[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.

                          ____________________