservatory. It is an era that we have to belt-tighten,
and it is clear these funds are not going to be used because there is
no design. Yesterday in our Committee on Rules' meeting the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] called this a pig in a poke, and indeed
that about nails it. It is a pig in a poke, only unfortunately for us
it is a $7 million pig.
Madam Chairman, I join with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Torkildsen] in asking that this appropriation be cut.
Madam Chairman, my amendment will eliminate the $7 million
appropriation for the renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden
Conservatory.
The Botanic Garden serves a very important educational function in
our Nation's Capital. But in this era of fiscal belt-tightening, we
cannot allocate funds to projects whose costs and benefits have not
been fully evaluated. Unfortunately, that is the case with the
conservatory.
The Architect of the Capitol first proposed large-scale renovations
to the conservatory in 1990, estimating a cost of $21 million based
upon preliminary design plans.
In fiscal 1993, Congress appropriated $2 million to the garden to
develop a final design plan for the project. To date, this final design
has not been completed. In the meantime, the delays have driven the
estimated cost of this project up to $28 million.
This year's legislative branch appropriations bill allocated the
first of four $7 million installations for the renovations--even though
none of us have seen a final design.
When we are trying to make the most out of scarce Federal dollars, it
just doesn't make sense to spend millions on a project which has not
been completely designed and which has already seen a 33-percent
projected increase in costs. We are being asked to pay now and inspect
later.
Without a final project design, there is absolutely no guarantee that
the cost won't rise again. While we need to provide the Botanic Garden
with the funds necessary to maintain its facilities, we should not
commit ourselves to funding a project that has not been finalized.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to keep the
legislative branch appropriations bill fiscally responsible.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 7 printed
in House Report 103-532.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca] rise?
amendment offered by mr. barca of wisconsin
Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN, The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. barca of Wisconsin: Page 24, line
2, strike out ``$32,100,000: Provided,'' and insert in lieu
thereof the following: ``$30,600,000: Provided, That the
objectives of chapter 41 of title 44, United States Code, as
enacted by the Government Printing Office Electronic
Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, shall be carried
out through cost savings: Provided further,''.
The CHAIRMAN, Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Barca] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment, the Barca-Kleczka-Thomas amendment, which would save $1.5
million from GPO. Last year at about this time; in fact, I think a year
to the date, we had passed a bill called the Electronic Information
Access Act of 1993, and in the committee report it was stated that we
could go forward and this would be an efficient way to get documents
out to people in a cost-effective manner that would either be cost
neutral or save money. That was stated in the committee report. It was
also stated by the floor manager, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Kleczka] who will also be speaking on this, and by the minority leader
of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
Mr. Madam Chairman, we believe that we should be able to do this on a
cost-neutral or a cost-savings basis, and that is what this amendment
would accomplish.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Kleczka].
(Mr. KLECZKA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, which would reduce funding for the Government Printing
Office by $1.5 million dollars. This reduction in funds is not an
arbitrary cut, but is rather a necessary adjustment so that this bill
conforms with current law.
Last year, this House passed Public Law 103-40, the Government
Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act. When I
came to the floor with this bill, I made very clear that the Government
Printing Office is to achieve the objective of this law through cost
savings elsewhere in its appropriated funds. It was very clear in the
bill, the committee report, and statements on this floor that no
additional funds be appropriated to carry out this legislation.
This is why I was very concerned when my colleague, Mr. Barca, told
me about the $1.5 million that was being added to cover the basic costs
for libraries to have initial electronic access. I certainly want the
electronic access program to continue, with the depository libraries
having free access, but it was quite clear that GPO must fund this
through cost savings, not new spending.
I congratulate Representative Barca on this wise, cost-saving
amendment, and I am glad to see that it is cosponsored by a Member on
the other side of the aisle. Although he has only been here a short
time, Representative Barca has proven himself today as someone who is
concerned with the use of taxpayers dollars.
I encourage all Members to support the Barca-Kleczka-Thomas
amendment.
Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1450
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed
in House Report 103-532.
amendment offered by mr. roberts
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Roberts: Page 25, line 13, strike
``4,493'' and insert ``4,193''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Roberts] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I rise to join my colleague from
Wisconsin, Congressman Scott Klug, in offering this amendment to reduce
the number of full-time equivalent positions [FTE's), at the Government
Printing Office. The proposed authorization level of 4,493 would be
reduced to 4,193. A reduction of 300 FTE's would save an estimated
annual savings of $15 million.
For those of us who are not accountants, let me explain what an FTE
is. One FTE is equal to one employee working full-time for a full year.
The FTE authorization level is equal to the total number of hours all
agency employees work. The FTE authorization level does not cap the
number of employees, but rather the number of work hours all employees
can be paid for in a year.
As the ranking Republican member serving on the House-Senate Joint
Committee on Printing, the congressional entity with oversight of GPO's
operation, I have been alarmed with the dramatic financial losses being
incurred by the GPO. This year the GPO estimates its losses to be
nearly $27 million and for fiscal year 1995 to increase to $29 million.
Over the last 3 years, the Joint Committee on Printing has requested
four different studies to be conducted by the General Accounting
Office, Arthur Andersen Accounting, and the Public Printer to determine
the cause and options to reduce and end these losses. Every report
concluded that GPO was outdated and overstuffed for the amount of work
being done. Every report encouraged major reorganization of personnel
and elimination of positions. In addition, the reports found personnel
costs to account for 80 percent of all GPO costs and that
administrative or overhead reductions would not offset financial
losses.
Even GPO's financial documents show that its procurement operations
continue to make a profit for the agency of $107 per print job, in
comparison to a loss of $1,027 per job for work printed in-house. Yet,
nearly 2,000 GPO employees continue to do in-house print work and only
725 hold position to contract out work--one-third. Simply put, we need
to reduce in-house printing and increase procurement to cut losses.
Why is the GPO losing money? It is not the fault of the employees or
the work that they do. Rather, it is technology, itself. In the age of
advanced technology and electronic printing, the GPO has become
outdated. The way in which GPO work is done is simply more expensive
and slower than the way it can now be done with new technologies. For
that reason, traditional customers are turning to alternatives and the
GPO, like any other business, must cut costs and can no longer afford
to keep its entire work force.
On May 12, the JCP met to discuss this situation and the growing
financial loss at the GPO. The JCP determined quick action was
necessary to slow the alarming financial trend. The committee directed
the Public Printer to take actions to cut losses--by reducing overhead
and personnel. In addition, I supported efforts to hire a consultant to
assist the GPO in this endeavor.
In light of these efforts, it is important to note that this bill
freezes the fiscal year 1994 FTE authorization level of 4,493 for
fiscal year 1995--despite the JCP's insistence for personnel
reductions. To freeze personnel levels would be contrary to an 11-year
effort by the JCP and several other members to slowly reduce the FTE
authorization to prevent financial losses at GPO
Freezing the FTE level would only encourage the GPO's losses to
increase. This amendment would cut those losses.
A 300 FTE reduction would result in savings of roughly $15 million--a
cut that would enable the GPO to reduce its estimated losses in half.
While Congressman Klug and I originally drafted our amendment to reduce
FTE's by 600, a number equal to the estimated losses at GPO, in
conversations with other Members concerns were raised over such a
dramatic cut. The amendment has been drafted to address those concerns
and turn GPO back on a course to financial stability.
In addition, this amendment does not mandate reductions in specific
areas. Instead, it would allow the GPO's own Public Printer to review,
with the professional assistance of the JCP, its structure and
incrementally reduce employees in money-losing operations.
My colleagues, the world has changed and the GPO has to be changed to
fit in it. It is more humane and sensitive to employees to gradually
reduce the work force than in a future date be forced to totally
eliminate the entire agency--and that is what will happen if true
corrective action isn't taken.
My colleagues, we have reached a crossroads at the GPO. If we do not
take these steps, the situation will only worsen.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia [Ms. Norton] for 5 minutes to control time in opposition.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. There is no reason to have a different set of rules for the
GPO than we have for the rest of the Government.
There are rigorous caps in place, and unlike the rest of the
Government, the GPO is already 193 positions below their full-time
equivalents.
The last thing we need to do at a time when we are buying out the
rest of the Government is to precipitate layoffs in a single agency.
Moreover, in reinventing government, there is a move to, in fact,
encourage agencies to contract out certain kinds of work.
Well, the GPO is the leader in contracting out work. Ninety-three
percent of the work of the executive is already contracted out by GPO.
Eighty percent of all of its work is contracted out. Virtually the only
work done at GPO is the overnight work that you have to do for the
Congress itself, work such as the Congressional Record.
If GPO were not on a steep decline already, one could understand
these amendments that would push them further. There is no reason to
push this agency into a layoff position. These are working families.
These are people who have to support themselves the way everybody else
does. These are jobs that are being systematically eliminated. To force
the elimination of jobs in a precipitous fashion would single out the
GPO from other agencies.
We have not opposed, I certainly have not opposed, some of the other
amendments, amendments which would reduce congressional printing, but
when we got to this amendment, I sought specific information about its
impact. When I learned that its impact is not simply savings, but the
elimination of actual people faster than those people are already being
eliminated, I could not find a reason why anybody would want to
precipitate that kind of result.
So I am asking my colleagues to oppose the amendment, the Roberts
amendment, and allow the efficiencies already under way at GPO,
efficiencies that are far in advance of what other agencies are now
about, to work their way and work their will.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, might I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has 3 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms.
Norton] has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Roberts] has the right to close.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for
yielding.
If I may, let me show the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
[Ms. Norton] why I think this action is necessary today. The green you
see here is when the Government Printing Office actually operated at a
profitable basis. Since 1990, as you can see, once we saw the advent of
desktop publishing and moves to greater efficiency in the Federal
Government, and a move, again, which I think should be accelerated, to
contracting out work, the GPO has lost money. In fact, as you heard,
the predictions are that the GPO will lose $29 million in fiscal year
1995 if we do not do something.
The blue trend line is the number of employees. As you can see, its
slope is much different than the slope which indicates GPO's increasing
losses, which will soon approach $30 million, if we do not act quickly.
Now, every major group that has looked at this, as the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has said, from the General Accounting Office, to
the Arthur Andersen consulting firm, to the Public Printers, GPO 2000,
has indicated that GPO has to begin seriously downsizing. It is
overstaffed for the amount of work being done, and it is overstaffed
for the amount of work that is being done because Federal agencies
realize it is not doing a very good job any longer. The technology
cannot keep up.
As we have seen from the Vice President's own report on
privatization, to the kind of things happening now in New York City and
Massachusetts, where more privatization is taking place, to the former
Soviet Union, where still more work is moving from the public sector, I
think this is long overdue.
This amendment will cut the FTE ceiling from 4,493 positions by 300
persons, to a level of 4,193, equal to $15 million. So the gentleman
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and I will tell you, 300 employees was not
our firsts choice, 600 employees was our first choice.
This savings will represent $15 million, or roughly half of GPO's
projected losses in the first year. If GPO can prove to us in the
future that their wok is increasing and more Government clients are
coming back, then we are willing to think about adding back positions.
But for the time being, every job that GPO does, the Federal Government
loses 50 cents on the dollar, from what they could have done had it
been privatized out.
I respect the feelings of the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia [Ms. Norton] as I do her colleague from Prince George's
County, about what it means to their workers. But our job is to look
after the greater good of the American taxpayer.
At this point in history, GPO is a loser, and I urge my colleagues to
support the Roberts-Klug amendment, which will go at least halfway to
cutting GPO losses in the current year.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Madam Chairman, I would like to join my colleague from the
District of Columbia in opposing the Roberts-Klug amendment. If the
threshold question is does GPO get it, I think clearly they do. If the
issue is contracting out, they have responded. Eighty percent of
congressional work is now being contracted out. Ninety-three percent of
executive level business is being contracted out. But the important
fact remains that there is rapid turnover work that must be done on an
overnight short-term basis, that cannot be contracted out. That is the
area where GPO has extensive expertise. That is the area that we wanted
to maintain and make sure runs in an efficient manner.
{time} 1500
I believe that meat ax approach that is being suggested is not the
way to respond to the current situation. They are already cutting out
weak areas of these concerns in a better fashion. Already, if we look
to the chart that is presented, the trend is downward in terms of
personnel allocations. Right now GPO is 193 positions below its full
time, FTE, authorization, but if we take a meat ax approach we will
precipitate layoffs, and that will in fact be counterproductive to the
goal of reducing costs, because layoffs, as we have demonstrated in
extensive debate on this floor, causes increased costs with lost
productivity, plus additional payments for unemployment compensation
and the like.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Madam Chairman, there is no doubt we are going to have to look at the
management of the Government Printing Office, which I would say is
excellent. Mr. DiMario is doing an outstanding job. The fact of the
matter is, they are confronted with a new environment.
The fact of the matter is, they are confronted with constraints that
other agencies may not be confronted with. The fact of the matter is,
we have allowed printing to be done in other areas, rather than in
centralized, perhaps more efficient areas. There is no doubt we need to
look at and make sure that the Government Printing Office is giving to
the taxpayers and to the Congress full service for the dollars spent.
However, Madam Chairman, I would hope this amendment is rejected. I
have talked to my friends who are the proponents of this. They say they
started with 600 and came down to 300. The fact is, if we are at 200,
and we are not going to change this, but the fact is, as the gentleman
from Prince George's County, Mr. Wynn, and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, have pointed out, we would preclude
RIF's. RIF's are not good management policy.
If we plan, if we have a goal to get there from here, we can do it in
a sound management manner, and I would urge the rejection of this
amendment.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Madam Chairman, this is not a meat axe approach. This is not even a
scalpel. This is not even a pinprick. We started with 600 and we went
down to 300. We have been meeting and meeting and meeting. We have
studied and we have studied and we have studied to reduce the personnel
costs. If we contract it out at the GPO, we make $107. If it is an in-
house job, we lose $1,027. Two thousand GPO employees continue to do
in-house print work, and 725 are involved in contracting out. We can
afford a 300 FTE cut.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Roberts].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 9 printed
in House Report 103-532.
amendment offered by mr. manton
Mr. MANTON. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under
the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Manton: Page 30, after line 2,
insert the following:
Sec. 307. (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--The first
sentence of section 8335(d) of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``55'' and inserting ``57''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--(1) Section 8425
of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in the first sentence of subsection (b) by striking
``member of the Capitol Police or'' and ``member of'';
(B) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) A member of the Capitol Police who is otherwise
eligible for immediate retirement under section 8412(d) shall
be separated from the service on the last day of the month in
which such member becomes 57 years of age or completes 20
years of service if then over that age. The Capitol Police
Board, when in its judgment the public interest so requires,
may exempt such a member from automatic separation under this
subsection until that member becomes 60 years of age. The
Board shall notify the member in writing of the date of
separation at least 60 days before that date. Action to
separate the member is not effective, without the consent of
the member, until the last day of the month in which the 60-
day notice expires.''.
(2) Section 8415(d) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``(a) or (b)'' and inserting ``(a), (b),
or (c)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Manton] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DUNN. Madam Chairman, I ask to control the 5 minutes in
opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].
Mr. MANTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, the amendment Ms. Jennifer Dunn and I are offering
today would change the mandatory separation age for a U.S. Capitol
Police officer from its current 55 years to 57 years.
As my colleagues may recall, in 1990, Congress enacted the Capitol
Police Retirement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-428) which placed the
U.S. Capitol Police Force on a more level playing field with
surrounding Federal law enforcement agencies.
A key provision in this legislation made mandatory separation at age
55, which was identical to the retirement provisions of similarly
situated law enforcement entities. This legislation had widespread
support because it ensured parity, equity, and comparability among
Federal law enforcement agencies.
However, in the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill for fiscal year
1991, language was adopted that increased the mandatory separation age
for these surrounding Federal law enforcement agencies from 55 to 57.
This change was not included for the U.S. Capitol Police.
Madam Chairman, the amendment we are offering today is necessary in
order to restore parity. The Capitol Police and the Capitol Police
Board strongly support this change, and it is my understanding they
have the sufficient resources to accommodate this increase in mandatory
retirement age.
I would like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for
his support and assistance on this important matter, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. DUNN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I wish to confirm what my good friend and colleague
on the House Subcommittee on Police and Personnel, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Manton], has just told us.
As the chairman and ranking member of the Personnel and Police
Subcommittee we are today offering an amendment to bring our Capitol
Hill Police Force's retirement policy in line with similar Federal law
enforcement agencies.
As my colleague just stated, these other agencies had their mandatory
retirement age increased to 57 4 years ago in the Treasury-Postal
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1991. We in this body have not yet
done the same for our own law enforcement personnel.
Madam Chairman, this amendment is in keeping with the sense of parity
that this body first embraced with the Capitol Police Retirement Act of
1990. It will restore the even playing fields that were initially
created between our local Federal law enforcement agencies.
We have conferred closely with the chief of police, Gary Albrecht, on
the issue of cost and he said, and I quote ``that this is a wash.'' Any
cost increases that would result from retaining older, more experienced
officers on our police force will be covered in the savings realized by
not having to hire and train new personnel.
I especially wish to thank Mr. Young for his support and to again
compliment Chairman Manton on his efforts. As the ranking member of the
Personnel and Police Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues to join us in
supporting this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 10 printed
in House Report 103-532.
amendment offered by mr. traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. TRAFICANT: Page 30, after line 2,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 307. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice to Grantees and Contractors.--In providing
financial assistance to, or entering into any contract with,
any entity using funds made available in this Act, the head
of each Federal agency, to the greatest extent practicable,
shall provide to such entity a notice describing the
statement made in subsection (a) by the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will
be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I was not quite sure whether Congress was going to
retrofit the existing elevators in the Longworth, or if they were going
to build new ones, but one thing I was concerned about is when they got
done with those elevators, the American workers did not get the shaft.
I would like to see American products, wherever possible, used in
these construction projects. These American products are made by
American workers who pay American taxes, who keep the trucks coming
down the track and the train coming down the track.
Mr. FAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I just want to tell my friend, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], that we support the amendment and
we think his concerns about American workers are well-placed.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Madam Chairman, I just want to say that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant] does a fine job in making sure American workers are
protected to the best of our ability. We thank him for that. We support
the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 11 printed
in House Report 103-532.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: Page 26, line 24, strike
``$439,525,000'' and insert ``$408,656,750''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Bereuter] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member in opposition
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, this Member rises to offer an amendment
to H.R. 4454, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1995.
This Member's amendment would reduce the funding level included in
H.R. 4454 for the General Accounting Office [GAO] to 5 percent below
the fiscal year 1994 level.
GAO received a funding level of $430.2 million in fiscal year 1994,
and H.R. 4454 recommends a fiscal year 1995 funding level of $439.5
million--an increase of $9.4 million. This Member's amendment would
reduce the fiscal year 1995 funding level of GAO to $408.7 million, a
reduction of $30.9 million from the committee approved bill, and $21.5
million below fiscal year 1994's funding level.
Mr. Chairman, GAO is an agency where growth is out of control. GAO is
an agency which is not responsive to individual Members. In addition,
this Member strongly believes that the quality of work produced by the
GAO is increasingly shoddy. The work produced by GAO varies
dramatically, yet all products are given the same kind of credibility
simply because they are GAO products. The level of resources provided
to produce these products is excessive and has grown disproportionately
when compared with other congressional support agencies.
In addition, GAO resources are also used for consultants, training,
and other unnecessary expenses. Concern has also been expressed that
GAO is more interested in getting headlines than in supporting the
Congress with the required information.
While the original mission of GAO was to monitor congressional
spending and reduce waste, the agency has grown to the point where it
is now a major contributor itself to deficit spending.
From 1985 to 1993, GAO investigations doubled from 457 per year to
915. In addition, GAO's budget has jumped from $46.9 million in 1965 to
our current spending level of $430.2 million, a nearly 1000 percent
increase in unadjusted dollars.
This Member would like to point out that in fiscal year 1994, the
number of full-time equivalent positions at GAO were reduced from the
fiscal year 1993 amount by approximately $6 million and 100 positions.
However, additional costs are still needed to account for the past
growth at this agency.
This Member would like to outline some of the increase in GAO
funding. In 1980, funding for GAO staff cost $204 million. By 1985 that
had grown to $299 million. In 1988 it was $330 million, and in 1989,
$346 million. The average increase between 1980 and 1990 was 8 percent
per year. Then, in 1991, GAO was increased by 14 percent, to a total of
$409 million. In 1992, GAO received another 8-percent increase to $443
million.
GAO is currently the largest support agency for Congress, and its
budget represents more than one-quarter of the total proposed fiscal
year 1995 legislative branch appropriations. GAO's budget is 7\1/2\
times the size of the Congressional Research Service, 19 times the size
of the Congressional Budget Office, and 20 times the size of the Office
of Technology Assessment.
According to a Democratic Study Group Special Report issued on May
24, 1994, January personnel totals for GAO were 4,597. This level is
nearly as large as the staffing level of 4,617 for the entire Library
of Congress--the largest library in the world--which also includes the
staff of the Congressional Research Service.
According to this same study, GAO's staffing level is nearly 2\1/2\
times as large as the 1,849 House committee staff members, and more
than half as large as the 7,340 individuals employed by Members of the
House.
The DSG study also compares funding levels for the legislative branch
from 1979 to 1994, in inflation-adjusted dollars. According to DSG, the
General Accounting Office has received one of the largest increases in
funding for the entire legislative branch at 13.5 percent during this
time period.
Other areas of the legislative branch have actually declined since
1979, according to this study. For example, the Library of Congress
received a 17.6 percent reduction, CBO was reduced by 3.8 percent, and,
Members staff has even been reduced by 6.4 percent in inflation-
adjusted dollars since 1979.
Why then, if other areas have experienced these reductions, has GAO
been allowed to balloon over the years? Why has it been protected in
this manner?
Mr. Chairman, the time to act is now. This Member would like to urge
his colleagues to reject the $9.4 million increase for GAO included in
H.R. 4454 by supporting this Members amendment. A modest 5-percent cut
from the current year is entirely justified. Growth in GAO's budget
must not continue.
{time} 1510
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I ask that I be granted the 5 minutes in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Hutto], respected fiscally conservative member of our
caucus.
Mr. HUTTO. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee chairman's
yielding me the time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the General Accounting Office.
If there is any one agency in this town that deserves the support of
the Congress and the American taxpayer, it is the GAO.
In my capacity as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, whenever
there is a difficult issue that I need an objective evaluation of, I do
not hesitate to call on the GAO. Over the past year, GAO has provided
my subcommittee with numerous reports, testimonies, and analyses that
have proved invaluable in our decision making process that has saved
the taxpayers billions of dollars and, at the same time, improved the
operational effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Defense.
I would like to take just a moment to mention a few areas where GAO has
made a significant contribution.
Depot maintenance--GAO testimony on this very complex and sensitive
issue greatly assisted in our understanding of an operation for which
DOD spends about $15 billion annually. GAO's insight into such areas as
public-private competition and the impact of closing certain
maintenance depots was of great assistance to us as we had to make some
difficult decisions.
Defense business operating fund--the work that GAO has accomplished
in this area has greatly improved the operations of this multibillion
dollar entity. Their work has also resulted in recommendations to the
DOD which will save the Department and the taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Streamlining defense logistics systems--GAO's work in the services'
inventory management systems has enabled DOD to reduce the amount of
inventory that they do not need and saved hundreds of millions of
dollars. At the same time, the GAO recommendations which have been
largely adopted by DOD has made for more improved and efficient
operations.
Budget reviews--GAO assistance to my committee in providing timely
and objective analyses of the services' operation and maintenance [O&M]
budget requests have been invaluable. Without GAO's assistance, we
would have had a very difficult time meeting our deadlines for
performing our authorization process. Furthermore, their work has
enabled us to trim billions of dollars from the requests without
impairing military capability and readiness.
I could go on and on in voicing the many attributes of GAO. In
summary, I will conclude by saying that GAO is one of the few Federal
agencies that has consistently demonstrated the willingness and ability
to respond to the Congress with timely, objective information and
analysis on a wide variety of issues. I know that my subcommittee
relies heavily on the GAO and I have always found them to be completely
objective and nonpartisan in their work approach and ethics. GAO is
truly the best friend that the American taxpayer has in Government.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distilnguished
gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], who also offered a similar
amendment.
Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Nebraska.
This amendment is reasonable. Our friend, the gentleman who just
spoke, said that we need the GAO. Of course we do, of course we do. We
need an arm that provides information. This does not take that away. It
simply takes 5 percent away from the budget and $30 million out of over
$400 million.
Madam Chairman, GAO is a massive bureaucracy. It has a staff of over
4,700 people. That represents one-quarter of the legislative branch
staff. By the way, it represents equal to 1 percent of the population
of my home State of Wyoming. Over the years this funding has grown up
incrementally.
Madam Chairman, let me just talk about a couple of facts:
Twenty years ago since GAO initiated most of its own inquiries, today
more than 80 percent come as a result of congressional requests from
subcommittee and committee chairman. The GAO represents one-fifth of
the total legislative budget; 4,700 people represents one-quarter of
all the branch of the legislative staffers.
Finally, let me tell Members that we also have 31 detailees, less
than we did have.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which
would simply trim down the cost and allow GAO to continue to carry out
its function.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, this is the kind of amendment that
should never even be considered in the House of Representatives. This
is an amendment which is going to blind the Congress, which is going to
take away our ability to gather facts, to analyze situations, to audit
wrongdoers, to see to it that public money is properly spent.
This amendment is going to deny the committees and the Congress the
ability to do the kinds of things we have done through the assistance
and services of GAO. It is going to require the layoffs of large
numbers of GAO agents and personnel. It is going to make it impossible
for committees of Congress to get the kind of services that they want
in terms of analyzing the behavior of Government contractors. It is
going to prevent us from recovering monies improperly collected and to
see to it that accounts of the Government are properly audited. It is
going to set up a situation whereby Republican colleagues who are
pushing this are all of a sudden not going to be able to get the kind
of services that they need, and especially need in terms of seeing to
it that the Government agencies now run by the Government are properly
audited.
Madam Chairman, this is a bad amendment. It should be rejected
overwhelmingly. It is irresponsible.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Government Operations.
(Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLINGER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr.
Bereuter. As the ranking Republican on the Government Operations
Committee, the committee that oversees GAO, I share with my colleagues
a sense of frustration with certain aspects of GAO's performance. In
fact, members of my staff are at this moment at GAO scrutinizing GAO
workpapers on the travel office scandal.
However, cutting GAO's budget is not the solution to our frustration.
GAO is already downsizing and has reduced its budget by $12 million and
500 workyears from fiscal year 1992 levels. Several field offices have
already closed, including ones in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and
Oklahoma. GAO has reduced travel, training, contract services, and
other program costs by about 40 percent and plans a total staff
reduction of 12 percent by 1996.
If enacted, this amendment will potentially result in delays in audit
and investigative work, and will stall the implementation of a computer
network intended to increase agency efficiency.
From a strictly partisan perspective, I am concerned about the impact
this amendment may have on Republican oversight efforts. Now, more than
ever, Republicans need an effective, efficient, and aggressive GAO to
assist in overseeing the operations of executive branch agencies and
departments.
We are all in agreement that GAO can, should, and must do better.
That is one of the reasons why I have regular discussions with the
Computer General. He has been responsive to many of my concerns and I
am confident that the Computer General will continue working with the
minority to ensure a fair and objective GAO.
I understand and appreciate the position of the gentleman from
Nebraska, but I must urge a ``no'' vote on the Bereuter amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my aim.
Madam Chairman, this is not a draconian amendment.
No partisanship was injected into the discussion in support of this
amendment. This is not an irresponsible amendment in any way. This is
an agency that has grown faster since 1979 than practically any other
aspect of the legislative branch appropriations. During the period of
time from 1979 to 1994 the increase has been about 13.5 percent.
I remind my colleagues the number of employees in the GAO is 4,597.
What this gentleman is offering is not a 10 percent or 11 percent or a
15 percent reduction. I am offering a very modest amendment. This is an
amendment that ought to be adopted by a wide margin. It shows the
public we are responsible about our own budget.
I urge my colleagues to approve the Bereuter amendment for a 5
percent reduction.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, before I close the debate, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to both the Bereuter and
Boehner amendments to H.R. 4454.
The effect of both of these ill-conceived amendments would be to
deprive Congress of the investigative and oversight services provided
by the General Accounting Office. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] would reduce the GAO budget by 5
percent, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Boehner], would--among other cuts--reduce the GAO budget by 11 percent.
The General Accounting Office provides this body with an invaluable
service in conducting detailed audits and investigations of Cabinet
agencies, independent regulatory bodies, and critically important
regulatory matters. As chairman of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Finance, I can personally attest to the value of
GAO's reports in informing our deliberations regarding complex and
difficult issues affecting the structure of our national
telecommunications infrastructure, the regulation of our Nation's
securities markets and stock exchanges, and future course of our
financial system.
Just last week, for example, the GAO submitted to the subcommittee a
comprehensive report on financial derivatives. Derivatives are
financial products developed by Wall Street whose value is related to--
or derived from--the value of an underlying asset, such as a stock,
bond, commodity, or an index representing the values of stocks, bonds,
or commodities. The use of these products has exploded 145 percent in
size over the last 5 years, transforming it into a $12 trillion
marketplace.
GAO's report, which resulted from an intensive 2-year investigation
into the derivatives market, has identified a number of potentially
very serious gaps in the regulatory structure governing dealers and
end-users of these products. If not corrected, these gaps could
potentially endanger the very fabric of the U.S. and global financial
system. Our committee, along with other House and Senate subcommittees,
are using this report as the roadmap to tightening up the regulations
relating to the derivatives market and crafting appropriate remedial
legislation to fill in the regulatory ``black holes'' which GAO has
identified.
This is just one example of how the work that the GAO performs for
this institution allows us to do a better job of oversight and
legislating on the critical issues facing our Nation. Derivatives may
sound like an exotic or esoteric issue, but if they contribute to crash
in the stock market, or the failure of major banks, then it is this
body which will be left with the unenviable task of cleaning up the
financial mess. I would suggest to my colleagues that the value in
terms of financial crises averted, market crashes avoided is well worth
the cost of maintaining the investigative and auditing infrastructure
in place at GAO that enables us to nip these potential problems in the
bud.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against efforts to cut the GAO
budget, and to approve the level of funding provided for in the
Appropriations Committee reported bill.
{time} 1520
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. The GAO has already implemented a plan that will reduce its
staff by 700 employees, or 12 percent, by 1996.
This budget has been reduced $12 million below what it was in 1992.
We have made savings in this GAO account with the cooperation, I might
add, of the Comptroller General and his staff.
They understand the need to streamline, and they have certainly done
so using buyout authority, attrition, realigning field offices, and
reducing travel, contract services, and other areas and by about 40
percent.
But the most important thing here is that if we were to engage in
this cut, we would really do much damage to Government. We would delay
the processing of bid protests. We would be, therefore, unable to
enforce many of the laws which are currently on the books. Decisions
that really, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] said go
to the very core of the most expensive programs in the Government would
be delayed.
This is a penny-wise and pound-foolish amendment, as has been said.
I urge its defeat.
general accounting office impact of reducing committee mark of
$439,525,000 to $408,656,750
GAO's 1994 budget has already been reduced $12 million below the
fiscal year 1992 level. To absorb these reductions, GAO has already:
First, implemented a plan that will reduce its staff by 700 employees
or 12 percent by the end of fiscal year 1996, including: using buyout
authority to reduce over 400 staff; using attrition to reduce over 200
staff; and realigning Washington and field staff offices to reduce
about 100 staff.
Second, reduced travel, training, contract services, and other audit
support programs by about 40 percent.
An additional cut of over $30 million could only be achieved through:
First, a reduction-in-force. Approximately 12 percent of GAO staff
would need to be RIF'd--close 3 regional offices, 300 employees, and
RIF about 300 employees in Washington, DC.
Second, termination of two critical projects: Stop asbestos removal
from the GAO building, increasing health risk, and creating unnecessary
contract termination costs of over $2 million, subsequent startup
costs, and prolonged rent costs of about $12 million a year for peopled
currently housed outside the GAO building; and stop networking
computers throughout the agency, leaving about 650 employees without
computer support essential to the performance of their jobs.
Due to its disruptive nature, a RIF of this magnitude--12 percent--
would result in the following:
First, there would be a significant delay in processing bid protests.
GAO currently processes about 3,500 bid protests each year. This would
drop by about 15 percent creating large backlogs and delays of up to 4
months in awarding many Government contracts.
Second, GAO currently settles an average of approximately 6,100
claims again the Government per year totaling about $550 million. This
would also drop by about 15 percent creating backlogs and estimated
delays in processing of 6 to 9 months.
Third, under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, GAO collects over
$2 million a year for payment to over 18,000 employees who have been
paid less than minimum wage by their employers. The number of payments
processed would drop by over 14 percent creating serious backlogs and
delays in making payments of up to 4 months.
Fourth, GAO renders about 700 Comptroller General decisions each
year. This would result in reducing the number of decisions by about 15
percent and delays of up to 6 months, impacting on a wide variety of
Government operations.
HISTORY OF GAO'S APPROPRIATION AND STAFFING
[Appropriations in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory
pay and Other Appropriation Average
Fiscal year Base inflation charges positions
increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984.............................................. ......... ........... .......... 271,710 5,000
1985.............................................. 271,710 15,449 12,545 299,704 5,050
1986.............................................. 299,704 8,547 (20,200) 288,051 5,042
1987.............................................. 288,051 22,922 0 310,973 5,042
1988.............................................. 310,973 24,858 (5,984) 329,847 5,052
1989.............................................. 329,847 12,303 5,189 347,339 5,062
1990.............................................. 347,339 16,534 (212) 363,661 5,062
1991.............................................. 363,661 33,253 12,328 409,242 5,062
1992.............................................. 409,242 25,464 7,941 442,647 5,062
1993.............................................. 442,647 7,698 (15,178) 435,167 4,900
1994.............................................. 435,167 9,913 (14,915) 430,165 4,581
1995\1\........................................... 430,165 925 8,435 439,525 \2\4,581
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\House reported bill.
\2\Authorized FTE's 4707.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. The amendment
proposes substantial budget cuts on the General Accounting Office. To
say that such cuts are penny wise and pound foolish is to state the
obvious. The General Accounting Office provides crucial information and
services to the Congress that are unlikely to be available from any
other source. As chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, I can personally attest to the value of this work. The General
Accounting Office, for example, has been instrumental in identifying
the increasing, potentially terminal problems faced by the Postal
Service. The best information that the Congress has received regarding
the loss of markets, the increasing threat posed by the electronic
superhighway, or the problems with the Postal Service's automation
efforts has not come from the Postal Service, its customers, or its
employees, but has been provided by the General Accounting Office.
Committee investigators have been greatly assisted by GAO staff and
investigators from the Office of Special Investigations in reviewing
grossly negligent operations of the Postal Inspection Service and in
investigations of questionable activities at the Christopher Columbus
Jubilee Commission.
The General Accounting Office has been equally valuable to the
Congress in the development of Civil Service policy. To date, the
General Accounting Office has provided the foremost and best
independent assessment of Vice President Gore's National Performance
Review recommendations. Those recommendations contemplate what amounts
to a complete revision of Government personnel policy. Particularly as
those recommendations are translated into legislative proposals, the
ability of my committee and the Congress to implement legislation that
will enhance productivity will depend heavily on information that can
only be provided by the General Accounting Office. Enactment of this
amendment practically guarantees that such information will not be
available.
The General Accounting Office was established to provide Congress
independent, nonpartisan, detailed information that Congress could not
otherwise obtain. That information has been as invaluable to
congressional efforts to identify waste, fraud, and abuse as it has in
our efforts to develop policies that address the long and short-term
needs of the country. Gutting the General Accounting Office will not
save a dime of taxpayer's money. It will simply place the Congress at
the further mercy of the executive branch and special interest groups.
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the effort to decimate the General
Accounting Office.
The GAO is essential to helping us make intelligent budget cuts and
program improvements.
As chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, that has been
responsible for the largest part of budget reconciliation cuts during
the past 8 years, I can testify that the GAO has been the key to
helping us separate the fat from the muscle of the Medicare Program. We
have been able to make tens of billions of dollars in cuts in the
growth of Medicare without crippling the program, in large part because
of the many Medicare and Medicaid projects of the GAO. To give just one
quick example, the GAO's work on abuses by physicians in the referral
of patients to facilities in which they have an ownership interest has
resulted in legislation that will save the public and private sectors
hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
As chairman of the District of Columbia Committee, the GAO is
currently playing a key role in deciphering the problem of the finances
of the District of Columbia and pointing to areas where we need to make
improvements in the Federal payment. The one study they are doing for
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Dixon and myself is likely to lead
to savings worth many times the amount of the proposed budget cut in
front of us.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this shortsighted amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 232, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 213]
AYES--193
Allard
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
de la Garza
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoagland
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klein
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Levy
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lloyd
Lucas
Machtley
Mann
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Penny
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Valentine
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--232
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
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
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Michel
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--14
Clay
Clement
Cox
Franks (CT)
Grandy
Gunderson
Horn
Lewis (FL)
Miller (CA)
Schumer
Slattery
Tauzin
Washington
Wilson
{time} 1541
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Cox for, with Mr. Slattery against.
Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Wilson against.
Messrs. STRICKLAND, ACKERMAN, PETERSON of Minnesota, and MEEHAN
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi and Mr. SHAYS changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, because of a family health
emergency, I was unable to cast a vote on rollcall vote 213. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 213, the Bereuter
amendment to H.R 4454, the bill making appropriations for the
legislative branch for the fiscal year 1995.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed
in House Report 103-532.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] rise?
amendment offered by mr. boehner
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boehner:
Page 30, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 307. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for
the following accounts and activities are hereby reduced by
the following amounts:
TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Salaries and Expenses
Total, $103,000.
allowances and expenses
Total, $103,000.
Miscellaneous items, $103,000.
JOINT ITEMS
Joint Economic Committee
$4,090,000.
Joint Committee on Printing
$1,370,000.
Joint Committee on Taxation
$6,019,000.
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Salaries and Expenses
$21,931,000.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Office of the Architect of the Capitol
salaries
$474,000.
Capitol Buildings And Grounds
house office buildings
$9,077,000.
capitol power plant
$565,000.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Congressional Printing and Binding
$6,754,000.
TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES
BOTANIC GARDEN
Salaries and Expenses
$7,080,000.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Office of Superintendent of Documents
salaries and expenses
$3,018,000.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Salaries and Expenses
$47,318,150.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner]
will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I would appreciate the 5 minutes in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Chairman, my colleagues, today I am offering this amendment for
my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] who is at the
hospital with his wife who is giving birth to their second child.
Madam Chairman, the amendment that I have before us simply freezes
spending in this bill at fiscal year 1994 levels. It does not do an
across the board; it does it in this way:
Members clerk hire is funded at the committee recommendation. The
General Accounting Office is cut by $47 million. The Botanic Garden has
already been cut. The Architect of the Capitol would lose $8.3 million.
The Office of Technology Assessment is eliminated, a $21 million
savings. The Government Printing Office is frozen at 1994 levels. The
congressional printing and binding levels are frozen again at 1994
levels. It also eliminates the Joint Economic Committee, the Joint
Committee on Taxation, the Joint Committee on Printing, but it also, my
colleagues, continues to have increases for the leadership offices,
committee employees, the Budget Committee studies. The committee
funding is still in here. HIS increases are still in here. Allowances,
expenses are still increased, and salaries for officers and employees,
those are increases that were in the committee mark and continue to be
in this bill.
Madam Chairman, the American people believe the Government is too big
and it spends too much. If we are going to provide an example for the
American people and the rest of Government, we need to do it here, and
living at 1994 levels I think is reasonable and certainly within what
this Congress ought to be doing.
Before my minute is up, Madam Chairman, let me just say I heard from
one of my colleagues that Mr. and Mrs. Cox are the proud parents of a
new baby girl.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
which would eliminate most of the independent information gathering
capacity of the Congress.
This is really a rather odd approach to reform at a time when a
primary criticism of the Congress is that we are too beholden to PAC's
and special interest groups. And the timing could not be worse.
Congress would be denying itself access to independent information and
advice as an unprecedented number of new Members arrive in this body
and as we face some of the most complex issues ever to come before a
legislative body.
Is this really a wise way to save money? To deny ourselves access to
independent evaluations of information at such a critical moment? To
force ourselves to be more dependent on information from those with an
ax to grind? To make ourselves less able to counter the claims of the
administration? To reverse a century-old trend of trying to develop
more objective sources of information for the Congress? It's hard to
see how the answers to these questions could be ``yes.''
The novelist Kurt Vonnegut once defined the information revolution as
something like ``the remarkable ability of people to know what they are
talking about, if they really want to.'' I side with those who want to
know what they are talking about--that's the service groups like OTA
and the Joint Committee on Taxation provide.
OTA has provided an important tool in our policymaking for more than
20 years, helping us reach decisions that have kept the Nation at the
forefront of applied science, reinvigorated our industry, protected our
environment, made us safer, and indeed, improved our overall quality of
life. The agency has kept us at the forefront of the information
revolution not only by providing important insight on emerging issues
under its purview, but also by mapping out and interpreting the very
pathways--the information superhighway, for instance--that will carry
us into the next century.
Through cooperation between its multidisciplinary staff and the
technical and professional resources of universities, industry and
public interest groups, OTA marshals together for us in Congress
indispensable resources that provide expertise we could not otherwise
duplicate. The office has agreed to undertake a study for me, assessing
methods to reduce earthquake damage that I fully expect will make
important contributions to our efforts to save lives and money.
OTA is a Government agency that does serious work and does it well,
an asset we would be ill-advised to squander. I urge my colleagues,
both Democrat and Republican, to join me in opposing Mr. Boehner's
amendment that would eliminate the 1995 appropriation for OTA.
OTA provides big bang for not much buck. Since 1982, its budget,
adjusted for inflation, has increased less than 20 percent from
approximately $12 million to today's $22 million. At the same time,
budgets for NASA and the National Science Foundation each have
increased more than 80 percent and involve much higher levels of
expenditures.
More significantly, OTA's mission has undergone a fundamental
transformation since its inception in 1972 as the Federal Government
has become an increasingly technical enterprise. Much of the future
success of economy is riding on initiatives such as the national
information infrastructure bill. Our effort to reinvent Government will
depend on our ability to utilize technology. OTA provides us with the
vision to choose the wisest course on these and other issues with large
and complex technological components.
Our constituents may indeed want us to do more with less. But I doubt
they want us to do more knowing less. I urge the defeat of this
amendment. Let's nip this information counterrevolution in the bud.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, opponents to the Boehner amendment claim
it is easy to criticize congressional spending levels, to cut
legislative appropriations, and, as they put it, to demagogue against
the institution. Well, I am not demagoguing against the institution,
but if we are serious about cutting, it needs to start at home. I
assure my colleagues there is nothing easy about saying no. On the
other hand, it is very easy to say yes, which is why we have had 25
straight years of budget deficits. But there is no one out there
lobbying for an increase in this particular bill. I am not saying that
there has not been progress made. Earlier today the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio] made an aggressive demonstration of how
tightfisted Congress has been compared to the rest of Government. I do
not argue with his numbers, but I find myself wondering about his
standards.
Madam Chairman, I am thinner than John Goodman, but I am not skinny.
It depends on where you start from in evaluating whether we are making
progress or not.
Madam Chairman, when I see how higher taxes, regulations, and the
other costs mandated by this body affect my constituents, I have little
sympathy for the concerns raised here today.
We ask them to tighten their belts--we should tighten our own. I urge
my colleagues to say ``no'' to irresponsible spending by saying ``yes''
to the Boehner amendment.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown], chairman of the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology.
{time} 1550
Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to this amendment. I am going to focus particularly on its effort to
eliminate the Office of Technology Assessment.
Now, I gather that the proponent of the amendment just decided to put
all joint House-Senate organizations on the chopping block here. But
OTA is a truly unique organization, not like the other joint
committees, in essence that it was set up to be absolutely bipartisan,
equal Republican, equal Democrats, equal House, equal Senate. It has
not had any growth in budget, and it performs a service that all who
have had any experience with it will recognize is of immense value.
The former director of the OTA is now the President's science adviser
and is doing a marvelous job there based on his experience serving the
House for a dozen or so years before then.
Any committee chairman, any Member, can request reports and studies
from the OTA. Their reputation is impeccable for being unbiased, and it
is internationally copied around the world as an excellent way of
serving parliamentary parties.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Crane].
Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Boehner.
Madam Chairman, we have been sent to Congress by our constituents to
put our Nation's budget in order. They have grown weary of the strain
of ever increasing tax burdens as our $4.5 trillion national debt grows
out of control. I say to my colleagues that the first place we ought to
start trimming the fat from the budget is the spending of the
legislative branch.
This amendment will cut some very unnecessary spending. For example,
it will eliminate over $100,000 for automobiles for the House
leadership. Madam Chairman, I, like most of my colleagues, drive myself
to work. Why do members of the House leadership have to be driven here
at taxpayers' expense?
The President has asked the American people to sacrifice in order
that we may get America's budget in order. Let the sacrifice start
here. This amendment will freeze the spending of the legislature in
fiscal year 1995 at fiscal year 1994 levels. Families all over America
must keep their spending levels consistent with their income. I am not
prepared to go back to my constituents and ask for more of their hard-
earned money so that the Botanic Garden can install an $80,000 security
gate as they reconstruct the conservatory, also at taxpayer expense.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we may
demonstrate serious fiscal responsibility to the American people. I
believe that it is the least we can do considering what we ask of them
every April 15.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the
Committee on Government Operations, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers].
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, this is an incredible amendment. It has
not been mentioned that while there are many freezes for agencies,
there is an 11 percent cut for the General Accounting Office, and we
just previously rejected a 5-percent cut. I would suggest to you that
this would be a repudiation of the debate that we have just concluded
on the immediately preceding amendment.
In addition, it would force the elimination of 600 more positions.
Please do not do this to the General Accounting Office, your
investigating arm.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Boehner amendment to freeze funding at 1994 levels.
I offered a similar amendment, which called for a 5.7-percent across-
the-board cut, but my amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules.
As one who has long called for greater fiscal restraint, I think it
is important that we be honest with the American taxpayers and admit
that this bill will increase the amount of money Congress spends on
itself by over $100 million--to nearly $2 billion next year.
Each member of this body should go home this Memorial Day recess and
ask his or her constituents if they believe Congress deserves a $100
million raise for the coming year.
We all know what the answer would be.
Until this body begins to adequately address the budget deficit
crisis, it is highly inappropriate to increase our funding one dime.
Let us lead by example. Let us freeze our own budget. I urge my
colleagues to vote for the Boehner amendment.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, this amendment, whether you understand
it or not, you ought to think about it. It eliminates the Joint Tax
Committee. That is the committee of the Congress that looks at what the
revenue impacts are that the Committee on Ways and means designs all
the Tax bills on the basis of. You are simply taking away all of the
technical capability to look at the complexity of our tax system. We
will not have any idea what any of the tax bills are if you wipe this
committee out. It is simply irresponsible not to leave that committee
in place.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Houghton], a member of the OTA board.
(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOUGHTON. Madam Chairman, I think this is a bad amendment.
There is a concept called return on investment. We do not score
things properly. You can get a $100 return on $1 investment, and they
only talk about the dollar of cost invested. That is wrong.
This involves something called the Office of Technology Assessment.
If war is going to be economic, not military, it is going to be
involved with something we have to do in technology. This is a very
important area. The people in OTA control their budget well. They are
terrific. They do a service for us. It is a one of a kind agency, and I
think we ought to keep it.
Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, in my capacity as chair of the
Subcommittee on Aviation, I can say to all of you who fly, the GAO has
made aviation safer, quieter, and kept costs in control, and made it
more secure.
Their work on aviation security at national airports and overseas,
their work on staffing standards for air traffic controllers, their
oversight of the multibillion-dollar advanced automation system, and
their review of airport investment funding and construction of
airports, has made an enormous contribution to aviation at very little
cost.
Do not vote for this cut.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself one minute.
Madam Chairman, I know this amendment before us is going to cause a
little grief, because we are actually going to say we are not going to
spend more next year than what we spent this year.
Now, the gentleman from the State of Washington said that we needed
the Joint Committee on Taxation to score different tax issues that come
before this body. The Joint Committee on Taxation does not do that. We
have the Congressional Budget Office to do that.
Beyond the amount of money that is cut in my amendment, this House
today on this bill has already cut an additional $12 million. If in
fact we want to set aside money for the Office of Technology
Assessment, or some more money to minimize the GAO cut, that additional
$12 million of cuts is there to do that, and still meet the levels we
were at last year.
My colleagues, if we are going to lead by example, this is the place
to do it, this is the time to do it, and I urge the adoption of this
important amendment.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, let me close by saying this is the most
draconian amendment that has been offered in a number of years on this
bill. First of all, it cuts the GAO $47.3 million, more than the $30
million that was offered a while back by the gentleman from Nebraska
[Mr. Bereuter], and defeated.
{time} 1600
It cuts out the Office of Technology Assessment totally, which, as we
all know, is one of the few entities we can look to to handle the very
complex and technical issues that our committees deal with.
Most importantly, it eliminates the Joint Committee on Taxation,
which is the one place all of us, in both Houses, in both parties, go
to determine the cost of revenue measures. It has been stated that CBO
does that. CBO does not cost revenue measures. It looks at
entitlements, and it looks at discretionary spending. There is no
replacement for the Joint Committee on Taxation.
In addition, Madam Chairman, it guts other programs. The GPO is cut
$9.8 million. We have just taken up the GPO on three occasions here
today and reduced their appropriation. Please vote ``no'' on this very,
very ill-conceived amendment.
To summarize, this amendment eliminates the fiscal year 1995 funding
for: the Joint Economic Committee, $4.1 million; the Joint Committee on
Printing, $1.4 million; Joint Committee on Taxation, $6 million; Office
of Technology Assessment, $21.9; and, makes very drastic reductions in:
Architect of the Capitol and Botanic Garden, $17.2 million; GPO, $9.8
million; and GAO, $47.3 million, for a total reduction of $107.7
million.
The reductions will cripple several legislative branch duties:
We will not have the expertise of a Joint Economic Committee which is
our only organized, professionally based expertise that studies our
national economy.
We will lose the board of directors that oversees Federal printing
policy--the Joint Printing Committee. We need that expertise now more
than we ever have. Printing technology is exploding--and agencies need
oversight or we will lose control of our ability to control costs and
to provide the U.S. public free access to Federal documents.
Eliminating the Joint Tax staff is almost a ludicrous idea. We are
doing health care reform, welfare reform, major trade legislation. The
Congress cannot afford to be without their expertise.
Eliminating OTA is shortsighted. They are our liaison with the
scientific community. OTA keeps the Congress informed--nuclear waste;
the national information infrastructure; defense conversion; medical
technology; and so forth. Do we want to just wait for the executive
branch to advise us on these issues?
The GAO has already eliminated almost 10 percent of their staff in
the past 3 years. Do we want to just give up on finding fraud, waste,
and abuse? Do we want to give up on the studies we are starting to make
in financial auditing--through the Chief Financial Officers Act?
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Boehner].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 238, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 214]
AYES--187
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bentley
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fingerhut
Fish
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klein
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Mann
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Rush
Santorum
Schaefer
Schenk
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Swett
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barcia
Barlow
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hastings
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Parker
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickle
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--14
Clay
Clement
Cox
Franks (CT)
Grandy
Horn
Neal (NC)
Pickett
Schumer
Skelton
Slattery
Stark
Washington
Wilson
{time} 1619
The Clerk announced the following pairs on this vote:
On this vote:
Mr. Cox for, with Mr. Slattery against.
Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Wilson against.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. de
la Garza) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Mink, 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. 4454)
making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 444, she 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 on the bill and amendments thereto.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them engross.
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. young of florida
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Young of Florida moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4454
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report back the same forthwith with the following amendment:
On page 3 line 23, strike ``$16,017,000'' and insert
``$3,017,000''. Conform the aggregate amount set forth on
page 2, line 10, accordingly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Young].
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I think most of our Members
read with interest the story in Roll Call where the chairman of the
Committee on House Administration this week pledged to collect $13
million in unpaid bills that congressional offices owed to the House
Computer Center.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit, we think, helps him do just
that. The motion to recommit reduces the HIS budget by $13 million,
which is the amount that is in question here.
Rather than just take the word of the Roll Call story, I sent out for
the CRS documentation, and sure enough, the CRS documents the debt at
$13,409,974. They can collect this money, and then they will be back at
the level that was appropriated in the bill originally.
After all of the excitement that we had today in the enactment of a
lot of good amendments, we have done a tremendous job. We reduced this
bill by $22.8 million; that is all. We are still $78.7 million over
last year, or a 4.4-percent increase.
If we adopt this motion to recommit, again, a minor amount, we will
be at a 3.7-percent increase, and maybe we all could live with that.
This is a very simple, straightforward motion; there is no rhetoric
involved. There are no cheap shots involved. There is no political
interest involved. There is just simply a way to get down to that 3.7,
reduce the HIS budget by $13 million and help the chairman, the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], collect that $13 million from
the other offices that owe that money to them and not have those due
bills out there floating around.
Mr. Speaker, this still does not reduce this bill to where I think it
ought to be, but the Committee on Rules did not let us have those
amendments that would have done that. I say again, as I did earlier in
the debate, this is a very small amount. The amount in this bill is a
small amount compared to the rest of the Federal Government.
But still, this is where we work, and we are the ones that ought to
set the example, and we ought to set the example on the appropriation
that deals with each of us in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we ought to agree to this motion to
recommit and then move on to final passage.
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. THOMAS of California. You know, in poker, a legitimate part of
the game is bluffing. It is an integral part of the game. However, when
you bluff, you also leave yourself open to somebody calling your bluff.
Now, there are an awful lot of provisions in the legislative branch
cuts plan that are bluffs.
When you talked about cutting full-time positions, it was cuts off of
investigating committees that have already been reduced. When you
counted reducing staff, it was staff on leave without pay. Those people
are on leave without pay because they intend to come back to work.
When you talk about contracting out the restaurant, you are moving
those employees from one payroll to another. You are not really cutting
staff.
It seems to me if we can find $13 million, the only thing this House
can do, as the ranking member has indicated, is to give a little more
incentive to the pledge that was already made in Roll Call; we can make
sure that this $13 million is collected by reducing the appropriation
by that same amount. In other words, we can call the gentleman's bluff.
I congratulate the gentleman on his motion to recommit.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I will just simply say we are legitimately trying to help the
chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], collect this
$13 million.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] rise in opposition?
Mr. FAZIO. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have the need to clarify some
things with the minority. Apparently this is a cut in the House
Information Systems budget? Is that correct? Is that correct? And it is
premised on an article which I have not read. I mean, we are making
legislation based on rollcall articles.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, you know, I did not want to go by
the rollcall article either, so I went to CRS. I got the documentation
on their figures, what they say is owed to HIS from the various
offices.
Mr. FAZIO. And their figures are that much? The CRS indicates that?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes. This is a CRS study dated May 23, 1994.
Mr. FAZIO. I just wanted to say that the documents which I have,
which are the legislative branch appropriations hearings, indicate
there is an arrearage, failure to reimburse, of $645,000 in one of the
House offices. Is that correct? Unpaid reimbursements? The official
document here says $6,420,000 will be reimbursed in fiscal 1995.
So I am hoping we can clarify this issue, Mr. Speaker. I yield to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], the chairman of the Committee
on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over HIS.
Mr. ROSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You all have heard about the shortfall that we have for 1994. All of
you in this body know about the shortfall that we have all got to work
to solve for fiscal year 1994.
We have come up with a suggestion that we believe will work, and we
will collect that money to pay off the shortfall for 1994.
What this amendment does is to cut out the money to pay for the
employees that work at the House Computer Center. HIS is what makes
this place as productive as it is. It gives you the computer support
that enables the staff that you have to do more than you have ever been
able to do before.
If you want to cut off the legs of the people who improve your
productivity at the committee level, at the administrative level, at
your personal office level, that is what this amendment will do.
Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, I beg you, please, do not vote
for this motion to recommit. It will take away from the House the
ability to continue to improve the productivity of this place.
We cannot add more staff. We cannot add more offices. We have to make
the staff that we have now more productive. We do that through modern
technology at the House Information Systems.
This is a very mischievous amendment.
{time} 1630
This is a very mischievous amendment. I hope you will vote against it
and that we can move onto passage and, hopefully, go home.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask
for a vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la GARZA). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 177,
nays 241, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 215]
YEAS--177
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
Cooper
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
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
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
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
NAYS--241
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
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
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
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--16
Bachus (AL)
Clay
Clement
Cox
DeFazio
Franks (CT)
Grandy
Horn
Machtley
Manton
Neal (NC)
Schumer
Skelton
Slattery
Washington
Wilson
{time} 1647
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Cox for, with Mr. Wilson against.
Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. DeFazio against.
Mr. Machtley for, with Mr. Slattery against.
Mr. LAUGHLIN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). 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. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 205, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 216]
AYES--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Byrne
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hastings
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pickle
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Swift
Synar
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--205
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fingerhut
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lambert
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Mann
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--19
Clay
Clement
Cox
de la Garza
DeFazio
Fish
Ford (MI)
Franks (CT)
Grandy
Horn
Machtley
Manton
Nadler
Neal (NC)
Schumer
Skelton
Slattery
Washington
Wilson
{time} 1706
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Skelton for, with Mr. Cox against.
Mr. DeFazio for, with Mr. Grandy against.
Mr. Wilson for, with Mr. Machtley against.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________