[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 447 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4539.

                              {time}  1030


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4539) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. 
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Studds in the chair.

                              {time}  1030

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor the 
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. I wanted to 
thank at the outset the ranking member, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot], other members of my committee, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and the staff, 
both for Mr. Lightfoot and for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
McDade] who, of course, is the ranking member of our committee. I also 
want to thank all of the Members on our side who have worked diligently 
as we have held hearings over the past 4 months on the legislation 
before us.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill that we bring before you is $530 million 
under, in budget authority, the 602(b) allocation. In mandatory budget 
authority, it is $249 million under the allocation, and in total budget 
authority, it is $779 million under the budget authority.
  In discretionary outlays, we are $6 million under our 602(b) 
allocation. In mandatory outlays, this bill is $245 million under the 
allocation. This bill is a total of $251 million dollars under the 
allocation. With respect to discretionary spending, this bill is $994 
million, 6 million dollars short of 1 billion dollars, under the 
President's request in budget authority and $295 million in outlays.
  It is over the 1994 enacted in discretionary budgeted authority by 
$206 million, and $615 million in outlays. I will explain why in just a 
second.
  The total in the bill is, discretionary spending, $11.519 billion. I 
will point out during the course of debate, that figure includes $405 
million in budget authority and outlays which are provided by the 
Committee on the Budget in a nonpartisan basis for the purposes of 
beefing up tax compliance.
  We have over $100 billion of taxes that are due and owing to the 
Federal Government which are not, however, collected. That fact 
obviously places a greater burden on those who conscientiously and 
legally pay their taxes.
  This sum of $405 million, to be spent this year and over the next 4 
years, a sum of over $2 billion, is scored by CBO to raise over $9 
billion. As a result, this money being expended pays itself back 4\1/2\ 
fold.
  The resources available, therefore, for regular operations, taking 
out the $405 million, are $11.312 billion. This is important because to 
continue programs, it would cost $198 million more. That, I think, 
gives you an idea of how tight a budget this actually is.
  The 1994 President's request is, without the tax compliance $405 
million in there, $12,513 billion. If you add the tax bill you get to 
the President's request of $12.918 billion.
  The total in the bill, however, is $11.519 billion. As a result, a 
correct analysis of the bill shows you that this is a reduction from 
the President's request of $1.399 billion, a $1.4 billion decrease, 
approximately 10 percent.
  Members on both sides of the aisle have reviewed this bill and said 
it is a very fiscally responsible bill. I think that is accurate.
  I will tell you, however, Mr. Chairman, that I believe this bill 
underfunds a very important aspect of expenditures in this bill, and 
that is tax systems modernization. In fact, that item alone was cut 
over one-half billion dollars. The President's request was $1.7 
billion. We have been only able to give $1.2 billion.
  Tax systems modernization goes to the ability of the Federal 
Government to collect the revenues and to give refunds in a timely 
fashion and to make sure that taxpayers' information is secure and 
accurate. We need to address this issue. We simply did not have the 
money to address this issue.
  The total in the bill is $12.254 billion in outlays. However, if you 
take off tax compliance, if you subtract prior year authorized outlays, 
which will be made in 1995 of $213 million, and you subtract the net 
loss in GSA rent receipts, what happens is the public building fund is 
funded out of rent receipts. The administration properly has noted that 
the fair market value for rents in the United States has decreased. As 
a result, it has decreased the payments to be paid made by the 
individual agencies to GSA for their rent. This has had the net result 
of reducing receipts to the GSA building fund, and, therefore, a 
reduction in the receipts available to our committee, of a net $134 
million.
  As a result, the resources available for regular operations are $11.5 
billion for this committee, 1994's enacted was $11.639 billion.
  In other words, if you discount the three items of which I have just 
spoken, the tax compliance initiative of $405 million, the outlays 
resulting from prior year authorizations, and the net loss of GSA 
rents, you have a shortfall of $137 million in outlays. As a result, we 
are under 1994 expenditures.
  The 1994 President's request was $12.549 billion. Again, if you add 
to the President's request the $405 million of which I have spoken, and 
the loss of the user fees, which were included in our bill as revenues, 
but which do not fall within the jurisdiction of this committee and 
were, therefore, deleted, you have, necessary to fund the President's 
request, $13.195 billion. Again, I would repeat, what we have in the 
bill is $12.254 billion, and as a result, a reduction from the 
President's request of $941 million, almost a $1 billion reduction from 
what the President requested in outlays.
  Let me very briefly go over, Mr. Chairman, those reductions.
  First of all, the President asked for a $999 million item, which was 
scored as a $500 million outlay, for a program which would allow the 
Federal Government to make opportunity purchases when leases expire, 
because of the market's status, where we need Federal space, but where 
we could purchase Federal space at far less in this market than we 
could build or purchase at some time in the future.
  The committee believed that was a good idea. But it is also a good 
idea that the committee did not have revenues to fund. As a result, the 
entire program was deleted.
  We also made a 30-percent reduction, as I indicated, in the IRS 
information systems, of $517 million. That reduction is very 
unfortunate and, in my opinion, from a policy standpoint not 
justifiable. The bottom line, however, is from an economic standpoint, 
we did not have the money to fund it. And that was the only large 
discretionary pot that we had, and, therefore, that had to be cut.

                              {time}  1040

  For all other agencies we put them at a hard freeze. In fact, more 
than a hard freeze, because for most agencies, Mr. Chairman, in this 
budget, we took either the lower of 1994 expenditures or the 
President's request, whichever was the lower figure. We had to 
eliminate, as I have explained, the user fee proposals which were 
approximately $240 million in revenues, because of the fact they were 
not within the jurisdiction of our committee.
  There have been, however, a few small increases. Americans are very 
concerned about crime. The committee shares that concern and the 
commitment to confront it. Furthermore, the committee shares the 
American public concerns with the interdiction of drugs, a 
responsibility of the Customs Service and other agencies within our 
purview.
  We are also concerned about the proliferation of gangs and street 
crime in our urban as well as our rural areas.
  As a result of these concerns, we have increased, relatively small 
increases, but we have increased various law enforcement agencies. The 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was increased by $9.7 million, 
specifically for fingerprinting, computer upgrades and new ballistic 
technology so that we can assist local, State and Federal agencies in 
identifying crimes better, so that we can prosecute and incarcerate 
perpetrators of crime in this country.
  I want to say, with respect to that money, that no additional 
computer money will be used to computerize any data that BATF does not 
collect already. I know there was some concern about that.
  In Customs, we have included a net increase of $18 million. 
Essentially, Mr. Chairman, that $18 million is an increase so that we 
can fund the commitment that this House made as well as the Congress 
made when we passed NAFTA to make sure that the Customs Department 
would be able to properly identify country of origin for goods coming 
into the United States so that no country can use the North American 
free trade area as a way to get goods into the United States which are 
not in fact produced either with parts, labor or manufacturing 
capability located within the free trade zone.
  With respect to the Secret Service, Mr. Chairman, we have included 
$8.5 million in additional dollars to train state and locals in 
Presidential nominee protection. That last item is $6.5 million to 
combat counterfeiting overseas. Both the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] and myself and other members of the committee have been 
very, very concerned about the growing international threat that 
counterfeiting of the American dollar poses to the stability of our own 
currency and the stability of the international marketplace. As the 
Chairman knows, as the Members of this House know, the dollar is in 
fact the standard currency in the world. Therefore, it is the currency 
most targeted for counterfeiting in the international marketplace. This 
committee believes and has information to base that belief on, that in 
fact, nations are getting into counterfeiting the American dollar. We 
believe the Secret Service needs the additional resources to combat 
that problem.
  With respect to the IRS, the bill also includes, as I have said, the 
$405 million initiative to beef up tax compliance. That will be about a 
$2 billion expenditure over the next 5 years, and CBO says will result 
in an additional $9 billion in revenues; again, a 4\1/2\ to 1 payoff. 
We believe, the Committee believes that is a good investment and, in a 
nonpartisan, bipartisan way, the Committee on the Budget agreed and the 
committee agreed.
  Now, we have major decreases. The tax system modernization has been 
decreased too much. We need to look at that in the future; $33 million 
is transferred out of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to the General Fund. 
The transfer produces savings that will be applied to other Treasury 
law enforcement programs. We hope to replenish that, Mr. Chairman, when 
the Crime bill is passed. And we expect to get some additional revenues 
for the law enforcement agencies in our bill.
  The Postal Service, we kept at last year's level, consistent with the 
reform package that was adopted and our commitment to the Postal 
Service. The Executive Office of the President, I would call to the 
attention of the House, I have historically been and continue to be 
opposed to reducing the White House request for its own budget. Just as 
I believe the White House ought not to involve itself in the 
legislative budget, I believe the Congress, with comity and respecting 
the separation of powers, ought to stay out of the White House budget.
  Notwithstanding that, because we have imposed in every agency, 
almost, in our budget very stringent fiscal constraints, we have 
adopted the White House budget at 1994 levels, approximately $2.7 
million below their request.
  That is the first time ever that this committee has reported out a 
cut in the White House budget's request for itself. I have discussed 
this matter with the White House, and I am hopeful that at some point 
in time we can restore that.
  We have various independent agencies within our budget as well. Most 
of them, as I said, Mr. Chairman, have been kept at last year's levels. 
I believe that explains pretty much the fiscal picture. I know that 
there will be a lot of debate with reference to the White House 
operations, we will confront when that comes up.
  Lastly, I know there will also be amendments with respect to the 
authorization for new public buildings. I might say that the committee 
has included one of the lowest increases in the Public Buildings Fund 
of any year since I have been on this committee.
  Furthermore, every one of those projects is subject to authorization 
by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation prior to 
expenditures being made thereon.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the Treasury, Postal 
Service, and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995.
  The bill is under the 602(b) allocation by $530 million in 
discretionary budget authority and $249 million in mandatory budget 
authority. In outlays, the bill is $6 million below the discretionary 
outlay allocation and $245 million below the mandatory allocation.
  The bill is below the President's budget, by $994 million in 
discretionary budget authority and $295 million in discretionary 
outlays.
  Finally, the bill is over 1994 enacted levels by $206 million in 
discretionary budget authority and $615 million in discretionary 
outlays.
  The comparison that I just made with fiscal year 1994, while 
factually correct, does not give an accurate portrait of how really 
tight this bill is. The 1995 bill includes $12.254 billion in 
discretionary outlays. This includes $213 million in prior year 
outlays--expenditures resulting from projects initiated in previous 
years. It also includes $450 million for a tax compliance initiative--a 
revenue generating effort that will yield $9 billion in additional 
taxes for a $2 billion investment. Finally, that amount includes a $134 
million loss from lower GSA rent receipts.
  The committee had no choice but to include these outlays. If one were 
to subtract them from the bill, we would be left with only $11.502 
billion in outlays from continuing operations, $137 million less than 
the 1994 level.
  A similar analysis will show significant cuts from the President's 
request. The initial request was for $12.549 billion, but did not 
include the subsequent addition of $405 million for tax compliance. The 
request did, however, include a $241 million offset provided from tax 
increases--an item not under this committee's jurisdiction.
  Taking into account these adjustments, the committee would have 
needed $13.195 billion to fund the President's request. We were able to 
fund only $12.254 billion, $941 million below that which we would have 
needed to comply with the President.
  The committee undertook three major steps to achieve these savings:
  It eliminated a $999 million GSA lease acquisition program.
  It reduced the IRS information systems request by $517 million, a 30 
percent cut from the $1.757 billion request.
  It applied a hard freeze for most agencies--the lower of the 1994 
enacted level or the 1995 President's request.
  The committee did, however, provide a few select, small increase for 
some law enforcement agencies and particularly important initiatives 
that I will outline.


                           title I--treasury

  Most Treasury Department Bureaus are funded at the hard freeze--the 
lower of the 1994 enacted or the 1995 request.
  The first significant increase relative to 1994 provides $9.7 million 
to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for fingerprinting, 
computer upgrades, and new ballistics technology. This inclues $2.6 
million to fingerprint applicants for firearms retail licenses, $2.1 
million to automate existing reports on individuals buying multiple 
handguns, $1.1 million to computerize indices for out-of-business 
firearms dealer records, and $3.9 million to promote ballistics 
technology--CEASEFIRE--buy better bullet-proof vests, and hire 
additional agents. Not a penny of the computer money will be used to 
computerize any data that the agency does not collect already.
  For Customs, the bill includes a net increase of $18 million for 
NAFTA and service modernization, partially offset by a reduction in the 
air and marine program. This is composed of $18 million for NAFTA, $26 
million for its Automated Commercial System, $10 million for a Western 
Hemispheric Trade Study, $2.1 million for additional customs 
inspectors, $1.4 million for financial management improvements, and a 
reduction of $39 million from the air and marine program.
  The bill provides a $15 million increase for the Secret Service to 
train State and locals in Presidential nominee protection--$8.5 
million--and to combat counterfeiting overseas--$6.5 million.
  For the IRS, the bill includes the $405 million tax compliance 
initiative mentioned earlier and included in the budget resolution. A 
$2 billion expenditure for this initiative over 5 years should raise $9 
billion in more revenue.
  The bill includes a major cut to IRS information systems of $517 
million below the budget request and $231 million below the 1994 
appropriation.
  The committee also generated savings by transferring $33 million out 
of the Treasury forfeiture fund to the general fund. The savings from 
this transfer were applied to other treasury law enforcement programs. 
The committee intends to replenish the forfeiture fund with moneys 
derived from the forthcoming crime trust fund.


                        title ii--postal service

  The committee fully funded the President's budget request of $92.3 
million, consistent with the Revenue Foregone Act. This includes $63 
million for free mail for the blind and overseas voters and $29 million 
to reimburse the postal service to make up for not funding the full 
revenue forgone appropriation for several years.


              title iii--executive office of the president

  Almost all accounts within the Executive Office of the President are 
funded at a hard freeze--the 1994 appropriation or the 1995 President's 
budget, whichever is lower. The only exceptions lie in the area of drug 
control programs. The bill provides an additional $12 million for high 
intensity drug trafficking areas and reduces the special forfeiture 
fund by $37.7 million.
  This is an unusual mark for this committee. For the past 13 years, 
this committee has almost fully funded the Executive Office at the 
level requested by the President; this reduction results only from our 
low 602(b) ceiling.


     title iv--independent agencies general services administration

  The bill provides no funding for the request of $999 million for the 
lease acquisition program. In addition, it reduces new construction and 
acquisition of facilities from $925 million in 1994 to $508 million, a 
reduction of $417 million.
  It includes $28 million in new construction projects and $11 million 
in repair and alteration projects not included in the President's 
request. Those projects not currently authorized will require 
authorization before funds can be obligated.
  To partially fund these increases, the bill includes a rescission of 
$78.2 million not requested by the President--$30 million of this 
rescission is for a building in my district.
  In the rental of space account, because rental costs throughout the 
country have been going down, the amount that GSA pays to lessors has 
been reduced by $45 million. However, since GSA charges rent to tenant 
agencies based on fair market value, the revenue accruing GSA will be 
lower in 1995. A reduction in revenue to offset GSA expenditures, 
increased outlays in our bill by $134 million:
                                                                Million
Loss in rental income.............................................-$236
Savings in rent costs for TPS agencies.............................+$57
Reduced rent paid by GSA...........................................+$45
                                                               ________

    Net loss to TPS bill..........................................-$134


                       other independent agencies

  The bill provides a hard freeze for all other agencies except: $7 
million for the National Historical Publications and Records 
Commission--$3 million above request; National Archives at the 
President's request of $195 million, $4 million over 1994 enacted; 
Federal Elections Commission at the President's request of $27.1 
million, $3.5 million above 1994, and administrative expense 
limitations for OPM and MSPB were increased by $5 million to cover 
increased retirement costs.
  The bill includes mandatory increases in payments for annuitants.


                           general provisions

  Title V and VI contain general provisions applying to this act and 
Governmentwide. I have continued the mandatory use language for 
FTS2000. Chairman Brooks, Conyers, and Sabo as well as GSA and OMB 
recommended that this language be continued.
  The general provisions include a 2 percent across-the-board increase 
for executive branch employees and language that would provide for one-
half of the locality pay adjustments authorized under current law. This 
is above the President's request, which proposed the equivalent of a 
1.6 percent across-the-board increase for Federal workers. These 
employees received no adjustment last year to reflect private sector 
wage increases. OPM's last pay survey showed an average pay disparity 
of 26 percent between the public and private sector, reaching as high 
as 39 percent.


                         reinventing government

  The bill includes a number of funding increases and provisions 
designed to help improve service delivery and reinvent Government.
  The report has language mandating the implementation of performance 
measures for all agencies.
  The bill allows agencies to keep 50 percent of their end-of-year 
unobligated balances, providing an incentive to prevent wasteful end-
of-year spending.
  It includes appropriations for computer modernization at Customs and 
ATF, and funds innovative ballistics technology for ATF--CEASEFIRE.
  It mandates the Financial Management Service to use electronic funds 
transfer rather than the Postal Service to provide checks and mandates 
that Customs explore new inspection technologies.
  It supports the Customs reorganization, which will move staff from 
headquarters to field, and provides resources for Customs to address 
serious financial management problems.


                                closing

  Mr. Chairman, this bill does not provide adequate funding for the 
Internal Revenue Service's tax systems modernization program. It does 
not provide all of the funding that the law enforcement agencies need. 
But, as I explained earlier, the 602(b) allocation simply did not 
provide a ceiling that made it possible to fund everything.
  I commend the ranking minority member, Mr. Lightfoot, for the great 
jobs that he has done, and I appreciate the conscientious and faithful 
service of all the members of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Republican on the 
Subcommittee on Treasury--Postal Service--General Government, I am very 
pleased that we are bringing this bill to the floor today. It is, I 
think, a very fiscally responsible bill. The chairman has very ably 
gone through the various parts of the bill and explained what we are 
doing with the funding there.
  Quite frankly, I do not think we could be more fiscally responsible 
than we have been in this particular package.
  We are looking at a roughly $23 billion package, somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 2 percent of the total Federal budget. But playing on 
an old line that someone else said in this Chamber years ago, a billion 
here and a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money. I think 
our subcommittee has gone a long way toward fiscal responsibility in 
the bill.
  Most of the accounts, as the chairman has explained, with the 
exception of law enforcement, have been frozen at a hard freeze or 
lower. At the lower of last year's level or the administration's 
request, whichever number was the bottom one, was the one we took, 
except, as I mentioned, in law enforcement. So in terms of the budget, 
I think it will be hard to argue that this is anything but a good bill.
  It is not often one can come down here and say that.
  I also agreed with the decision to provide a little higher level of 
funding for law enforcement agencies. Quite frankly, we must be 
consistent. If we are going to be tough on crime, we have to put our 
money where our mouth is and be sure that those agencies responsible 
for criminal activities, monitoring those activities, making arrests 
and so on, are not hog-tied in their effort to do the job that we have 
given them to do.
  The bill contains, as the chairman has previously pointed out, an 
historically low level of new construction funding. At the same time, 
it rescinds over $78 million in construction projects that were 
recommended canceled by GSA's time out and review. Another feature of 
the bill that I support very strongly was the decision of the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to reject the Treasury Department's request 
for $244 million in new user fees. These, quite frankly, were not 
authorized, and it would have had to go through the process. But these 
were figures that they brought to our subcommittee in presenting their 
budget, and the chairman, I think, made a very wise decision. And I 
support him 100 percent on not implementing those new user fees.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. Chairman, I guess if they had been authorized I would have 
opposed them that way anyway, but I think that whatever the reasoning 
was behind excluding them, it is a good decision, and I think it is one 
that we are seeing in other subcommittees as well.
  Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we had a group in from Iowa. One of the 
things they were very concerned about was the potential of new user 
fees coming down the road. I think it is an issue that out in the 
country, at least, people do not want to see happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to admit it did make the funding decisions more 
difficult, because there is $244 million that essentially was not 
there, because the Treasury's requests were predicated on approval of 
those user fees.
  As a result, Mr. Chairman, we face a very tight budget constraint. It 
is one of those things--we have to learn to live within our means, and 
I think under the leadership of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer], this committee very adequately did so.
  That is not to say we do not have some concerns with the bill that we 
are bringing to the floor today. As Members are going to hear later, 
there are numerous amendments that were offered to both the bill and 
report, by Republicans in both subcommittee and full committee markup, 
affecting the White House operations.
  All these amendments were rejected on party line votes. Numerous 
requests to make such amendments in order on the floor today were 
rejected by the Committee on Rules.
  I think it is unfortunate and sends, in my opinion, a very bad 
signal. We in Congress, I think, have a responsibility to provide 
oversight over the executive branch, regardless of what we may hear. We 
fund their budget and we are appropriating taxpayer dollars.
  Another thing that makes us rather unique, the executive branch is a 
permanently authorized entity within the Federal Government, so this is 
the only opportunity that the Congress has to have any say-so on White 
House or executive branch activities.
  It is a bit of an awkward situation, in that if we want to do things 
that deal with the way things are run, that becomes legislation, and we 
have a prohibition against legislating on an appropriations package, 
but since this is the only opportunity that the executive branch is 
discussed on the House floor, obviously it will become the target point 
for a number of amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out, and the chairman has 
said this several times, and I applaud him for it, he has always been 
personally very fair in his treatment of the White House, and anything 
that we are talking about today certainly is not aimed at Chairman 
Hoyer. It is more of a majority-minority argument that it is anything 
of a personal nature.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had in the previous 12 years of Republican 
administrations no less than 36 oversight hearings. They were held on 
matters involving the executive branch. Six of them were by a 
Republican-controlled majority in the Senate, and how many have we held 
here? Our chairman did agree to one, and we had it, and I appreciate 
that. We asked him for the hearing, and we had it last fall. I do not 
know if other committees can say the same. I kind of doubt it.
  Mr. Chairman, some are issues that we have seen raised in the press, 
and I think that we are failing to provide adequate oversight on, 
and some are press accounts, for the most part. Some of it is from GAO 
investigations and so on, but just to list a few:

  Mismanagement of the White House travel office and conflicts of 
interest, Whitewater and Madison Guaranty matters, improper contacts 
between White House and RTC officials, the First Lady's commodity 
trades, conflicts of interest by political consultants, White House 
security pass delays, drug testing delays for White House employees, 
White House travel funds for nonofficial purposes, millions of 
telephone computer procurements purchased through unlimited or sole-
source contracting, double-dipping by the White House staff in 
transition accounts, access to classified materials by staff without 
security clearances. There are others, but these are the ones, I think, 
that have received the most attention as far as the press is concerned.
  Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagues on this side of the aisle are 
justifiably frustrated that we do not have anywhere that we can go and 
discuss these matters. I am sure these issues and the ability to fully 
air them will affect the decision of many Members on this side of the 
aisle on final passage of the bill.
  That is regrettable in one sense, because as the Chairman and I both 
have pointed out, fiscally I think this is probably one of the soundest 
bills that has come to the floor, at least since I have been in 
Congress, and we certainly want to discharge our fiscal 
responsibilities in the right way.
  I would also be remiss if I did not thank the staff on both sides. 
The minority and majority staff, at least on this subcommittee, worked 
together. They are friends, and it really makes it a lot easier to do a 
difficult kind of job where we had to tell a lot of people ``no'' this 
time, including a lot of our colleagues who came in with projects and 
so on.
  Again, fiscally it is a very sound bill. I think that we do have some 
problems with the operation down at the White House, which will be 
aired before the day is through.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the ranking member for his 
comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who was my predecessor on this subcommittee, and 
now is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Transportation of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending both the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]. 
We have had a good relationship, and I have a feeling of fondness for 
both individuals, and I want the Record to show that.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not support this bill unless several amendments 
that I will offer are accepted. There are other problems that I have 
with this bill.
  I think this bill will lead to RIF's. I think the way the pay raise 
has been dealt with is inappropriate. I think the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] offered the appropriate way that will not 
lead to RIF's.
  I know it got tied up in peacekeeping, But I think the approach we 
take in this bill will lead to RIF's, and the amendment of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] should have been accepted in 
the full committee. Reasonable men and women can differ in that, but I 
think the gentleman from Pennsylvania had the right approach.
  The two fundamental issues that I would like to address to the 
Members of the Congress and to anyone who is listening are these two 
issues. We have found out, and it is very painful, and I know people 
think it is partisan, but there have been some fundamental problems in 
the operation of the White House.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been, over and over, hammering and trying to 
get the White House on their own to change the question with regard to 
the number of passes that they have had out. They have had four 
prominent people, James Carville, Mandy Grunwald, Paul Begala, and Stan 
Greenberg, who have been representing outside groups, and at the same 
time have White House passes whereby they can roam the White House 24 
hours a day,7 days a week, and if members read Bob Woodward's book, 
``The Agenda'', they are giving absolutely critical advice to the 
President.
  I made the comment when the rule came in that the White House would 
have to cave in on this, and that I thought it would have been good if 
it could have been done in a spirit of bipartisanship, whereby we could 
have offered language which would have not only bound this 
administration but also future administrations. It was not done.
  Mr. Chairman, I plan on offering that amendment today which would 
require, and again, I thank the administration and Mr. McLarty for 
suggesting the regs, there is some debate as to what form they should 
file, but I am not sure the committee ought to get bogged down in that 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, this ought to be codified, whereby in every 
administration, this administration and future administrations, that 
prominent, big-time people who are representing outside groups and 
foreign interests have to file a financial disclosure statement so the 
American people can know if there is a conflict of interest. Mr. 
Chairman, this bill is deficient because it does not do that.
  Enough said. I have talked about that other times. Let me speak to 
the other fundamental issue, which, frankly, the administration will be 
embarrassed on if they do not deal with the issue.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Chairman, we have found that there are a large number of high-
level people in the administration who, as of a certain date, had not 
even filed their national security background papers. All the Members 
that have constituents who work for NSA, CIA, DIA, Honeywell, big 
companies and high-tech companies like this, all have to file these 
background checks to make sure that the person does not have a 
background whereby they would give information to a foreign power.
  Mr. Chairman, the White House operation bordered on being sloppy and 
some people would even call it much, much worse than that. We found out 
about it, we pleaded with them, we had an exchange of communications 
with Mr. McLarty at the time, who told us that the same process was 
already being done as they did in other administrations, and at that 
time Mr. McLarty, who is the chief of staff and who is a good person, 
let the Record state, did not even have his White House pass after 
almost a year. I mean,it borders on being a scandal.
  Mr. Chairman, we found out that Dee Dee Myers, who everyone sees on 
the press every day as the White House spokesman, had not even filed 
her FBI background check after being on the staff for 1 year and 2 
months. Dee Myers said she did not have time. Mr. Chairman, it takes 
about 3 hours to do. Can my colleagues imagine the number of small 
businessmen that would tell the IRS they did not file because they did 
not have time, they did not file with OSHA because they did not have 
time? It is just absolutely crazy.
  The Members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would 
tell me, they would go down to the White House and would be discussing 
the most secret, top secret information with regard to North Korea, 
Bosnia, Somalia, and Dee Dee Myers would be their listening and 
listening and listening and she had not even filed the papers when all 
the people that live in my district that work for the CIA and the DIA 
and the private contractors all have to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Helsinki Committee and I want to commend 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], for his leadership on that 
committee, whose job has been to look at what is taking place in regard 
to Eastern Europe. Several years ago before the Berlin Wall fell and 
before communism was over, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.  Smith] 
and I took a trip to the Soviet Union and we went into Gulag 35, Perm 
Camp 35. It is the last gulag in the Soviet Union. It is the gulag that 
Scharansky was in. It is a tortuous place. In the month of August it 
was brutal. I can see in the month of January when it snows, it is 
absolutely brutal. If one has read Solzhenitsyn's book Gulag 
Archipelago, we had seen the Gulag Archipelago. We had been there. The 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I with the State Department 
representative brought in a cam recorder, went in and said, ``We are 
United States Congressmen,'' and the place went wild. They could not 
believe that two Congressmen had visited the gulag and the men insisted 
to meet with us and said they were going to go on a sitdown strike 
unless they could see us. We brought out video cam recorder, and any 
man who wanted to see us, and we found men in machisos, in the torture 
chamber, and I cannot give the feeling of that torture chamber here to 
the body, but it was a terrible place. As we began to video the men, 
well into the night, as darkness came, and this is in the Ural 
Mountains, three of the men came forward and said that they had worked 
for our government, for the U.S. Government, and because they had 
helped our government, they were in prison in Gulag 35.

  Mr. Chairman, I did not believe it. It did not seem possible that 
these prisoners in this camp could have done it.
  To make a very long story short, I came back and checked with our 
intelligence agency, and it was true.
  Three of the men, three of the men who went through living hell, who 
suffered, who worked for our government to bring about the demise of 
communism, were in this terrible place. Why were they in this place? 
They were in the place because Aldrich Ames who worked at the CIA and 
who, it has now come out, told on them. He told. He said to the KGB, 
``These men are working for the U.S. Government'' and they were 
arrested.
  Mr. Chairman, while we cannot talk about this too much on the floor, 
we also know that a number were killed. They were killed. These men 
were killed. This is real stuff. This is not ``LeCarre,'' a James Bond 
book that ends happily ever after on the Riviera. These men were 
killed.
  Mr. Chairman, right here I have the picture of one of them. This is 
Vladimir Potashov. He has been by my office since then. He lives in the 
United States We have worked with our government to help him, and he 
has contacted me and offered to be a witness, a witness in the Aldrich 
Ames case. He worked for us. I wish I could tell more. I wish I could 
tell Members everything I knew. I just feel frustrated that I cannot 
get it all out. But I cannot tell some things. I cannot tell who in our 
government had him do this.
  Look at the barbed wire and look at the men. This man here was 
Scharansky's roommate. Call Scharansky up in Israel and ask him who his 
roommate is. I sent Scharansky the tape. This is Scharansky's roommate. 
These men suffered for the United States in the defeat of communism.
  I go to the next photo, and there is Vladimir. Here is the Soviet 
thing and this young man who wanted to emigrate to Israel, he gave us 
the ``V.'' He gave us the ``V.'' Members can talk to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and he will tell them. He gave us the ``V.'' It 
took a lot of courage.
  Look at the KGB and the forces there. They were going to go after 
these guys when we left. There is Vladimir. Look at the face.
  Mr. Chairman, what does this have to do with the amendment that I 
have to offer that I begged the chairman to let us take in a bipartisan 
way? What does it do?
  When Patsy Thomasson from the White House came, we asked her and 
raised these questions and Patsy Thomasson has stated before our 
committee, ``I don't think we have any Aldrich Ames at the White House, 
but we certainly could.''
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make sure that we do not. We can 
call this the Vladimir Potashov amendment, we can call it the 
Scharansky amendment, we can call it the common-sense amendment, but I 
would call it the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the committee would not accept this 
amendment. We are going to offer it later on, it will probably be ruled 
out of order. I for one having been in the gulag, having met with these 
men, could never, ever support a bill that I think would jeopardize the 
security of the United States. Why should not Dee Dee Myers file her 
papers with the FBI? Why should not these people do it? All our 
amendment says, in 30 days they have to file their applications and the 
FBI background check has to be done in 6 months. Every other 
administration says they can do it in 2 months. We also have a proviso 
to allow the President to exempt if there is a particular case.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the committee to accept this amendment 
when it comes up, because I am going to offer this until the cows come 
home. I am writing every Senator on the Senate side of this, with 
pictures. I will never, ever, ever let this issue go as long as the 
blood flows through my brains and my body and I have an opportunity to 
speak on this floor, because, frankly, that is why I was elected to 
Congress, to do what I think is important. I am embarrassed that the 
committee will not take a fundamental national security amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear we want to have major investigations of this and 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rightfully so is doing 
that.
  But here we have a fundamental potential leak and we are doing 
absolutely nothing.
  I strongly rise in support of this amendment and urge when it comes 
up that hopefully we will adopt it in a bipartisan, noncontroversial 
manner. We will throw bouquets to the administration, bouquets to the 
committee and bouquets to everybody. Not to adopt this amendment would 
be a terrible mistake for our national security and for the integrity 
of this committee.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 1995 
Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill. Voting to support this 
bill without allowing for important amendments will limit White House 
accountability and abdicate our role in proper oversight. We should not 
ignore the lax procedures that this White House has exhibited in a 
number of areas.
  In addition, the manner in which the Federal pay rise is addressed in 
this bill threatens to result in many RIF's. In full committee, Mr. 
McDade had offered an amendment that would have paid for the raises 
without making the agencies absorb the cost as is the current language 
in the bill. I believe Mr. McDade's language was preferable in terms of 
protecting current Federal employees from layoffs.


                          proposed amendments

  Asking for financial disclosure by those with 24-hour-a-day White 
House access passes is a reasonable measure for this administration and 
all future administrations, both Democrat and Republican. This 
amendment should be allowed.
  Last week, the White House said it would require political 
consultants with White House passes to provide information like that 
filed by special Government employees in a directive from Chief of 
Staff Mack McLarty. While this is a start, I believe it is important 
that we memorialize this policy in this bill so that it applies to this 
Administration and all future administrations.
  I had hoped this amendment would be accepted as a friendly amendment. 
It merely requires that the political consultants who appear to be 
permanently, not temporarily, ensconced in the White House will file 
the same SF-278 as the other senior aides with whom they regularly 
work. The form referred to in the recent White House directive is the 
SF-450, which is usually used for temporary employees. In addition, the 
SF-450 does not provide for listing of gifts and travel from outside 
sources. Finally, the directive does not even require the filling out 
of the actual SF-450 form--with the attendant legal consequences for 
not providing accurate information--but merely requires providing the 
same information required from the form.
  Expediting the White House pass process also is a reasonable measure 
that would apply to this and all future administrations. We recently 
learned that the White House had radically departed from previous 
practice in obtaining background investigations on White House 
employees and had let hundred of employees work for months on only a 
temporary pass.
  My concerns prompting these amendments focus largely on 
accountability. Nowhere is accountability more important than in the 
White House, no matter who is occupying the position. I do not mean for 
these amendments to be a partisan issue. I raised these concerns in the 
previous administration when there were appearance problems with 
lobbyists, but even then, those individuals did not have 24-hour-a-day 
White House access passes.


 financial disclosure by political consultants with white house passes

  The recent GAO Travelgate report noted that the access that Hollywood 
producer and Clinton friend, Harry Thomason, had to the White House 
during the White House travel office debacle conveyed ``the appearance 
of influence and authority * * * unrestricted access of nongovernment 
employees creates an opportunity for influence without the 
accountability * * *.'' The recent directive issued by the Chief of 
Staff makes a start at revealing the clients of political consultants 
with White House passes but this amendment sets this policy into law 
permanently.
  The White House informed us, in response to our committee questions, 
that the outside consultants work on ``whatever issues on which the 
President, the Vice President, the First lady, or members of their 
staffs request them to consult.'' As detailed in the new book by Bob 
Woodward, ``The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House,'' these outside 
consultants were constantly at war with many of the President's 
economic advisers and tried to reshape their work on numerous 
occasions. The Washington Post just last week pointed out that the 
consultants had understated ``to the point of distortion their own 
roles inside the White House, as well as understate somewhat their 
various connections with the outside world * * * It's well known that 
these four particularly have played such a hands-on, staff-like role in 
this administration * * * many outside clients hire them precisely 
because of the inside influence they are presumed to have.'' Given 
their integral involvement, why not apply the same rules to them?
  Mr. Woodward reveals that this potential for problems did not go 
unnoticed at the White House. Howard Paster, until recently the White 
House's liaison with Congress, had this to say about the consultants:

       It was outrageous that the outside consultants were 
     providing the President with major policy option papers in 
     confidential memos that Paster often never saw or saw only 
     too late. If lobbyists with business clients had this kind of 
     relationship with the President, it would be a giant scandal. 
     The consultants had clients, some businesses, some 
     politicians like Senator Moynihan, who paid big fees for 
     their work. Paster wasn't sure the political consultants were 
     that different from other outside businesses. He resented 
     their influence and was sure they presented Clinton with a 
     potentially serious liability. Valuable inside information 
     and conflicts abounded.

  Mr. Paster filed a financial disclosure form. So did the economic 
advisers that Carville and company were constantly doing battle with. 
What is wrong with applying the same rules to them as apply to those 
they are working with day after day? In fact, in a letter to me, Lloyd 
Cutler wrote that a background investigation--the only step the 
consultants have agreed to--is ``only one of the steps that a person 
must go through to get a permanent pass. Other steps include attending 
training in ethics and security matters, completed financial disclosure 
forms, and undergoing IRS and other checks.''

  In hearings before our subcommittee in March, White House witness, 
Patsy Thomasson stated that the consultants would ``be required to file 
all necessary paperwork as if they were an employee of the White 
House.'' The financial disclosure amendment would make this commitment 
permanent for this and all future administrations.
  Unlike other issues where a Member can go to an authorizing committee 
to address the matter, this bill is our only vehicle to address 
systemic problems at the White House. There are only approximately 50 
legislative days left this year to address issues. If we don't address 
this problem here and now, it will not be solved. If you care about 
ethics, now is the time to stand and deliver on this issue.


                           white house passes

  In addition to this financial disclosure problem I had also wanted to 
offer an amendment providing for a timely processing of White House 
passes. As we learned earlier this year, after repeated denials from 
the White House, the White House pass process was in disarray. Hundreds 
of staffers did not have permanent passes and many had not even filled 
out the paperwork to begin the background investigation process. 
Security clearances were not even in place for senior officials such as 
Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers. Chief of Staff Mack McLarty didn't even 
get his permanent pass until March of this year.
  In the past, permanent passes were issued within 2 to 3 months or 
maybe even 4 months at the outer limits, according to those we have 
spoken with who conducted this process in the past. The amendment that 
I seek would provide for 6 months to complete the entire process, and 
it also uses the White House provided guideline to submit SF-86 forms 
within 30 days of commencing employment.
  When I discussed these matters with those who handled White House 
passes in previous administrations, I was told that the delay in 
obtaining passes for over a year was ``unprecedented.'' This amendment 
would provide for an orderly process and prevent this situation from 
happening again either in this administration or in any future 
administrations.
  The White House pass process affects national security in an 
important way too. It is important that we follow the rules because 
even when we do follow the rules, there will be problems that slip 
through. When I visited the Soviet Union in 1989, I was in the last 
gulag there: Perm Camp 35. Some of the men there told me that they 
worked for our Government and it now has come out that they had been 
sentenced to the gulag because of Aldrich Ames giving information about 
them to the Russian Government. As numerous security experts have 
noted, it is the mission of counterintelligence agents to obtain 
information about such holes in security so that they might take 
advantage of such lax procedures in some manner. If Aldrich Ames, with 
a background investigation and security clearance can do what he did, 
what kind of potential problems are we creating when we don't follow 
any of the necessary procedures?
  As Patsy Thomasson stated before our committee, ``We don't think we 
have any Aldrich Ameses at the White House * * * but we certainly 
could.'' This amendment to provide for timely processing of White House 
passes would lower the likelihood of Aldrich Ameses.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Darden], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. DARDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding 3 
minutes to me to discuss this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4539, the Treasury, 
Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Bill. I want to 
commend Chairman Hoyer, Mr. Lightfoot, and other members of the 
subcommittee for their hard work and efforts in fashioning this bill.
  As Chairman Hoyer and the ranking member have pointed out, this is a 
fiscally responsible bill with hard freezes in the funding levels for 
most accounts. I would like to highlight several aspects of H.R. 4539 
mentioned by the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, under the Department of the Treasury budget, the 
committee has provided funding for the important activities of the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center [FLETC]. As the Members well 
know, FLETC conducts more than 200 different training programs for law 
enforcement personnel from over 70 Federal agencies and many State 
police groups. These programs range from basic, entry-level law 
enforcement to antiterrorism techniques and financial fraud 
investigation. In 1993, FLETC's three sites graduated over 23,000 
students. From experience, I can tell you that FLETC and FLETC 
personnel are a source of pride to their States and community.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to FLETC, this bill provides funding for 
several other important law enforcement agencies including the Secret 
service, the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, and Firearms [BATF], and the 
financial crimes enforcement network [FinCEN].

  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that within the U.S. 
Customs Service budget, the committee has provided $18 million and 186 
agents to enforce the provisions of NAFTA. This NAFTA enforcement 
initiative will establish teams of law enforcement, trade, and 
inspection personnel to prevent transshipping, country of origin, and 
foreign subsidy violations.
  Mr. Chairman, this funding and personnel level for NAFTA enforcement 
honors the enforcement commitment made to many Members of this body who 
were concerned about the possible effect of NAFTA on American 
industries, particularly textiles. As a member of the Textile Caucus, I 
strongly support this enforcement initiative and believe that it will 
help revitalize American textile-related industries.
  Again, I commend the chairman, ranking member, and committee staff on 
their efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], a member of the subcommittee and a very able 
Member of Congress.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I, as a member of the subcommittee, think 
it is important to share some thoughts on this particular piece of 
legislation.
  Much has been said, and rightfully so, about the open attitude that 
has been taken by the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], which I very much appreciate. Even though we have 
not always agreed upon different matters in the bill, I think it is 
important to the process that disagreements have been handled in an 
orderly and respectful fashion, and there have been many difficult 
decisions taken in the bill.
  I recognize the spending freeze for White House personnel is one that 
has political difficulty, especially for a member of the President's 
own party, and I appreciate the fact that a decision such as that 
nevertheless was made. But there are some factors that are not included 
in this bill that are of concern to many of us.
  Part of it has to do with the White House compensation, the fact that 
members of the President's staff are not held to public account as to 
how much they are being paid.
  If you look at a staff member, someone who works for a Member of 
Congress, there is public disclosure of how much is being paid to them 
and how much it costs the taxpayers. The White House holds itself 
exempt, and will continue to hold itself exempt, so long as we in 
Congress do not require that there be public disclosure of the amounts 
that the White House spends on its personnel person by person.
  An amendment that I had for that was not made in order to be 
presented here on the floor.
  In a similar fashion, there is difficulty with White House travel. 
The President is a political official both in the sense of being a 
holder of public office and a political figure within his party. He 
does work that is campaign work as well as work that is Presidential. 
He has people that travel with him for those purposes, and if they 
travel on official aircraft but for a campaign-type purpose or a 
nonoffice purpose, they are supposed to make reimbursement to the 
taxpayers for that. The White House tells us that is being done, but 
they refuse to provide specifics to us as to who has made how much 
reimbursement or been billed through the White House travel office, 
which itself has become controversial.
  The public has a right to know, but again, unless we defeat the 
motion to rise, my amendment on that cannot be offered on this floor.
  However, there are other amendments which I do intend to offer.
  One of the features of this bill is that it expends $508 million for 
construction of new Federal court houses. Now, there is need to plan 
ahead in construction of office space for use by the judiciary, but 
there is also tremendous controversy.
  The General Services Administration, which oversees this 
construction, when through a review process last year, and they cut 
down the size of different buildings that they planned to construct. 
However, little attention seems to be paid to how much we are spending 
per square foot. Even if you make a building smaller, if you still 
expend an exorbitant amount per square foot of construction space, you 
are not doing right by the taxpayers.
  Let me give you some examples: Across the country, to build a public 
building, or private building, for that matter, generally construction 
costs do not usually exceed $90 to $100 a square foot. The State of 
Arizona built a new facility for its State supreme court recently. They 
paid less than $100 per square foot. They paid $93 a square foot.

  Yet to build a new Federal courthouse in Tucson, AZ, it is now 
proposed that we spend $181 per square foot, twice as much as it cost 
to build a State courthouse, and that ratio seems to hold true all 
across the country. If you are building a State courthouse or a local 
courthouse, it costs about half as much as if the Federal Government 
builds a courthouse. That is wrong.
  I have an amendment to provide proportional cuts in construction 
costs for new Federal courthouses and Federal office buildings.
  Frankly, the amendment is rather modest. It only tries to cut about a 
fourth of the amount by which the cost exceeds $100 per square foot, 
and yet I anticipate there will be opposition.
  But this amendment would save the taxpayers $32 million out of this 
$508 million that is to be spent under this piece of legislation, and I 
commend that amendment to the other Members of Congress.
  I also will offer amendments to cut two very minor Federal agencies. 
These two small agencies, the Administrative Conference of the United 
States, and the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, costs 
the taxpayers about $3 million a year. To do what? One of them is 
supposed to be coordinating the communication between Federal, State, 
and local government.
  Mr. Chairman, we have dozens of groups that already do that, public 
groups and private groups as well. We do not need to spend millions of 
dollars more just to give a few more people a job on the Federal 
payroll.
  And in a similar fashion, the Administrative Conference is supposed 
to give advisories to the thousands of other Federal bureaucrats who 
write Federal regulations. As I say, we have thousands of people who 
are doing that already. Do we need just a handful more people to give 
them advice, again at the expense of taxpayers?
  We have difficulty, it seems, cutting amounts of spending, whether 
they be large amounts such as Federal construction or small amounts 
such as small Federal agencies.
  I think that if we are serious about saving the taxpayers money, we 
need to pass the amendments to take on all of those.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a colloquy with the gentleman on 
several key points. The first point would be the overall spending level 
in this bill compared to the spending level in last year's Treasury and 
Postal Service appropriations bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I explained in my opening statement, if 
you discount the $405 million that the Budget Committee authorized as 
``off budget'' we are approximately $200 hundred million under fiscal 
year 1994 enacted.
  Mr. PENNY. Under last year's appropriated level?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes; under. I want to give you an exact figure.
  Mr. PENNY. I appreciate that.
  Mr. HOYER. In gross discretionary budget authority, we are $206 
million over fiscal year 1994; in terms of discretionary outlays, $615 
million over, and again, if you take the $405 million and back that 
out, we are about $200 million below 1994.
  Mr. PENNY. On outlays?
  Mr. HOYER. In budget authority, but $6 million below the 602(b) 
allocation in outlays, and substantially under the President's request 
in outlays, as I explained in my opening statement.
  Mr. PENNY. If I might proceed on a related matter, and that is the 
level of the pay increase for Federal workers for the coming fiscal 
year. Did the President request in this budget any pay increase of any 
sort for fiscal year 1995?

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. HOYER. the answer to the gentleman's question is yes to the 
extent that the President included within his budget request $1.1 
billion which anticipated a 1.6-percent raise for Federal employees. 
That was not delineated as to whether it was a comparability adjustment 
or a locality adjustment. It was just $1.1 billion.
  Mr. PENNY. And the amount that would be authorized under the 
committee proposal?
  Mr. HOYER. The committee bill provides a similar pay increase for 
civilians as the defense authorization bill provides for military 
personnel. That would be a 2-percent across-the-board, rather than 1.6 
percent, and one-half of the locality pay that is provided by law. That 
would be an additional $700 million, $300 million to be absorbed by 
defense and $400 million to be absorbed by all the rest.
  Mr. PENNY. Again, if I could reclaim my time, is that an additional 
amount? Is that an additional amount beyond the amount necessary to 
finance the 1.6 percent the President requested?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes, it is. It is $1.1 billion plus $700 million.
  Mr. PENNY. And how is that amount accommodated within the budget? Is 
this an amount that has to be eaten by the agencies, or is this a new 
appropriated level?
  Mr. HOYER. One point one billion dollars is provided in the budget. 
Seven hundred million dollars would be absorbed.
  Mr. PENNY. So essentially the amount above the President's request is 
going to be absorbed----
  Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
  Mr. PENNY. By the departments and agencies involved.
  Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those responses.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp]
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for a 
provision in the report language accompanying H.R. 4539. It regards the 
taxation of associate member dues paid to agricultural organizations. 
My distinguished colleague, Mr. Lightfoot of Iowa, and I have worked 
together on this critical issue and hope to make it a concern of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue affects people in all 50 States and is a 
concern to many tax-exempt associations outside the agricultural 
community as well. It is my hope the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] 
will conduct a full analysis of the impact their ruling will have on 
farmers and farm groups, and in so doing, choose not to implement its 
recent Technical Advice Memorandums which reverse longstanding IRS 
policy.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
this bill and its current form. I went before the Committee on Rules 
and attempted to amend this bill to take care of what I consider a 
gross injustice to over 99 percent of Federal employees.
  We have two pay rates in Federal Government. Of the 3,000,000 Federal 
employees, we pay those 3,000 at the RTC on a much more lucrative pay 
scale. We not only pay them a base pay 10 percent more than all other 
Federal employees, but then we add a geographical adjuster which in 
Washington is 14 percent more than other Federal employees make. In San 
Francisco an RTC employee not only makes 10 percent more than Federal 
employees in every other Federal agency, but tacked onto this they get 
a 31-percent cost-of-living increase where other Federal employees get 
an 8-percent increase. As a result of this, Mr. Chairman, RTC employees 
are being paid anywhere from 24 to 30 percent more than employees at 
Social Security.
  Not only is this unfair to Federal employees, Mr. Chairman, but let 
me end by saying this:
  My son is working this summer. He is a junior in high school. He pays 
$40 each week in Federal taxes. It takes his salary this summer, every 
dime of Federal income tax that he will pay this summer, and 9 other of 
his fellow workers; it takes all 10 of those this summer to pay what 
one RTC employee makes, the additional amount that employee makes over 
another Federal employee doing the same job. So, Mr. Chairman, my 
teenager and nine other employees will work all summer, and every dime 
of Federal income tax that they pay will be used to pay someone at the 
RTC to do a job and will pay them an additional amount more than 
employees at all other Federal agencies.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is not only an outrage to other Federal 
employees in pay discrimination and inequity, it is an inequity to the 
American taxpayer. This ought to be ended.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] for yielding, and I rise in strong support of a bill which I 
think should be called the Hoyer compromise. The gentlemen deserves 
great credit for having wrought much out of very little. This is a very 
frugal bill, more than a billion dollars less than the President asked, 
and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has managed a modest 
Federal pay raise, more than would otherwise have been possible. But it 
is a raise that is considerably less than the statutory raise that 
Federal workers expected. The administration underfunded the statutory 
raise by more than $1.6 billion. A raise that equates civilian and 
military employees seems to me to be the kind of artful compromise for 
which the gentleman has become noted. I was concerned that, with 
unusually harsh budget mechanisms in place, there might not have been 
the flexibility to, in fact, pay for this raise. But I bow to the 
experience of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that there has 
usually been enough flexibility in agency budgets to absorb modest 
raises. With lower allocations this year as well as budget caps, I 
feared that this might not be the case this year and wrote an amendment 
that would have cut less than 1 percent from service contracts. The 
procedures for transferring the savings to Federal raises would have 
been difficult to put in place this year, but I do intend to revisit 
the $105 billion service contract issue because, so far as I can tell, 
that is the only item that has been immune from cuts. The OMB says that 
service contracts are out of control but has not yet put in place a 
mechanism to get them back under control. Service contracts too, should 
make some contribution to deficit reduction, even as Federal employees 
have had to make contributions year after year. I looked at the data 
and found that every year since 1978, and that is as far back as I 
went, Federal workers have not received the entire statutory raise that 
we told them they would get. I believe that this is bad management 
practice.
  Mr. Chairman, I served on the board of three Fortune 500 companies 
before I came to Congress, and the collective wisdom of the private 
sector is that if you have to make your cuts, you make your cuts once 
and for all, get your savings, and then give the remaining labor force 
at least the expected small increments that you can afford. Repeated 
givebacks gives us back a demoralized work force and the productivity 
that inevitably comes with it. It is a particularly bad practice in the 
Federal Government where we are now involved in a 10-year period of 
locality pay make-up in order to eliminate a large gap between Federal 
and private sector wages.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Chairman, I accept the judgment of the chairman of the 
subcommittee that there has been historically the flexibility to 
accommodate raises, and I compliment him for the compromise he 
achieved.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia for her comments, and if the gentlewoman will yield, let me 
simply observe that we have expressed the concern the gentlewoman had 
and that the gentleman from Virginia had, and we have discussed it with 
OMB in terms of whether this would require additional risk. We have 
been told that it will not, and we are relying on that. We are 
certainly going to look at that between now and the time of conference.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say in summary that from a fiscal 
perspective this is, I think, one of the most responsible pieces of 
legislation we have brought to the floor in quite some time. We have 
cut the White House budget 9.3 percent. We have put some money back in 
for law enforcement where, in the opinion of a number of the members of 
the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, the cuts had gone much 
further than they should have gone and basically would debilitate law 
enforcement and keep them from doing the job we have given them to do.
  Again, obviously, there are going to be a number of disagreements 
over the issues concerning the operation of the White House. As I 
mentioned earlier, this is the lightning rod because it is the only 
place where we have an opportunity to talk about White House operations 
here on the floor. Again I would like to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for his cooperation. It was a tough bill, but I think, 
when all is said and done, from a fiscal perspective, we did a very 
good job. I am not much at bragging on things we do, but I really think 
in this case we did a good job. One always would like to find somewhere 
else where we could cut a little more, but we really got to the bottom 
line, and as was mentioned earlier, we took the lower of the budget 
figure or the President's request, whichever was the lowest, and that 
seemed to be the fairest way we could approach the subject, because it 
involved input from a lot of different sources in that respect.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman of 
the subcommittee, and as we go through the bill title by title, I am 
sure some of the other things Members are disagreeing about will be 
addressed and we will have a good debate on these issues today.
  Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make this observation: The gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny] asked a question about how much money we had to 
spend and how much we were over 1994. The ranking member, the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], and others, have said that this is a 
fiscally responsible bill. Let me tell the Members why it is and why we 
have had such a crunch.
  Just to reiterate, in 1994 the President's request was $12,549 
million in outlays. If you take out tax compliance, if you take out the 
revenues added in the President's budget from $241 million in 
additional fees, you would have needed $13,195 million to fund the 
President's bill. The total in the bill is $12,254 million. That is 
$941 million under the President's figure. Looked at in another way, 
with that total of $12,254 million, if you subtract tax compliance and 
prior year outlays which were obligated and had to be spent this year 
and the net loss of GSA rents, the resources available to our 
committee--and this is the key--were at $11,502 million.
  In order to fund the 1994 enactment, which is essentially what the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] was asking, we would have needed 
$137 million more, so that we are in fact discounting those three, the 
two losses of revenues and the tax compliance initiative, and we would 
have needed $137 million more to fund at 1994 levels.
  Mr. Chairman, we will be debating some issues regarding the White 
House. The White House has certainly made mistakes. The Dee Dee Myers 
incident was inappropriate, to say the least. That has been corrected. 
We will have a number of amendments, and we will discuss them.
  We will discuss passes. I want to say that passes, as was testified 
to by the Secret Service, are for maintaining a secure and safe 
environment for the President and the Vice President. That is what the 
passes are for. We do not have passes to come into our offices because 
there is not a perceived need to keep Members of Congress safe because 
they have not been threatened, at least physically. As a result, we do 
not have passes. We do have passes to come generally into the building, 
but there are no background checks for that. It is simply to make sure 
there is nothing on the person of somebody who comes into the building, 
a bomb or a weapon which may be threatening. This is what our passes 
are for.
  Second, there is a necessity for security clearances for people in 
the White House. However, as was already testified to, secure secret 
documents are not made available to people whether or not they have a 
White House pass, whether or not they have access to the White House, 
unless they have in fact a security clearance. This did not happen.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is correct in the instance of 
Ms. Myers. But Mr. Wolf also mentioned the Aldrich Ames cases. The 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] feels very strongly about the danger 
to which our employees overseas were put by the traitorous action of 
Aldrich Ames. Let me point out that Aldrich Ames worked for the CIA, 
Aldrich Ames went through all the security clearances, Aldrich Ames was 
repeatedly checked by the CIA, and not withstanding that, these 
incidents occurred.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good bill. I hope that we do pass 
it. There is not enough money in it, but it has what we think we 
fiscally can afford.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 4539, 
the bill providing for Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
Appropriations for fiscal year 1995. This bill is the product of many 
hours of hard work, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I want to congratulate Chairman Hoyer and thank him for his 
outstanding work in putting together a very balanced bill. Mr. Hoyer 
was asked to do more this year with less. I believe that he has 
succeeded in that mandate.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address one specific matter of concern 
throughout the western United States, but of special concern to 
municipal electric utilities in the Pacific Northwest. Pages seven and 
eight of House Report 103-534 note that the Bonneville Power 
Administration [BPA] 3 years ago requested the Treasury Department to 
develop a revised methodology under Section 9(f) of Public Law 96-501 
to implement Congress' original intent that electric resources financed 
by public entities and acquired by BPA for BPA's use in meeting public 
entities' loads be treated the same as if the resources were taken 
directly into public entities systems. I understand that BPA and many 
municipal utilities fear that the Treasury Department's existing 
methodology may fail to implement this original intent.
  The apparent lack of clear rules threatens to undermine the 
development and financing of important public power projects in the 
Pacific Northwest. As a long-time supporter of public power, I am 
greatly concerned about the impact on municipalities. For example, on 
June 30, 1993, the IRS was requested to approve tax-exempt financing 
under Section 9(f) of Public Law 96-501 for an electric conservation 
project sponsored by a public utility district in the State of Oregon. 
On January 18, 1994, a similar request was submitted in connection with 
electric conservation projects sponsored by eight public utility 
districts in the State of Washington. A third request for IRS ruling 
was submitted on March 15, 1994, in connection with another 
conservation project sponsored by another State of Washington municipal 
utility.
  Although the Internal Revenue Service's existing methodology calls 
for rulings to be issued within 60 days, to date the IRS has failed to 
respond in any substantive way to any of these three important ruling 
requests. Clearly, there is a problem when a ruling required within 60 
days has not been made some 10 months later.
  On page 8 of House Report 103-534, the Committee requests the 
Secretary of the Treasury to provide a report by January 1, 1995, on 
the need for a revised methodology implementing Section 9(f) of Public 
Law 96-501. I understand that the Committee intends that the Secretary 
will report that a revised methodology is needed if he finds that the 
existing methodology fails to treat electric resources financed by 
public entities and acquired by BPA for BPA's use in meeting public 
entities' loads the same as if the resources were taken directly into 
the public entities' systems.
  I also understand that the Committee intends the Secretary of the 
Treasury will report a revised methodology is needed if he finds that 
the IRS consistently has failed to issue rulings under Section 9(f) of 
Public Law 92-501 within 60 days after receiving written requests, as 
called for under the existing methodology. However, I understand that 
the Committee intends that no report is necessary if the Secretary of 
the Treasury adopts a revised methodology consistent with these 
principles and submits that revised methodology to the Committee by 
November 1, 1994. Finally, I appreciate the Chairman's commitment to 
continue working with me on this important matter.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a balanced approach that advances 
important policies while recognizing current fiscal realities. The bill 
is the product of hard work and tough choices. We have been asked to do 
more with less. The Committee and the Chairman have met that mandate. I 
strongly urge a yes vote.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4539, the 
Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  I want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee and 
particularly to Chairman Hoyer for funding an initiative in this bill 
that is vitally important to the American textile and apparel industry. 
H.R. 4539 includes $18 million earmarked to the Customs Service for 
enforcement of textile and apparel trade laws, along with other trade 
enforcement measures. Customs is to use these funds to hire an 
additional 186 full-time-equivalent employees. Of the 186 additional 
employees, 100 are to be dedicated to the enforcement of textile and 
apparel trade laws.
  This funding keeps faith with a pledge the Clinton administration 
made to a number of Members during the NAFTA debate. We asked the 
President to commit these resources because textile and apparel trade 
restrictions seem to be honored more in the breach than in the 
enforcement. For example, Customs has estimated that as much as $4 
billion in textile/apparel imports may enter this country each year 
illegally, as a result of transshipping. And as serious as that problem 
is today, it could become even more widespread if NAFTA is not 
diligently policed.
  President Clinton pledged in his letter of November 16, 1993, that 
Customs will hire 50 additional employees to work ``exclusively, to the 
extent practical'' on non-NAFTA textile enforcement and 50 employees to 
work on NAFTA-related textile enforcement. The President also pledged 
that Customs' commercial program, associated with both the enforcement 
of NAFTA and other textile and apparel enforcement, ``will be held 
harmless from our government-wide effort to reduce employment levels.''
  The Government Operations Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and 
Monetary Affairs, which I chair, has held hearings to assess Customs' 
resources to deal with the textile transshipment problem, and to 
enforce in particular NAFTA's rule of origin with respect to textile 
and apparel products. Our hearing record shows that as many as 33.5 
million textile articles are transshipped to this country each year. 
Our record also shows that Customs lacks the manpower and resources to 
combat effectively this sort of fraud and evasion.
  NAFTA could make the problem worse. NAFTA means that the United 
States will sell more American-made textile products to Mexico and 
Canada. But it also means that more Mexican and Canadian textile 
imports will enter our markets. Without adequate enforcement, NAFTA 
will create a major opportunity for countries like China to transship 
goods into the United States. The Customs Service will be required to 
inspect those products by enforcing a strict but complicated textile 
rule of origin. With inadequate resources to police existing laws, 
Customs can hardly be expected to take on this additional burden. That 
is why this initiative is so important.

  I am aware of the tight funding constraints in which the 
Appropriations Committee operated this year. But I believe that the 
committee has made a wise long-term investment. If past experience is 
any guide, this small increment of extra money will more than pay for 
itself in additional tariffs, fees, penalties, and other revenues for 
the government.
  These extra resources will not put an end to the problems of evasion, 
circumvention, and transshipment in textile and apparel trade, but they 
will help. I urge support for this initiative and passage of this bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, as we take up the Transportation 
appropriations bill, I would like to express my gratitude to 
subcommittee Chairman Carr and ranking member Wolf for their leadership 
on this important legislation. Their efforts to institute a strict 
level of criteria to fund Transportation projects signals their 
commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  I will certainly miss working with Bob Carr in the House. He has 
always been most cooperative and helpful and the residents of southern 
California are indebted to him for his attention to their 
transportation requirements.
  I especially appreciate the consideration of southern California's 
transportation needs with the inclusion of the Eastern Transportation 
Corridor, the Orange County Transitway Project, the Bristol Street 
Improvement Project in Santa Ana, the Interstate 5 Capacity 
Enhancement, and the State Route 71 planning and design project in 
Riverside, CA.
  The inclusion of these and other important projects in San Diego, 
Orange, and Riverside counties will help the region meet its 
challenging transportation needs. I believe that this legislation takes 
a new approach to highway and transit programs, and reorients the 
direction of this Nation's transportation policy.
  Congestion on southern California roadways has been a bane to the 
continued growth of this area. This legislation will be a first step 
toward alleviating the traffic congestion that southern California 
motorists face every day.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank members and staff 
of the Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee on Transportation for 
their hard work on this bill. Your hard work paves the way for meeting 
our Nation's transportation needs.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend Chairman Hoyer, 
Representative Lightfoot, and the other members of the Treasury, Postal 
Service Subcommittee for producing such a good bill under extremely 
tough circumstances. As a former member of the subcommittee, I 
understand how important the programs funded in this bill are, and how 
difficult it must have been for the Subcommittee to do so much with so 
little.
  I'd like to thank the subcommittee for two items of particular 
interest to me. First, the report accompanying the bill contains 
language building upon the classification-cost reform effort I 
initiated last year through this and other appropriations bills. As 
required by last year's bills, the Office of Management and Budget 
[OMB] produced this spring the first-ever overall accounting of how 
much Federal agencies are spending to classify and protect secret 
information. OMB found that the government directly spends roughly 
$2.28 billion on secrecy-related activities. Another $13.8 billion is 
estimated to go to reimburse defense, state, and intelligence 
contractors for compliance with security procedures. The OMB report 
also calculated that 32,400 workers are employed to safeguard a growing 
stockpile of secrets--including some at agencies like the Department of 
Education that would appear to have little need for doing so.
  Getting these estimates from OMB was the first step towards knocking 
this system off of autopilot. The language included in the report 
before us today takes the next step, by directing OMB to track how 
these government classification funds are actually spent. Once we know 
where the money is going, we can begin targeting inefficiencies and 
producing savings. Since President Clinton is expected to issue shortly 
a new executive order revising government classification policies, the 
report language also directs OMB to submit to Congress its plans for 
reducing expenditures based on that new executive order. 
``Reinventing'' the secrecy system should save money and restore 
accountability--both key principles in a democratic society.
  Second, the report accompanying the bill also contains language 
directing the United States Postal Service to complete design work on 
the new post office in Breckenridge, Colorado in fiscal year 1995, so 
that construction can begin the following year. This is very important 
to the people of Breckenridge, whose current temporary post office has 
very limited parking and limited lobby and mail-dock facilities. Since 
there is no home or business delivery of mail in Breckenridge, this 
makes it very difficult for the town's rapidly growing number of 
residents and businesses to get their mail. It's especially a problem 
during the ski season, when the town's population can reach over 
25,000.
  To alleviate this problem, the Postal Service spent $1 million 
several years ago to buy land just north of town, where there would be 
room for a post office with parking. However, because the present 
facility is still structurally sound, and because Postal Service 
criteria give little weight to factors like a lack of accessibility, 
it's unlikely that the Postal Service will soon fund work on the new 
facility. Yet the need for a new facility in Breckenridge is just as 
great as anywhere, and the language included in the report is very 
welcome.
  Again, I'd like to commend and thank the members of the Subcommittee, 
and I urge all of my colleagues to support this well thought out 
legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4539

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices 
     including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building 
     and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, 
     repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial 
     insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned 
     overseas, when necessary for the performance of official 
     business; not to exceed $2,900,000 for official travel 
     expenses; not to exceed $100,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, of which $75,000 is for such 
     expenses of the international affairs function of the 
     Offices; not to exceed $3,101,000 to remain available until 
     September 30, 1997, shall be available for information 
     technology modernization requirements; not to exceed $258,000 
     for unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be 
     allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his 
     certificate; not to exceed $490,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1997, for repairs and improvements to the 
     Main Treasury Building and Annex; $105,150,000: Provided, 
     That of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $79,000 are permanently canceled.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to 
     exceed $2,000,000 for official travel expenses; not to exceed 
     $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, 
     to be allocated and expended under the direction of the 
     Inspector General of the Treasury; $28,897,000.

                  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to 
     exceed $4,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; $18,280,000: Provided, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $1,000 are permanently 
     canceled.

                        Treasury Forfeiture Fund


                (limitation of availability of deposits)

       For necessary expenses of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, as 
     authorized by Public Law 102-393, not to exceed $15,000,000, 
     to be derived from deposits in the Fund: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 9703, no later than September 30, 
     1995, the Secretary shall transfer $32,960,000 from deposits 
     in the Fund to the General Fund of the Treasury.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, as a bureau of the Department of the 
     Treasury, including materials and support costs of Federal 
     law enforcement basic training; purchase (not to exceed 
     fifty-two for police-type use) and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; for expenses for student athletic and related 
     activities; uniforms without regard to the general purchase 
     price limitation for the current fiscal year; the conducting 
     of and participating in firearms matches and presentation of 
     awards; for public awareness and enhancing community support 
     of law enforcement training; not to exceed $9,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; room and 
     board for student interns; and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That the Center is authorized to 
     accept and use gifts of property, both real and personal, and 
     to accept services, for authorized purposes, including 
     funding of a gift of intrinsic value which shall be awarded 
     annually by the Director of the Center to the outstanding 
     student who graduated from a basic training program at the 
     Center during the previous fiscal year, which shall be funded 
     only by gifts received through the Center's gift authority: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, students attending training at any Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center site shall reside in on-Center or 
     Center-provided housing, insofar as available and in 
     accordance with Center policy: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this account shall be available for training 
     United States Postal Service law enforcement personnel and 
     Postal police officers, at the discretion of the Director; 
     State and local government law enforcement training on a 
     space-available basis; training of foreign law enforcement 
     officials on a space-available basis with reimbursement of 
     actual costs to this appropriation; training of private 
     sector security officials on a space-available basis with 
     reimbursement of actual costs to this appropriation; travel 
     expenses of non-Federal personnel to attend State and local 
     course development meetings at the Center: Provided further, 
     That the Center is authorized to obligate funds in 
     anticipation of reimbursements from agencies receiving 
     training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 
     except that total obligations at the end of the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed total budgetary resources available at the 
     end of the fiscal year: Provided further, That the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Training Center is authorized to provide 
     short term medical services for students undergoing training 
     at the Center; $46,713,000, of which $8,821,000 for materials 
     and support costs of Federal law enforcement basic training 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1997.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center, for acquisition of necessary additional real property 
     and facilities, and for ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses, $9,815,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Financial Management Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service, 
     $185,389,000, of which not to exceed $13,459,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for systems modernization 
     initiatives. In addition, $90,000, to be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund, to reimburse the Service for 
     administrative and personnel ex penses for financial 
     management of the Fund, as authorized by section 1012 of 
     Public Law 101-380: Provided, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $192,000 are 
     permanently canceled.

                Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms, including purchase of not to exceed six hundred 
     and fifty vehicles for police-type use for replacement only 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire of aircraft; and 
     services of expert witnesses at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Director; for payment of per diem and/or 
     subsistence allowances to employees where an assignment to 
     the National Response Team during the investigation of a 
     bombing or arson incident requires an employee to work 16 
     hours or more per day or to remain overnight at his or her 
     post of duty; not to exceed $10,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; for training of State and local 
     law enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement; 
     provision of laboratory assistance to State and local 
     agencies, with or without reimbursement; of which $22,000,000 
     shall be available solely for the enforcement of the Federal 
     Alcohol Administration Act during fiscal year 1995; 
     $376,181,000, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for the payment of attorneys' fees as provided by 
     18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of which $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for the equipping of any vessel, vehicle, 
     equipment, or aircraft available for official use by a State 
     or local law enforcement agency if the conveyance will be 
     used in drug-related joint law enforcement operations with 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and for the 
     payment of overtime salaries, travel, fuel, training, 
     equipment, and other similar costs of State and local law 
     enforcement officers that are incurred in joint operations 
     with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available 
     to investigate or act upon applications for relief from 
     Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): 
     Provided further, That such funds shall be available to 
     investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations 
     for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 
     section 925(c): Provided further, That no funds made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to implement 
     any reorganization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms or transfer of the Bureau's functions, missions, or 
     activities to other agencies or Departments in the fiscal 
     year ending on September 30, 1995: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or 
     administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or 
     centralizing, within the Department of the Treasury, the 
     records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and 
     disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms 
     licensees: Provided, That of the offsetting collections 
     credited to this account, $4,000 are permanently canceled.

                     United States Customs Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Customs 
     Service, including purchase of up to 1,000 motor vehicles of 
     which 960 are for replacement only, including 990 for police-
     type use and commercial operations; hire of motor vehicles; 
     not to exceed $20,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; and awards of compensation to 
     informers, as authorized by any Act enforced by the United 
     States Customs Service; $1,391,700,000, of which such sums as 
     become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums 
     subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)), 
     shall be derived from that Account; of the total, not to 
     exceed $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental 
     space in connection with preclearance operations, and not to 
     exceed $4,000,000 shall be available until expended for 
     research: Provided, That uniforms may be purchased without 
     regard to the general purchase price limitation for the 
     current fiscal year: Provided further, That $750,000 shall be 
     available for additional part-time and temporary positions 
     in the Honolulu Customs District: Provided further, That 
     $10,000,000 shall be available for the Center for Study of 
     Western Hemispheric Trade as authorized by Public Law 103-
     182: Provided further, That of the offsetting collections 
     credited to this account, $410,000 are permanently 
     canceled.


    Operation and Maintenance, Air and Marine Interdiction Programs

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of marine vessels, aircraft, and 
     other related equipment of the Air and Marine Programs, 
     including operational training and mission-related travel, 
     and rental payments for facilities occupied by the air or 
     marine interdiction and demand reduction programs; 
     $78,991,000, of which $7,233,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1997.

                   customs services at small airports


                  (to be derived from fees collected)

       Such sums as may be necessary, not to exceed $1,406,000, 
     for expenses for the provision of Customs services at certain 
     small airports or other facilities when authorized by law and 
     designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, including 
     expenditures for the salary and expenses of individuals 
     employed to provide such services, to be derived from fees 
     collected by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to 
     section 236 of Public Law 98-573 for each of these airports 
     or other facilities when authorized by law and designated by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, and to remain available until 
     expended.

                           United States Mint


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Mint; 
     $54,770,000, of which $1,540,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1997, for expansion and improvements.

                       Bureau of the Public Debt


                     Administering the Public Debt

       For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt 
     issues of the United States; $183,458,000: Provided, That in 
     fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, the Secretary is authorized 
     to collect fees of not less than $46 for each definitive 
     security issue provided to customers, and an annual 
     maintenance fee of not less than $25 for each Treasury Direct 
     Investor Account exceeding $100,000 in par value: Provided 
     further, That in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, of the 
     definitive security fees collected, not to exceed $600,000, 
     and of the annual maintenance fees for Treasury Direct 
     Investor Account collected, not to exceed $2,500,000, shall 
     be retained and used in the current fiscal year for the 
     specific purpose of offsetting costs of Bureau of the Public 
     Debt's marketable security activities, and any fees collected 
     in excess of said amounts shall be deposited as miscellaneous 
     receipts in the Treasury: Provided further, That the sum 
     appropriated herein from the General Fund for fiscal year 
     1995 shall be reduced by not more than $600,000 as definitive 
     security issue fees are collected and not more than 
     $2,500,000 as Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance 
     fees are collected, so as to result in a final fiscal year 
     1995 appropriation from the General Fund estimated at 
     $180,358,000.


                payment of government losses in shipment

       Beginning in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, there are 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to make payments 
     for the replacement of valuables, or the value thereof, lost, 
     destroyed, or damaged in the course of shipments effected 
     pursuant to section 1 of the Government Losses in Shipment 
     Act, as amended.

                        Internal Revenue Service


                     Administration and Management

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, not 
     otherwise provided for; management services, and inspection; 
     including purchase (not to exceed 125 for replacement only, 
     for police-type use) and hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner; 
     $225,632,000, of which not to exceed $25,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses.


                 processing tax returns and assistance

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, not 
     otherwise provided for; including processing tax returns; 
     revenue accounting; providing assistance to taxpayers; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Commissioner; $1,616,295,000, of which 
     $3,500,000 shall be for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly 
     Program, no amount of which shall be available for IRS 
     administrative costs.


                          tax law enforcement

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     determining and establishing tax liabilities; tax and 
     enforcement litigation; technical rulings; examining employee 
     plans and exempt organizations; investigation and enforcement 
     activities; securing unfiled tax returns; collecting unpaid 
     accounts; statistics of income and compliance research; the 
     purchase (for police-type use, not to exceed 600, of which 
     not to exceed 450 shall be for replacement only), and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Commissioner: Provided, That additional 
     amounts above fiscal year 1994 levels for international tax 
     enforcement shall be used for the continued operation of a 
     task force comprised of senior Internal Revenue Service 
     Attorneys, accountants, and economists dedicated to 
     enforcement activities related to United States subsidiaries 
     of foreign-controlled corporations that are in non-compliance 
     with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; $4,412,580,000, of 
     which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1997.


                          information systems

       For necessary expenses for data processing and 
     telecommunications support for Internal Revenue Service 
     activities, including: tax systems modernization (modernized 
     developmental systems), modernized operational systems, 
     services and compliance, and support systems; and for the 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may 
     be determined by the Commissioner: $1,240,357,000 of which 
     $185,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated for tax systems 
     modernization may be obligated until the Commissioner of the 
     Internal Revenue Service reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate on the implementation 
     of Tax Systems Modernization.


          administrative provisions--internal revenue service

       Section 1. Not to exceed 4 per centum of any appropriation 
     made available to the Internal Revenue Service for the 
     current fiscal year by this Act may be transferred to any 
     other Internal Revenue Service appropriation upon the 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 2. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and 
     maintain a training program to insure that Internal Revenue 
     Service employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in 
     dealing courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural 
     relations.

                      United States Secret Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including purchase (not to exceed three hundred and forty-
     three vehicles for police-type use for replacement only) and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire of aircraft; training 
     and assistance requested by State and local governments, 
     which may be provided without reimbursement; services of 
     expert witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the 
     Director; rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, 
     and fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on 
     private or other property not in Government ownership or 
     control, as may be necessary to perform protective 
     functions; for payment of per diem and/or subsistence 
     allowances to employees where a protective assignment 
     during the actual day or days of the visit of a protectee 
     require an employee to work 16 hours per day or to remain 
     overnight at his or her post of duty; the conducting of 
     and participating in firearms matches; presentation of 
     awards; and for travel of Secret Service employees on 
     protective missions without regard to the limitations on 
     such expenditures in this or any other Act: Provided, That 
     approval is obtained in advance from the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations; for repairs, alterations, 
     and minor construction at the James J. Rowley Secret 
     Service Training Center; for research and development; for 
     making grants to conduct behavioral research in support of 
     protective research and operations; not to exceed $12,500 
     for official reception and representation expenses; not to 
     exceed $50,000 to provide technical assistance and 
     equipment to foreign law enforcement organizations in 
     counterfeit investigations; for payment in advance for 
     commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform 
     protective functions; and for uniforms without regard to 
     the general purchase price limitation for the current 
     fiscal year; $476,931,000: Provided further, That of the 
     offsetting collections credited to this account, $43,000 
     are permanently canceled.

             General Provisions--Department of the Treasury

       Section 101. Of the funds appropriated by this or any other 
     Act to the Internal Revenue Service, amounts attributable to 
     efficiency savings for fiscal year 1995 shall be identified 
     as such by the Commissioner during that fiscal year: 
     Provided, That in the fiscal year when the savings are 
     realized, the amount of efficiency savings shall be non-
     recurred from the Internal Revenue Service budget base: 
     Provided further, That on an annual basis, the Internal 
     Revenue Service shall report to the House and Senate 
     Appropriations Committees on the status of the program.
       Sec. 102. Any obligation or expenditure by the Secretary in 
     connection with law enforcement activities of a Federal 
     agency or a Department of the Treasury law enforcement 
     organization in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9703(g)(4)(B) from 
     unobligated balances remaining in the Fund on September 30, 
     1995, shall be made in compliance with the reprogramming 
     guidelines contained in the House and Senate reports 
     accompanying this Act.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations to the Treasury Department in this 
     Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances therefor, 
     as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including maintenance, 
     repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for official 
     motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; purchase of 
     motor vehicles without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for vehicles purchased and used overseas for the 
     current fiscal year; entering into contracts with the 
     Department of State for the furnishing of health and medical 
     services to employees and their dependents serving in foreign 
     countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 104. Not to exceed 2 per centum of any appropriations 
     in this Act for the Department of the Treasury may be 
     transferred between such appropriations. Notwithstanding any 
     authority to transfer funds between appropriations contained 
     in this or any other Act, no transfer may increase or 
     decrease any appropriation in this Act by more than 2 per 
     centum and any such proposed transfers shall be approved in 
     advance by the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
     Senate.
       Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     beginning in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, the Financial 
     Management Service (FMS) shall be reimbursed, for postage 
     incurred by FMS to make check payments on their behalf, by: 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, for the mailing of 
     Compensation and Pension benefit payments; the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, for the mailing of Supplemental 
     Security Income payments; and the Office of Personnel 
     Management, for the mailing of Retirement payments. Such 
     reimbursement shall be due beginning with checks mailed on 
     October 1, 1994, and such reimbursement shall occur on a 
     monthly basis.
       Sec. 106. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of the Treasury during fiscal year 1995, 
     $33,437,000 are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall allocate the amount 
     of budgetary resources canceled among the Department's 
     accounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses. Amounts available for procurement and procurement-
     related expenses in each such account shall be reduced by the 
     amount allocated to such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated by this title 
     shall be used in connection with the collection of any 
     underpayment of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 unless the conduct of officers and employees of the 
     Internal Revenue Service in connection with such collection 
     complies with subsection (a) of section 805 (relating to 
     communications in connection with debt collection), and 
     section 806 (relating to harassment or abuse), of the Fair 
     Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692).
       Sec. 108. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute 
     policies and procedures which will safeguard the 
     confidentiality of taxpayer information.
       Sec. 109. The funds provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms for fiscal year 1995 in this Act for the 
     enforcement of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act shall 
     be expended in a manner so as not to diminish enforcement 
     efforts with respect to section 105 of the Federal Alcohol 
     Administration Act.
       This title may be cited as the ``Treasury Department 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that title I of the bill be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title I?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, prior to going to additional points of 
order, I wish to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui] or his designee or any representative of the 
Committee on Ways and Means be able to make at the end of the bill 
points of order with reference to two items in the bill, one dealing 
with the forfeiture fund and another dealing with a tax provision.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I am deeply concerned about the 
impact of the IRS' reorganization on Philadelphia and the precedent it 
sets for how ``reinventing government'' should be applied to urban 
areas. While I support the overall goals of the reorganization, I have 
serious concerns about the criteria used by the IRS in its decision to 
eliminate the processing function at the Philadelphia service center.
  As the gentleman knows, Mr. Chairman, differences in locality pay 
played a decisive factor in the selection process used by the IRS. The 
criteria were so narrowly drawn that cities where locality pay is high 
could not possibly be selected as final sites. I am sure that, as an 
architect and strong supporter of the locality pay system, the 
subcommittee chairman would not want to see locality pay used in this 
way.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, vital urban and social policy 
considerations were completely absent from the IRS decisionmaking 
process. Absolutely no consideration was given to unemployment rates, 
which are highest in the cities that lose processing sites. And, 
remarkably, the impact on minority employment in the Federal work force 
was given no weight in the selection process.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the IRS selection process sets a dangerous 
and misguided precedent for the way we go about ``reinventing 
government.'' Does the gentleman plan to address the issue of the use 
of locality pay and urban criteria in ``reinventing government'' 
initiatives through your subcommittee?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for raising this very important question.
  I will answer by saying that the subcommittee will in fact review the 
issues the gentleman has raised regarding the use of locality pay and 
urban criteria in ``reinventing government'' initiatives. I share many 
of the gentleman's concerns, and I assure him they will be given very 
careful consideration.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman, and I 
support and applaud his efforts and the efforts of the administration 
to make our Government operate more efficiently. I hope the gentleman 
will continue to work with me to ensure that our Nation's urban areas 
are given full consideration and equal treatment in ``reinventing 
government'' initiatives.

                              {time}  1140

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I? If not, the Clerk will 
read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        TITLE II--POSTAL SERVICE

                     Payments to the Postal Service


                   payment to the postal service fund

       For payment to the Postal Service Fund for revenue forgone 
     on free and reduced rate mail, pursuant to subsections (c) 
     and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code; 
     $92,317,000: Provided, That mail for overseas voting and mail 
     for the blind shall continue to be free: Provided further, 
     That six-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall 
     continue at not less than the 1983 level: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available to the Postal Service 
     by this Act shall be used to implement any rule, regulation, 
     or policy of charging any officer or employee of any State or 
     local child support enforcement agency, or any individual 
     participating in a State or local program of child support 
     enforcement, a fee for information requested or provided 
     concerning an address of a postal customer: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds provided in this Act shall be used to 
     consolidate or close small rural and other small post offices 
     in the fiscal year ending on September 30, 1995.

      Payment to the Postal Service Fund for Nonfunded Liabilities

       For payment to the Postal Service Fund for meeting the 
     liabilities of the former Post Office Department to the 
     Employees' Compensation Fund pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 2004, 
     $37,776,000.
       This title may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that title II of the bill be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title II? If not, are 
there any amendments to title II?


                  amendment offered by mr. coppersmith

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coppersmith: Page 20, line 25, 
     strike ``$92,317,000'' and insert ``$85,717,000''.

  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, my horoscope today says, ``Accomplish 
goal through unorthodox procedures,'' and that is what I hope to do 
here today.
  Mr. Chairman, this simple amendment cuts $6.6 million in funds for 
the U.S. Postal Service. As the U.S. Postal Service still plans to 
install its ``new bird'' logo on buildings, uniforms, and trucks, the 
amendment reduces the revenue forgone subsidy by $6.6 million, the 
exact amount the Postal Service still plans to spend on the ``new 
bird.''
  Opponents of this amendment will say that it is flawed because it 
violates the agreement Congress reached with the Postal Service 
concerning revenue forgone. They are correct. Cutting this bill's 
appropriation for the Postal Service is problematic. However, this 
amendment is the only chance Congress will have to address the issue 
this year.
  Opponents of this amendment will say that it hurts mailings for the 
blind or overseas mailing or nonprofit mailers. That argument, however, 
is a perfect example of what Charles Peters of the Washington Monthly 
magazine calls ``The Washington Monument Syndrome.'' Instead of 
trimming its toenails, the agency insists that any cut must invariably 
come right out of its heart. Thus, a cut to the Park Service budget 
means laying off the elevator operators at the Washington Monument on 
the 4th of July, hence the name of the syndrome.
  Now, I do not intend, and surely this House does not intend, to cut 
those specially valued programs for the blind or overseas voting or for 
nonprofit mailers. In fact, however, it will be the Postal Service 
itself that makes any such misguided cut or misbegotten price hike. 
Instead, the service can choose to target operating expenses or do a 
better job of curbing postal meter fraud, or, let us not forget the 
point of the amendment, to drop the ``new bird'' logo idea.
  The point of the amendment is not that the Postal Service should 
recoup the $6.6 million by preserving the new logo and increasing any 
rates or cutting services or salaries and benefits for rank-and-file 
employees who had nothing to do with this decision. The Postal Service 
should make up this cut by doing what it should have done already, by 
dropping its plans to change the logo, and then to use those savings to 
preserve its subsidy in its entire amount.
  Likewise, this cut should not come from this year's payment for 
unfunded Postal Service liabilities. Disabled former employees did not 
decide to change the logo. Current management did, and the cuts should 
affect them.

  The Postal Service will say, and solely from an accounting 
perspective I can agree, that our constituents will pay for the new 
logo only through stamp purchases. However, the Postal Service has a 
monopoly on the delivery of first class mail. Our constituents cannot 
express dissatisfaction by using some other postal service. The only 
way our constituents can express their frustration with this bone-
headed logo idea is through this vote on the floor today.
  Sometimes like even good people, even good quasi-public corporations 
make bad choices. The Postal Service made a bad choice by deciding to 
spend $6.6 million on a unneeded cosmetic change, especially at a time 
when the public's cynicism about superficial change is so high.
  This amendment sends a message that Congress understands and can seek 
out wasteful or just misguided spending by public or quasi-governmental 
agencies. This amendment sends a message that Congress recognizes the 
need to reinvent Government and achieve substantive and meaningful 
reform, not just eyewash designed to fool the public.
  Finally, opponents will say this amendment is symbolic. But the whole 
point of the logo is symbolism. And if the Postal Service wants public 
funding, for whatever purpose, it should not waste $6.6 million, 
whether from the taxpayers or from its customers, our constituents.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, as 
the gentleman anticipated. First, obviously, this is an attempt to do 
on the appropriation bill what apparently is not happening in the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, which has jurisdiction over 
this particular matter. In fact, there is legislation pending in the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to effect the objective that 
the gentleman seeks.
  Let me now speak to the specifics of this particular bill. This bill 
has $92 million in it for the Postal Service. That money is for two 
objectives: First of all, it is to fund the Congress' agreement with 
the Post Office Department that was made last year when we did the 
Revenue Forgone legislation, which was a reform of what had 
historically been hundreds of millions of dollars in payments by the 
Congress for Revenue Forgone. In many instances, however, we had 
underfunded that. In effect, we had stolen from the money that we said 
we would pay, and that we owed to the Postal Service.
  The agreement said that we would make a $29 million payment, which is 
included in this bill, over the next 42-years to repay that which was 
owed to the Postal Service. In addition, the bill provides $68 million 
to subsidize mailing for the blind, as the gentleman from Arizona 
mentioned.

  The fact of the matter is that the gentleman seeks to cut $6.7 
million. The fact of the matter is that the Postal Service on substance 
expects to spend $6.7 million over 5 years. So we would be taking out 
all of the money in 1 year, theoretically, and reducing by, in effect, 
$5 million the funding available to the Postal Service beyond that 
which they were going to spend on this program.
  I have a letter from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the 
chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, saying that 
the Coppersmith amendment reneges on our committee to the mailers.
  The letter further says, ``I urge you to join me in opposing the 
Coppersmith amendment.''
  Again, Mr. Chairman, we are going to get amendments which will seek 
to cut dollars which are, frankly, not in this bill, as this amendment 
does. These funds are for revenue for gone and for the moneys which 
this Congress has an obligation to pay pursuant to representations made 
in legislation and to the Postal Service.
  The Postal Service is a quasi-public agency, as all of us know. It is 
a pay-as-you-go agency, as you also know. It is, obviously, losing 
funds this year. It has the lowest cost for first-class mail of any 
industrialized nation in the world, and it does so very efficiently, 
although, because of its volume, clearly it make mistakes.
  I would urge the Congress and this House to reject this amendment. It 
does not cut funds dedicated to the purpose that the gentleman believes 
is inappropriate. His proper avenue and the proper avenue to approach 
this is in the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. That is 
being done, and this House ought to wait on that result.
  To do otherwise will give the Postal Service the opportunity to say 
that we have either cut our obligation to them, or have cut our subsidy 
for mailings for the blind, largely braille mailings.
  I would ask that the House reject the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coppersmith amendment.
  In a nation whose economy is based on free enterprise, any 
governmental service which usurps a segment of that economy must 
constantly justify its existence. In the case of the U.S. Postal 
Service, which is granted a virtual monopoly, a significant part of 
that justification has been the ability to allocate limited resources 
to providing direct service rather than diverting a part of those 
resources to such things as publicity, advertising, and marketing. For 
after all, if you are granted an exclusive franchise, you should not 
have to worry about promoting your agency versus a competitor. You 
should concentrate your resources on providing the most efficient and 
economical service possible.
  In the case at hand, the Postal Service has undertaken a new logo at 
a cost of $6.6 million at a time when postal rates are being increased. 
If the public is choosing to use private carriers rather than the 
Postal Service in those areas where they have a choice, it is not 
because the private carriers have a better logo--it is because they are 
beating the Postal Service at its own game and in spite of the 
protections and advantages given to it by this body.
  The American public cannot be fooled on this one; it wants letters, 
not logos, and efficiency instead of fashion. The Postal Service is not 
an eagle free to roam the skies; it is a falcon that is kept for a 
specific purpose with a tether attached to its leg and held in the 
hands of this body. It is time we reined it in. Support the Coopersmith 
amendment.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise to support the Coppersmith amendment on the U.S. Postal 
Service logo. This is an issue; again, it is not micromanaging the Post 
Office. But clearly in this period, in this time and era when we are 
trying to deal with budget deficits, which truly are a cancer on our 
country, we have an opportunity to deal with an issue that if the Post 
Office was a private-sector business and they were proposing a $6.6 
million change in terms of a logo in the crisis atmosphere in which the 
Post Office exists.
  Just today the Washington Post reported that the top three officials 
at the U.S. Postal Service were fired, including the Chief of 
Operations, because of the problems that the Post Office is having. In 
the article, Postmaster Rudman even admits that the Postal Service has 
been plagued by poor service and customer complaints. Reinventing 
Government does not mean reinventing a logo. The U.S. Post Office is 
laden with problems. Simply giving itself a new logo is not going to 
fix all its problems.
  It is the wrong message to send to the post office. It is the wrong 
message to send to the Government. I urge adoption of the Coppersmith 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to 
a growing problem. It seems that the modern way to deliver mail is to 
build cluster boxes where the mail for an entire block or more is 
deposited. In more and more areas of our country, the familiar door-to-
door delivery is gone.
  I understand the need for cost-cutting measures, but we are going too 
far. In my congressional district, I have recently heard story after 
story of mail theft and vandalism of these cluster boxes.
  In poor weather, it is very inconvenient to venture down the block to 
pick up the mail--and, unfortunately, in many communities it is 
downright dangerous to go to the cluster boxes.
  I want to make clear that our local postmaster has been most 
cooperative and is trying to resolve the complaints that we have 
received, but his hands are tied by the overall regulations phasing out 
door-to-door delivery.
  What has happened to the days when Americans could rely on getting 
their mail? What has happened to the days when we could proudly boast 
that our mail service was second to none?
  There are some important services that should not be tampered with in 
the name of false economy. Continued repairs to cluster boxes and 
continued losses in mail soon eat up any potential savings realized 
from discontinuing door-to-door delivery.
  What is more American that getting mail at your door? Which one of us 
in this Chamber would volunteer to give up this service at our home? 
Which one of us would volunteer to walk down the halls of the Cannon, 
Longworth, or Rayburn Office Buildings to get our office mail?
  The citizens of our country deserve no less. It is time for the 
Postal Service to stop standing and deliver.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

                     Compensation of the President

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

                         The White House Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by 
     law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; including 
     subsistence expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105; including 
     subsistence expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which 
     shall be expended and accounted for as provided in that 
     section; hire of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, 
     periodicals, teletype news service, and travel (not to exceed 
     $100,000 to be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 
     U.S.C. 103); not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment 
     expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive 
     Office of the President; $387,754,000.

                 Executive Residence at the White House


                           operating expenses

       For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
     refurnishing, improvement, heating and lighting, including 
     electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House and official entertainment expenses of the 
     President; $7,827,000, to be expended and accounted for as 
     provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109-110, 112-114.

                Official Residence of the Vice President


                           operating expenses

       For the care, operation, refurnishing, improvement, heating 
     and lighting, including electric power and fixtures, of the 
     official residence of the Vice President, the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and not to exceed $90,000 for 
     official entertainment expenses of the Vice President, to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate; $324,000: Provided, 
     That advances or repayments or transfers from this 
     appropriation may be made to any department or agency for 
     expenses of carrying out such activities.

                  Special Assistance to the President


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Vice President to 
     provide assistance to the President in connection with 
     specially assigned functions, services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 106, including subsistence expenses 
     as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 106, which shall be expended and 
     accounted for as provided in that section; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; $3,270,000.

                      COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Council in carrying out its 
     functions under the Employment Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021), 
     including not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; $3,420,000.

                      Office of Policy Development


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and 3 
     U.S.C. 107; $5,058,000.

                       National Security Council


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Security Council, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     $6,648,000.

                        Office of Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration; 
     $24,850,000, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 and 3 U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles: 
     Provided, That of the budgetary resources available in fiscal 
     year 1995 in this account, $117,000 are permanently canceled: 
     Provided further, That amounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses in this account are reduced by 
     such amount: Provided further, That as used herein, 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).

                    Office of Management and Budget


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $56,272,000, of which not to 
     exceed $5,000,000, shall be available to carry out the 
     provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35: Provided, That, as 
     provided in 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), appropriations shall be 
     applied only to the objects for which appropriations were 
     made except as otherwise provided by law: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose 
     of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any 
     activities or regulations under the provisions of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.): Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available for the Office of Management and Budget by this Act 
     may be expended for the altering of the transcript of actual 
     testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, before the Committee on 
     Appropriations or the Committee on Veterans' Affairs or their 
     subcommittees: Provided further, That this proviso shall not 
     apply to printed hearings released by the Committee on 
     Appropriations or the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to title I 
     of Public Law 100-690; not to exceed $8,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; for participation in 
     joint projects or in the provision of services on matters of 
     mutual interest with nonprofit, research, or public 
     organizations or agencies, with or without reimbursement; 
     $9,942,000: Provided, That the Office is authorized to 
     accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and 
     personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work 
     of the Office.

                          Unanticipated Needs

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet 
     unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest, 
     security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during 
     the current fiscal year; $1,000,000.

                     Federal Drug Control Programs


             high intensity drug trafficking areas program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
     Program, $98,000,000, for drug control activities consistent 
     with the approved strategy for each of the designated High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than 
     $55,000,000 shall be transferred to State and local entities 
     for drug control activities; and of which up to $43,000,000 
     may be transferred to Federal agencies and departments at a 
     rate to be determined by the Director.


                        special forfeiture fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities authorized by Public Law 100-690, 
     $14,800,000, which shall be derived from deposits in the 
     Special Forfeiture Fund; of which $1,800,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Drug Enforcement Administration for the El 
     Paso Intelligence Center, of which $8,000,000, to remain 
     available until expanded, shall be transferred to the 
     Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center for counternarotics 
     research and development projects and shall be available for 
     transfer to other Federal departments or agencies.
       This title may be cited as the ``Executive Office 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that title III be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open 
to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title III?
  Hearing none, are there any amendments to title III?


                     amendment offered by mr. goss

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: At the end of title III 
     (relating to Executive Office of the President), insert the 
     following:

                           Reduction of Funds

       Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this title that is not required to be appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by a provision of law (other than 
     for ``Office of National Drug Control Policy'' or ``Federal 
     Drug Control Programs'') is hereby reduced by 20 percent.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in an effort to help the 
President reach his stated goals of reducing the White House 
bureaucracy and sharing the sacrifice he has asked American taxpayers 
to make to reduce the deficit. Simply put, my amendment would cut 20 
percent from the discretionary funds allocated to the Executive Office 
of the President; excepting the Office of Drug Control Policy and the 
Federal drug control programs that fall under this title.
  Opponents of this measure have stated that this account has already 
been cut from last year's levels--but let us take a closer look at 
where these cuts come from. A full 99 percent of these cuts are made in 
one area: Drug control. The argument that somehow this bill represents 
a significant reduction in all White House accounts is false and 
misleading.
  I should say that I am not picking on the President or making a 
partisan attack here. I brought an identical amendment--a 20-percent 
cut in discretionary funding--before the Rules Committee when we were 
considering the legislative branch appropriations. Unfortunately, my
   amendment was shut out by a restrictive closed rule.

  The fact is--despite the rhetoric coming from the White House--the 
Clinton administration is not doing its part in sharing the burden of 
deficit reduction. It is also a fact that there is a significant level 
of waste in both the administration--and the legislative branch--and we 
owe it to ourselves and to the American people to address this problem 
and exercise our proper oversight.
  This cut goes directly to the issues of White House arrogance and 
lack of accountability and will certainly enhance better cooperation 
with proper oversight. As recent reports have highlighted, there are 
problems, and these do involve legitimate questions of cost.
  Despite promises to the contrary, true staff levels at the White 
House have not been significantly reduced. People have been shuffled, 
but the only real cuts that have been made seem to be in the area of 
drug control.
  White House staff have been exceptionally slow in obtaining security 
clearances--quite possibly jeopardizing our intelligence and national 
security.
  Delays in drug testing for the President's staff create an apparent 
double standard.
  Public access and information laws have been called into serious 
question by actions of the Health Care Task Force and other private 
advisers.
  And, despite high-profile promises from the President that his 
administration would be different, this administration has had several 
official travel problems. Currently, many Americans are demanding a 
true accounting of how much it has cost to transport so-called official 
Presidential entourage on trips abroad; and they are asking why 
Presidential campaign trips are being labeled ``official'' and paid for 
with tax dollars.
  Some would suggest that we are splitting hairs; that few really care 
how much these things cost. But the American taxpayers--who foot the 
bill for everything from first class executive travel to Presidential 
haircuts--care a great deal. They are demanding a better accounting for 
their tax dollars at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and they want to 
see the waste eliminated from Government, executive and legislative 
branch.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will save some $30 million in fiscal year 
1995, and $200 million over 5 years. I have specifically exempted from 
this cut the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Federal drug 
control programs. These have already been gutted. These important 
programs have been cut 18.2 percent under last year's level, and 23.4 
percent under the requested amounts. Given our current violent and 
drug-related crime problems, I do not think it would be wise to cut 
these programs any further.
  While my amendment will not single-handedly solve our budget crisis, 
it is a positive step on the road to fiscal sanity. Earlier this year I 
offered this proposal, and 75 others, in a package that would save $285 
billion over 5 years--these things do add up, even if the explanations 
from the White House do not.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we begin now what I believe to be a petty, partisan 
attack which did not occur from 1981 to 1992. It did not occur. 
Whatever the differences we had, we did not play this game. I 
specifically, on this floor and in the committee, opened this game.
  Let us take the representations of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] about the Executive Office of the President. I have a chart here, 
and will talk about the increases in this budget.
  First of all, on November 7, 1992, President Bush had in the 
Executive Office of the President 1,394 employees. Never did I support 
cutting the number the President asked for. Never. Nor did I support 
cutting President Reagan's request. I respected both President Reagan's 
and President Bush's independence and separation as President of the 
United States.
  He had 1,394 employees. This President today, as a result of his 
pledge and this committee's action, has 1,044 employees, 350 employees 
fewer, 25.1 percent less in numbers of employees.
  The President's compensation we have not cut. Constitutionally, of 
course, we cannot do that.
  The White House office is at 1994 levels, $2.878 million less than 
the White House requested. I think that is inappropriate, but I 
supported it and our committee reported it out because, as I told the 
President's office, we are in tight fiscal times and we are going to do 
it to others and we need to take the reduction, but I think it is wrong 
to do this.
  The Executive Residence we cut $98,000; the Vice President's 
residence is at 1994 levels; Special Assistance to the President is at 
1994 levels; Council of Economic Advisors in at 1994 levels; Office of 
Policy Development, $64,000 less than the President asked for.
  From 1981 to 1992, the committee on which I serve did not cut 
President Reagan's or President Bush's budget ever. There were some 
cuts on the floor, largely restored in the conference committee 
controlled by Democrats. Petty partisanship. It is wrong, and I do not 
intend to do it in the future if your party elects the President. I 
pledge that to the Members, and the Record ought to reflect that as 
well.
  The National Security Council, from the President's request was cut 
$184,000, appropriated at 1994 levels. The Office of Administration, 
cut by $2.7 million by this committee, never done before. OMB, cut 
$267,000 from 1994 levels.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy, which the gentleman says 
is not included in his amendment, is a little bit ironic. It is the 
only area of the White House executive budget that was increased, $12 
million for the fight against drugs in the HIDTA Program, the only item 
the gentleman does not cut. So saving money apparently is not his 
objective.
  Unanticipated needs is at 1994 levels; the Federal Drug Control 
Program, which I talked about; the Special Forfeiture Fund was cut $37 
million. Mr. Chairman, on both sides of the aisle, Members can disagree 
with the President.
  We had arguments with the President from 1981 to 1992. Some people 
will recall that we did have one instance in which there was a policy 
difference which dealt with the Competitiveness Council, with the 
allegation that the Competitiveness Council was being used to get 
around the Clean Air Act and get around regulations.
  We disagreed on that. We had a significant debate on that issue, but 
we did not, in our committee, and even on the floor reduce the White 
House budget. Only once that I can recall in those 12 years did the 
House reduce the Special Assistance budget. It did one time for the 
Competitiveness Council.

  The fact of the matter is that this budget for the Executive Office 
of the President is under the President's request, reported out of 
committee. Why? Because we have tight fiscal times. I did not want, nor 
did the President want, to be in a position where he was asking for 
more than we were willing to give to other agencies.
  I ask the House to reject this amendment out of hand.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was back in the Cloakroom planning a special order 
for this evening on congressional reform. I would not have spoken on 
this particular amendment at this time, but I heard my very, very good 
friend, for whom I have a lot of respect, maybe a little less respect 
right now, start railing about partisanship.
  I still do respect the gentleman, but I must say there is nothing 
partisan about this amendment. Members should not be accused of being 
partisan when we want to cut anything in the Federal Government. We 
have to tighten our belts. This Government is drowning in a sea of red 
ink and it is bankrupting the taxpayers of this Nation. They are fed up 
with it.
  Mr. Chairman, just because Members want to cut expenditures at the 
White House is no reason to accuse us of partisanship whatsoever. The 
truth of the matter is that the White House has deemphasized the war on 
drugs. Everywhere we turn, there is another article reporting it.
  Here is one by Joycelyn Elders, the Surgeon General appointed by 
President Clinton, that talks about legalizing marijuana and doing away 
with the controls on other deadly drugs that are killing our kids. We 
know that all of the spending cuts that have been made in the White 
House have come out of the drug enforcement division there, and that is 
an absolute disgrace.
  All the gentleman is doing, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], is 
trying to spend those cuts throughout the entire White House budget. 
There is nothing wrong with that. The gentleman from Maryland knows it, 
and he should not accuse people of partisanship.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would be glad to yield to one of the most respected 
Members of this House, sometimes, the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend yielding to me, the 
gentleman from New York, who of course would not be partisan, I 
understand that, ever. However, having said that, let me observe that 
the gentleman does not suggest cutting everything else and adding it to 
any place. The gentleman is not doing that. The gentleman is simply 
cutting operations that have already been either cut or funded at last 
year's level.
  Let me say further, as I have told the gentleman, that the White 
House agrees with the gentleman's position on the opposition to the 
Elders statement. I agree with the opposition to it. The committee 
agrees with it. The White House and the President have said that.
  In addition, I know the gentleman is very concerned about drug 
testing. I know that the White House is concerned about this as well. 
Four hundred and thirty-six White House employees have been tested, 
including the Chief of Staff. We do not hire people there without drug 
tests. As a matter of fact, there were two instances where people were 
not hired because they had a positive test result, so I share the 
gentleman's concern.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I know the 
gentleman from Maryland is sincere in what he is saying.
  I would say to the gentleman, I offered a budget on this floor 
sponsored by another 20 Members. It was put together by the Balanced 
Budget Task Force. And there were some very, very difficult votes 
involved, because we proposed cutting across the board, including the 
good programs, but we have to get this Federal deficit under control.
  What the gentleman from Florida is doing, sure, is cutting those 
areas funded at last year's level. We ought to be cutting everything 
below last year's level, otherwise we will never get control of the 
budget.
  I would just say in response to the gentleman from Maryland when he 
says that the drug testing programs are still going on at the White 
House: I hope they are. I have been trying to get that answer out of 
the White House, and I will give them credit if that is true. I want 
them to continue it, to set the example for the rest of government at 
all levels--Federal, State, towns, counties, cities.
  We ought to be drug testing in order to set that example, because 75 
percent of all the illegal drugs in America today are not used by poor 
people in the inner cities. They are used by the upper middle class 
yippies and hippies, who may be bankers or stockbrokers, who are 
driving into the urban areas, and purchasing drugs to use for 
recreational purposes. Sniff a little cocaine, puff a little marijuana 
on the weekends, it does not hurt anything--that is the attitude which 
is causing this problem.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am glad to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I did not come to my feet when the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] came very close to violating the rules, 
characterizing my attack as petty partisanship. It was not intended 
that way. My statement clearly said it was not. I referred to other 
steps I have made to cut the budget legitimately.

                              {time}  1210

  It just so happens that the President of your party happens to be in 
the White House. That does not make it a petty partisan attack.
  The facts are also that we do not count quite the same, it seems. The 
detailees and some of the others that are in the White House budget 
that are elsewhere get counted one way or another way depending on 
whose side one is. The other point is when we take a look at the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy and take a look at the numbers, they do 
not lie. According to this, right out of the executive office of the 
President, fiscal year 1995, $11.7 billion last year, $9.9 billion this 
year, a cut of $1.8 billion, a cut no matter how it is looked at. 
Consequently I think I have characterized fairly and accurately what is 
going on. The gentleman may put a different importance on it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York yield to 
me?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I do not want to characterize the gentleman from Florida. 
What I believe, and the point I was trying to make is that I think it 
is important for us to realize that there were very substantial 
differences between the Reagan and Bush administrations. The reason we 
did not do this, however, in this House is because we believe that the 
White House ought to be a coequal branch of government with the ability 
to set its budget, just as I believe that the White House ought not to 
veto, for instance, the legislative appropriation bill where we decide 
what we need to exercise our constitutional responsibilities.
  In the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administration, the Committee only 
once cut what the President requested in his own budget. There were one 
or two instances on the floor where that occurred, which I opposed.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time on that point, the 
gentleman from Maryland is making an interesting point. The point is, I 
think, that the Democrat Party rarely wants to cut anything but 
defense. I just had to say that. That is the reason Democrats have 
never asked for any cuts in domestic spending that I can see.
  Mr. Chairman, the only reason I came out on the floor was because I 
heard some petty partisanship and I just wanted to take exception to 
it. The gentleman from Florida has a fine amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest admiration for the 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer's very strong commitment and 
conviction to separation of powers. That is not what is at issue here. 
What is at issue here is whether or not at this point in our Nation's 
history, the question of affordability has not changed somewhat since 
the Reagan years the gentleman referred to and that our legitimate 
oversight responsibilities have, therefore, changed somewhat. That is 
the point I am trying to make with this amendment, and I think that is 
the point that all Members should consider. I thank the gentleman very 
much for yielding.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, before yielding back my time, I hope all 
Members support cutting amendments, no matter what is being cut. That 
is the only way we can deal with the deficit. I urge support for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Arizona, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand my friend, the gentleman from New York's 
point. But again I would call attention to the Executive Office of the 
President. That is what we have been talking about. It has been cut $28 
million. That is what the figures say. If they were wrong, fine, but we 
believe they are accurate. Those are the committee figures. The bill 
has $270 million, that is $28 million less than last year's bill. That 
is about a 10-percent cut. There is, in fact, a cut as well, as I 
pointed out, of $2.7 million below the President's request for the 
Office of Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is good policy based upon the 
separation of powers. What I do believe is that it does, in fact, 
reflect the fiscal constraints confronting us. What I am saying is that 
there is not a recognition in this amendment that we have already done 
more out of this committee than we have done in the previous 13-year 
period. We have made much greater cuts than we have ever done in the 13 
years on which I have served on this committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, I think the 
gentleman should be given recognition. The gentleman has made cuts and 
he normally does do a good job. That is why we respect the gentleman 
for it. But we can do a little better. Let us cut a little more and 
give the recognition at the same time.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate half of that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is very welcome.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, just in conclusion, let me say that I hope 
we reject this amendment for the reasons that I have stated. We have 
made very substantial reductions. We do not need to go further, except 
to make a political point. That is my point in this whole debate. The 
only reason for going further than we have gone, further than we have 
gone historically every probably, and I have not checked historically 
back before 1981, is to make a political point.
  The gentleman made a number of points during the course of his fiscal 
discussions, as I recall, unrelated to fiscal matters.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] in his effort to cut the White House operations by 
some 20 percent based upon my concern that critical performance should 
not be rewarded and this administration's lack of attention to our drug 
war is indicative of nonperformance.
  Accordingly, I compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for 
exempting the White House drug czar's office and the drug control 
portions of this bill from his proposed 20 percent cut in order to 
focus attention on the administration's inattention to our Nation's 
drug war.
  Mr. Chairman, last year severe cuts were proposed and enacted in the 
budget of the drug czar's office. Those early cuts signaled a clear and 
disappointing retreat by the new administration from the battle against 
illicit drugs. Nothing I have seen since then has reduced that 
perception. While the President has given the drug czar a Cabinet-level 
seat, for which we compliment him, he has not provided that drug czar 
with the tools or the financial support needed to make that seat a 
meaningful one.
  The evidence of the laxity by the administration in our war against 
illicit drugs abounds. It is going to cost us significantly as a 
nation. We will surely have more crime, increased health care costs, 
greater worker inefficiency, and loss of productivity. We will also see 
the destruction of many of our Nation's youth from the ever-increasing 
quantities of imported, cheaper and purer drugs that this 
administration's lack of direction will surely bring to our Nation's 
streets.
  Mr. Chairman, the critics of our counterdrug efforts, especially our 
interdiction program, just do not perceive what is being done. We have 
annually helped to seize from worldwide cocaine production large 
quantities of killer narcotics. We have effectively cut off a great 
deal of this scourge before it hits our streets, our schools, and our 
workplaces.
  Mr. Chairman, for the record, permit me to note recent U.S. 
Governmentwide interdiction statistics:
  Fiscal year 1992, a seizure of 17.6 percent of cocaine production, or 
172 metric tons. In fiscal year 1991, there was 14.6 percent of cocaine 
production, or 140 metric tons seized, showing a substantial increase 
just from 1991 to 1992.
  Mr. Chairman, the critics would not want to address the questions of 
increased crime, often violent crime, health care costs, and lost lives 
that these hundreds of tons of cocaine would have had upon our society 
if not intercepted before reaching our shores. It is relatively easy to 
state that nothing works, but, in fact, those critics are wrong.
  Illustrative of the White House's abdication of the drug fight, 
besides at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, are deep cuts in 
fiscal year 1995 State Department's international narcotics matter 
budget [INM] without White House opposition, while in Burma, heroin 
production soars and we are without any counterstrategy. In addition, 
we have had an unprecedented withdrawal of real-time counternarcotics 
intelligence from Peru and Colombia under the guise of a reported legal 
dispute. The litany of failures sadly goes on and on.
  Just yesterday we met with the Secretary of Education who indicated 
to us a serious reduction in their drug education budget without any 
support from the administration. All of these retreats occurred, Mr. 
Chairman, without the drug czar being effectively on the field of 
battle as far as we can see by those of us who have been involved in 
this battle. He cannot, it seems, effectively play the role of advocate 
for the battle against drugs that the President himself has abandoned. 
Sadly, that once proud office today has few advocates to even protest 
the reductions that have been proposed this year.

                              {time}  1220

  OMB CP's long-term survival will eventually be at stake unless the 
current trend is reversed.
  My own patience wears thin. Let us hope that improvement comes soon.
  Accordingly, I urge adoption of the Goss amendment in order to send a 
clear signal to the administration of the opposition that many of us 
have to the reduced support by the executive branch for our war against 
drugs.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I 
understand his concern.
  The gentleman is aware, of course, that this does not add any money 
to the drug war?
  Mr. GILMAN. I recognize that.
  Mr. HOYER. Of course, we had the foreign operations bill. I do not 
know whether the gentleman had an amendment to add money to that bill. 
We are going to have the defense bill coming along. There could be an 
amendment to add money to this bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. We certainly did and will continue to try to do that.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman made the point, as I understand it, that 
this is to make a point, this is to penalize, am I correct, for 
policies that you do not approve of? Is that correct?
  Mr. GILMAN. Yes. By all means, it is an important symbolic attempt to 
show that we disagree with the administration's failure to advocate 
financial support for the drug war.
  Mr. HOYER. So it is a penalty for policies with which you do not 
degree?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gilman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is an attempt to focus attention by the 
Congress and by the administration on the fact that the administration 
has failed to support the very programs that they have indicated that 
they were advocating. They cut the international effort. They cut the 
drug czar's work. They cut our Education Department's efforts. What we 
have is a program without any financial support, and this is what we 
are trying to do is to remind the administration that this important 
program is without adequate financial support here in the Congress 
where it counts. And what better place to send such a signal than in 
the executive branch budget?
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield further, I just want to point 
out to the gentleman that I have in front of me, of course, the 
national drug control strategy, February 1994, which points out the 
total effort in drug control policy, drug treatment, drug enforcement, 
all of those, was $12,136,000,000 last year. In this year's budget, it 
is $13,179,000,000, or a $1 billion increase in the drug war in effect.
  Now, it may not be in areas that you think are appropriate. I 
understand the gentleman's point there. But the proper amendment would 
be then to shift it from one to the other.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilman was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, my point being there has been a substantial 
increase in the dollars dedicated to fighting drugs. There may be 
policy differences, and those can be met by amendments on the floor 
dealing with the substantive programs. This amendment, though, I 
reiterate, is to make a point, is to penalize the White House for 
policies with which you do not agree, and my point at the outset of 
this debate was on our side of the aisle we did not do that to 
President Reagan and we did not do it to President Bush, and I 
personally believe it is inappropriate to do it to President Clinton.
  Mr. GILMAN. I recognize that. I just want to comment that while the 
proposals are there for budget increases, the support for those are not 
present when they go before OMB and others of the agencies as well as 
Congress.
  I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The amendment before us represents a sound alternative to what, after 
all, is Mr. Clinton's request for an increase in his White House 
budget.
  When all is said and done, the Appropriations Committee's response 
funds White House activities at precisely the same level they were 
funded in 1992, George Bush's last year. Yet as a candidate, Bill 
Clinton talked about a 25-percent cut in the White House staff. Many 
Americans are wondering, at current levels, whether we are not paying 
too much already, particularly in light of the continuing allegations 
of grave misconduct by members of the White House staff.
  Yet Bill Clinton, the man who promised a 25-percent cut to the 
American people, has this year proposed an 8-percent increase for the 
White House budget. I congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], who did not see fit to give Mr. Clinton more money, 
but is instead proposing that we hold him to at least some of the 
spending cuts that he proposed as a candidate.
  In light of what the White House staff has been up to, it seems to me 
they hardly deserve a raise. Just 18 months ago, the Clinton White 
House started out with Travelgate. It consisted in the firing and 
smearing of honest career employees in the White House for the benefit 
of the Clintons relatives and campaign workers. Even the White House 
press corps were scandalized by such a noxious mixture of cronyism, 
political manipulation of law enforcement, and scapegoating, the likes 
of which Washington has not seen since the spoils system was first set 
into motion by Andrew Jackson.
  All of this certainly set the tone for what we have now come to know 
as the prototypical Clinton scandal, the corner-cutting, the greed, 
cronyism, and, above all, the deceit.
  There has been more serious misconduct by the Clinton White House 
than Travelgate, but certainly nothing more contemptible than firing 
and smearing longtime, apolitical, low-level government workers in 
order to benefit the President's cousin and his wealthiest friends.
  No less disgraceful was the tampering with the FBI by the White House 
counsel's office, the office in which I once served as senior associate 
counsel to the President. The White House counsel is supposed to be 
preeminently responsible for preventing ethical lapses by the President 
and senior White House officials. Instead, it was this White House 
counsel's office that was the very source of the scandal including 
flagrant obvious misconduct by White House lawyer William Kennedy, who 
did not contact the Attorney General, who did not contact FBI Director 
Sessions, but interfered directly in the operations of the FBI to 
target specific individuals. Yet Kennedy remains in the White House, 
two reprimands and several additional scandals later, as a seemingly 
permanent source of ethical trouble for this President and the other 
White House staff.
  As we all know, Mr. Kennedy, like Webb Hubble and Vince Foster and 
Hillary Rodham Clinton, was part of the same law firm that represented 
Arkansas wheeler dealers in Whitewater and Madison Savings and Loan and 
dozens of other transactions including the Clintons own personal 
finances.
  One of the most unsavory aspects of this staff arrangement is the 
cronyism. From the first, it turned the highest echelons of the White 
House legal staff and the Justice Department into little more than the 
Washington branch office of the Rose law firm. The predictable result 
was the President and Hillary Rodham Clinton felt they could treat the 
White House lawyers as their personal lawyers.
  But Federal law prohibits Government employees, including the White 
House counsel's office, from performing private services for the 
President. Yet shortly before his death, Vince Foster was working in 
his White House office in the West Wing on Government time at taxpayer 
expense at preparing the delinquent Whitewater tax returns. Not only 
was this improper because it was the personal investment business of 
the Clintons rather than official business, but it also covered a 
period well before the Clintons took office. Most observers who have 
commented on this fact have speculated on its relevance to Mr. Foster's 
death.
  As a former member of the counsel's office, I am at least as struck 
by its obvious impropriety; using a fulltime Government lawyer to work 
on the Clinton family's personal business affairs is clearly improper. 
I recall very well the extraordinary pains that, for example, President 
Reagan took to ensure that none of the White House lawyers worked on 
his personal business. His tax returns were prepared by his own private 
lawyers and his accountants. Even his blind trust which, unlike the 
Clintons, was set up before his inauguration, was prepared at his 
personal expense.
  Obviously the Clinton White House does not follow the same ethical 
guidelines.
  What does this mean from a budget standpoint? Obviously it means 
today in 1994 we are already paying for too much White House staff, yet 
the size and the composition of the White House staff whose budget we 
are debating today is itself another mystery. The Clintons have 
repeatedly denied requests from Congress for a list of White House 
staff members and salary levels.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the Clintons have repeatedly denied requests 
from this Congress for nothing more than a list of White House staff 
members and salary levels. In fact, one of the Republican amendments 
that we will not even be permitted to debate today under this rule 
would have required disclosure of White House staff levels and salaries 
on a regular basis. That is hardly too much for Congress to ask, since 
we are supposed to vote to pay the bills.
  But apparently the group that has for 40 years had one-party control 
of this House, now with one of their own party members in the White 
House has decided to help the White House stonewall the Congress, and 
they have looked the other way so as not to notice the sleight of hand 
used by the Clinton White House to disguise yet another broken promise, 
the bogus 25-percent cut in White House staff.

                              {time}  1230

  The fraudulent bookkeeping devices used to cover up White House staff 
spending are worthy of Madison Savings & Loan. The Clintons have 
decided that for the first time in 40 years the two largest components 
of the executive office of the President are not part of the executive 
office. That is not all. They have inflated the personnel baseline from 
which the phony cuts are taken.
  Then they fired low-paid, long-serving career White House employees 
and used the extra money to hire the ever-changing cast of senior aides 
cleaning out Clintons----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. COX. It is not terribly surprising that when the dust has 
settled, President Clinton's 1995 budget request asked for an increase 
in spending. But while it is not surprising, it is unfortunate.
  Today as we vote on the White House budget, we are voting in the 
dark. We know the White House staff roster thanks only to a leak in the 
Washington Post. This House has had no hearings on Travelgate. We have 
had no hearings on Whitewater. We have had no hearings on Mrs. 
Clinton's transactions in stocks affected by her health care plan or 
the undisclosed conflicts of interest on her health care task force or 
the myriad other scandals large and small that have enveloped this 
administration like a fog. Our job should be to cut through the fog.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished colleague from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, we did 
have a hearing on Travelgate, as I am sure the ranking member will tell 
you. Second, I do not know whether the gentleman heard me say there 
were 1,394 people on the roster at the White House in November 1992 
under President Bush. There are now 1,044.
  Now, you can dispute those figures. We have had hearings about them. 
Those are the figures.
  Mr. COX. If the gentleman would yield at that point, reclaiming my 
time, $157 million is the amount of money that was spent in 1992 for 
the functions covered by this bill; $157 million is the amount that 
this bill contains for the very same functions. I do not see a cut in 
it.
  Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman mean 2 years later? Fiscal 1995?
  Mr. COX. That is right.
  Mr. HOYER. For fiscal 1995 the gentleman does not see the cut?
  Mr. COX. The gentleman said he cut it by 25 percent, but now we are 
paying exactly the same amount.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman has 
served in this House for some period of time, and he indicated he was 
associate counsel. At no time do I recall the gentleman offering an 
amendment or adopting a policy at the White House to disclose what he 
now wants disclosed on White House personnel.
  Mr. COX. The gentleman did so today, and was denied by the group that 
controls the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Excuse me?
  Mr. COX. That amendment was disallowed.
  Mr. HOYER. No; no; not this time. During the Reagan or Bush years, 
did the gentleman ever offer an amendment or propose a policy in the 
White House as associate counsel to disclose this information? And, if 
so, could the gentleman let me see that?
  Mr. COX. The gentleman does not serve on the committee, and the 
gentleman did not offer, even, the amendment that is being disallowed 
today.
  Mr. HOYER. Now, I want to make my point. I think the gentleman is 
trying not to answer my question. With all due respect to the gentleman 
from California, the gentleman expressed concern that we were not 
disclosing White House personnel.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. And the gentleman in the course of his talk said he was 
associate counsel at the White House. Did the gentleman recommend to 
then-President Reagan that he disclose that information, or 
subsequently as a Member of Congress, that Reagan or Bush disclose that 
information?
  Mr. COX. I will answer the gentleman in as straightforward a fashion 
as I possibly can. I have always supported such disclosure.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that. Did the gentleman make that 
recommendation to them?
  Mr. COX. I have not offered even the amendment that I am debating, 
which is an amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Nonetheless, it is specious to suggest that if I do not personally 
offer every amendment, I cannot possibly support them. I do and have 
consistently supported these cuts in the White House staff.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has 
again expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 262, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 236]

                               AYES--168

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--262

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (CA)
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Reynolds
     Schenk
     Washington
     Waxman
     Whitten

                              {time}  1256

  Messrs. GEJDENSON, JEFFERSON, HUTCHINSON, DICKEY, NADLER, PETERSON of 
Florida, SKEEN, and LIVINGSTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
request a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, 
the committee has included report language regarding a current Postal 
Service regulation aimed at controlling the inclusion of loose 
supplements in magazines and commercial mailings, but has had an 
unintended, adverse effect on a handful of second class weekly 
newspapers utilizing a two-staple bound format. This is the second time 
that the committee has brought this specific problem to the attention 
of the Postal Service. Does the committee wish the Postal Service to 
resolve this problem?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the committee 
has directed the Postal Service to study this issue and to report back 
on the basis for this regulation. We share the gentleman's concern.
  Mr. PORTER. The intent of this regulation is to prevent commercial 
mailers from including numerous supplemental inserts without paying 
additional postage. However, a very small number of bona fide 
newspapers are affected by this regulation simply because they do not 
follow the traditional newspaper format. These newspapers had been 
using this format for decades before the implementation of this postal 
regulation. Does the committee want the Postal Service to allow these 
papers to continue to use their customary mode of preparation without 
being subject to the more restrictive rules on loose supplements which 
apply to magazines and other bound publications?
  Mr. HOYER. Again, I would say to the gentleman that the committee 
shares his concern, and the committee expects the Postal Service to 
review this regulation and report back on its rationale. As soon as I 
receive that, I would look forward to discussing it with the gentleman.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the colloquy, and 
I thank him for his concern.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people, I think, are pretty well fed up 
with reports of politicians abusing power and fed up with wasteful and 
abusive Government expenditures, and they continue to see reports in 
the media of politicians taking advantage of perks. Some of them are 
real perks, some of them are not. We went through this in past 
administrations, and you would think folks would learn a lesson, but 
apparently that has not happened.
  Quite frankly, I had two amendments that I was going to offer, but I 
know they will be struck on a point of order, so I would merely like to 
just discuss them at this juncture.
  One of those amendments would prohibit the unofficial use of military 
aircraft by White House staff unless expressly authorized by the 
President.
  I think if we are going to have to spell it out, maybe we have to do 
it, not for just this administration, but for others. Because we have 
had abuses of military aircraft by both Republican and Democratic 
administrations. It just seems to me it would make good sense if in 
their rule book, that whoever the President may be in the future, there 
would be absolutely no question of where that authority lies and where 
the line is drawn.
  So the amendment I was going to offer but which has not been allowed 
because it is considered legislating on an appropriations bill, would 
basically have banned the use of military aircraft for anything other 
than official business as expressly authorized by the President. I 
really think it would have just been a good guideline for this 
President and future Presidents on down the road.
  The second amendment dealt with legal counsel, the separation between 
doing work for private matters and those for public matters.
  Bernard Nussbaum stated to us in an earlier letter that White House 
staff were not providing legal counsel on private legal or financial 
matters, where there is, in his terms, ``no official nexus.''
  We have seen a number of reports that contradicted that statement.
  We also have seen press reports describing meetings between White 
House staff members and Treasury Department RTC officials on the 
subject of the President's involvement in the Madison Guaranty matter. 
That is a personal financial matter. Press reports have pointed out the 
late Vince Foster had Whitewater files in his office, and up until 
shortly before his death, he was preparing the president and First 
Lady's Whitewater tax returns. That is a personal financial matter.

  Most recently, there are press accounts of White House staff weighing 
the establishment of a legal fund to raise legal fees to pay for 
attorneys representing the President on the Fiske investigation and the 
Paula Jones case. The question is why are White House staff members 
doing this? Shouldn't Mr. Kendall and Mr. Bennett be handling such 
matters?
  There is precedent in this subcommittee for concern about such abuse. 
Back in 1973, former Chairman Roybal strongly questioned the right of 
White House officials to handle Water-gate-related legal matters for 
the President. But I think we need to make a very important 
distinction, having said that. Watergate involved actions taken by a 
sitting President and involved public policy.
  Now, if this subcommittee in the past questioned whether official 
funds should be used to pay for personal legal counsel for the 
President on a quasi-public matter, we certainly have every right to 
question the use of public funds for legal counsel on matters that are 
clearly private legal and financial matters of the President and the 
First Lady.
  Mr. Nussbaum stated no funds are being used to provide legal counsel 
for the President and First Lady. That sentence is in the present 
tense. He said nothing about actions predating his letter.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, I think we should just leave no doubt 
in the minds of the general public and the minds of White House 
officials that public funds should not be used to provide legal counsel 
on private or personal matters.
  Again, that was the thrust of the second amendment that I had wished 
to offer today, simply to put some guidelines in the White House 
official operating manual as to where the line is drawn as it relates 
to the official use of nonofficial use of military aircraft, and also 
to the aspect of attorneys working in the White House, if they are 
doing public matters or they are doing private matters, that those two 
should be separate. I don't think there is much disagreement over the 
fact they should be separate.
  The problem is, we have no oversight because the executive branch is 
a permanently authorized part of our Government, and, that would be the 
appropriate place to bring this up. However, this is the only 
opportunity we have.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 23, line 
     2, strike ``$38,754,000'' and insert ``$23,754,000''.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, some time ago it was announced 
that the President was going to go to Normandy to celebrate the 50th 
anniversary of D-day. And even though we may have had some differences 
on his views on the military, we thought the President of the United 
States should go to show respect for those who made such a tremendous 
sacrifice for freedom.
  Then we found out that the President was going not with just White 
House staff and Air Force One and some military personnel, but he was 
going with an armada of 29 to 30 aircraft.
  Now, bear in mind that President Reagan, 10 years ago, went to 
Normandy with six aircraft, and those six aircraft included the 
transportation vehicles, White House staff, and the President himself.
  But this time, the White House took 30 aircraft, 29 to be exact, we 
believe more than that, but we have 29 documented, and approximately 
1,000 people along with him, at taxpayers' expense. At least this is 
what we were led to believe.
  I am on the committee of jurisdiction that is bound by the 
Constitution and the Congress to determine whether or not White House 
expenditures are appropriate. That is the authorizing committee. Of 
course, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] chairs the subcommittee 
dealing with the actual appropriation of these moneys.
  We contacted the White House, asking them for a list of the people 
who went with the President so we could ascertain whether or not these 
people were legitimate, whether or not they should have gone at 
taxpayers' expense and, if they did not, did they reimburse the U.S. 
Treasury for the expenses of that trip.
  Bear in mind, each one of these planes, if you average them all out, 
some cost 3 or $4,000 per flying hour, some cost as much as 12 to 
$13,000. But if you averaged all these planes out as far as flying time 
is concerned, the estimated cost per hour is 9 to $10,000 dollars per 
flying hour to go over to Europe. There were 29 planes. If you figure 
22 hours there and back, and of course they had to go to Rome and other 
places, they had several side trips, but we estimated a minimum of 20 
hours, we are looking at roughly $6 million in just flight time.
  Then we found out that some of these aircraft were not catered by the 
U.S. Air Force Commissary at Andrews Air Force Base, but were instead 
catered by a private caterer, and we believe that private caterer 
charged two or three times as much to the taxpayers as would have been 
charged by the U.S. Government Commissary at Andrews.
  We then contacted the service organizations: American Legion, VFW, 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, AmVets, and so forth, to try to find out 
if they were invited to go, because they represent the people who 
served in the invasion of Europe in 1944. And we were told that while 
they were going to the ceremonies at Normandy, they had not been asked 
to accompany the President on Air Force One or the backup plane or any 
of the other aircraft.
  We tried valiantly for some time to get this information from the 
White House. The White House called back to my office and said, ``This 
is not any of your business,'' in effect, and we are not going to give 
you that list.
  During the Reagan and Bush administrations, on many occasions our 
subcommittee asked for and received adequate information from the White 
House. In fact, we got boxes of information for us to go through. Now 
we ask the President, as the Republican minority, for that information, 
and we were stonewalled.

  So we wrote a letter to the White House under the Freedom of 
Information Act that any citizen can do. And we were then told that we 
were not going to get the information, that part of it was classified, 
and so forth. So we have not gotten that information.
  Thanks to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and I want to 
thank the gentleman publicly, he called the White House as the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that deals with this issue. He 
asked for a list. And today he was very kind in giving me a copy of the 
list. I would like to go through that real briefly with you, and then I 
will engage the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] in a colloquy or 
anyone else who wants to talk about this.

                              {time}  1310

  Air Force One went, with 50-some passengers. Air Force One backup 
went with several White House staff. There was a press charter plane, 
which is normal. And then there were 26 other aircraft. These 26 other 
aircraft included senior DOD officials, 110 passengers, ceremonial 
participants, 13 aircraft with approximately 750 passengers. And then 
there were three or five aircraft that took a congressional delegation. 
I thought there were three, but we found out today that there were 
five.
  I think that we should have had a presence over there. I believe that 
the President should have been there, even when we have had differences 
on our views on the military, because he is our Commander in Chief.
  But for them to stonewall the Congress and not give us this 
information until we force the issue, I think, is a real show of 
animosity toward the Congress and arrogance on the part of the White 
House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Especially in view of the fact that shortly 
after the President took office on February 10, 1993, he signed a 
Presidential directive saying that any use of U.S. aircraft by the 
White House should be reported to the public in a very timely manner 
and there should be full public disclosure. Yet when the Congress of 
the United States asked for this information, we were stonewalled.
  We estimate the cost of the trip to be between $10 million and $15 
million, including the private caterer and all the air hours and 
everything else that took place. We do not know about the lodging, 
because we have not had full disclosure.
  We also know that there was one intern at the White House, an unpaid 
intern that went over there with them. We would like to know whether or 
not that unpaid intern was paid for with taxpayer dollars.
  I do commend, as I said before, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] for getting this information for us. But this is incomplete. It 
does not give us a manifest, a list of who went. It says that 750 
military personnel went, bands and so forth, but it does not give us 
who these people were and whether or not they were officially 
recognized to go, whether or not they should have repaid the Treasury 
for their travel.
  There were people that went on these aircraft. We do not have their 
names. We believe that they were paid for by the taxpayer. If they went 
and they were a private citizen, the are supposed to disclose that.
  They are supposed to reimburse the Treasury for that travel, I think, 
at a first-class airfare rate.
  We do not have that information. This is helpful, but it certainly is 
not an answer.
  I would urge my colleague to get additional information, if he 
possibly can.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
know the gentleman is very concerned about this. I wanted to ask him a 
question.
  I am sure he has investigated this. How many people went with Ronald 
Reagan in 1984?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Ronald Reagan took 6 aircraft, not 29 or 30.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We were told that there were six aircraft 
total that went. If the gentleman can give me additional information, I 
would welcome it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
gentleman is aware that 10 years ago they did not have the ceremonies 
involving paratroopers or a beach landing. The gentleman is aware of 
that.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. All the ceremonies that took place involved 
six aircraft. This time it took 30 aircraft, 10 years later.
  Mr. HOYER. And the gentleman is aware that 750 of the personnel, 
which involved most of the aircraft and their equipment, were with the 
bands, the paratroopers, and/or the persons who participated in the 
landing at the beaches.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is what this very sketchy list shows, but 
we do not have a manifest. In order to determine whether or not this 
money was well spent and whether it was spent at taxpayer expense for 
individuals requires a manifest. We need the names and the positions of 
these people, not a carte blanche that says we took 750 people with us.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand what the gentleman is saying. Am I correct 
the gentleman from Indiana was a Member of the Congress in 1984? Did he 
get at that point in time a manifest?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We did not request a manifest.
  Mr. HOYER. And why did the gentleman not request it? There was great 
interest in this issue.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We thought it was reasonable for the President 
to take six military aircraft, including one military personnel that we 
knew of, and that was himself.
  Mr. HOYER. I will just suggest to the gentleman, that someone said to 
me yesterday that there were 700 to 800 ``personal friends of the 
President'' along.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What was said was that we believe there is a 
possibility that he took 700 to 800 of his closest friends, because the 
White House would not give us the information we requested, even though 
the President had promised the public in a Presidential edict that he 
was going to do that.
  Mr. HOYER. With all due respect to the gentleman, who is a friend of 
mine, who I respect and like and work with on a number of occasions, it 
stretches my credulity to believe that anybody thought there were 700 
close personal friends of the President.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman knows, as others know, that this was the 
50th anniversary, a very significant event in world history as well as 
American history, that there were literally millions of people who had 
participated in one way or the other in this event and that the 
military, in particular, these are not Clinton administration people, 
these are DOD, had a right to participate. Chairman Vessey went over, 
as the chairman knows, and other members of the Joint Chiefs went. The 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] is going to speak on this in a 
second.
  Bands went to participate in the programs. These were people 
organized by the Department of Defense.
  In fact, the President of the United States, on his plane, had a 
total of nine more people in 1994 than were taken in 1984.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman is begging the issue. The 
President, in 1984, President Reagan took six aircraft. He took 29 
aircraft. The reason we said, if I might reclaim my time, what I would 
like to say is that if the President had, according to his Presidential 
edict, given us the manifest and the information, none of this would 
have happened. But he stonewalled the Congress, as he has on many other 
occasions. And we have no recourse but to try to put pressure on the 
White House to get this information. We even wrote them a letter under 
the Freedom of Information Act, and they would not respond.
  When we said he may have taken 700 to 800 of his closest friends, we 
said that for a reason. That was to force the White House and the media 
around this country to put pressure on them to come clean. While this 
is a very sketchy report, it simply still does not tell us who went at 
taxpayers' expense and who did not and whether or not the taxpayer 
ponied up a lot of money for people that went over there just as a 
guest of the President. We know that one unpaid intern just working at 
the White House for a short period of time went. I do not know how many 
others.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman did not know the figures then. Was he just 
using figures that he speculated?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman, in response to 
his stonewalling question, that the D-day ceremony took place on June 
6. Some of the equipment is not back yet. It is now June 15.
  I just gave the gentleman the record, as the White House is putting 
it together, of the planes that went, which almost exactly comport with 
the gentleman's figures. It is, I think, very strange, to say 
approximately one week after they came back that they are stonewalling 
on information. I think the gentleman's characterization is not fair.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, any time one takes 30 U.S. 
aircraft and a thousand people over there, there is a list before they 
leave. They have to know who is getting on those planes. And the 
military knew and the White House knew who was going, and these planes 
were requested, most of them by the White House, according to the 
information we got at Andrews Air Force Base.

  So my question is, they had that list beforehand. Why did they not 
give it to the Congress and why did the White House say, we are not 
going to give you the information, which is what they told me?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, my source is the 
White House. The gentleman says Andrews Air Force Base is his source. 
So that I might check out the information, who is the gentleman's 
source at Andrews Air Force Base?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will not get somebody fired out there from 
the White House because of information that they gave to our office. I 
am not going to do that.
  Mr. HOYER. At Andrews?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We got it at Andrews on the private catering. 
They usually cater these planes at the commissary at Andrews, but the 
White House asked for a private contract to be let which costs two or 
three or four times as much for private catering for many of these 
planes.
  Should we be using private caterers when these aircraft normally are 
catered by Air Force One?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. I do not know the specifics of that.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Call the White House. The gentleman talked to 
them about the other things.
  Mr. HOYER. Rarely do they undertake as big an undertaking as 750 
members of the military to participate in reenactments and other 
celebratory activities.

                              {time}  1320

  I frankly do not know the capacity of the in-house caterer, Mr. 
Chairman, but that aside, that is not the issue here, I think. The 
issue here is on the disclosure.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman, does he know any of the facts 
relating to the 1984 trip?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we know in 1984 about President 
Reagan.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he was told, but 
he does not have a manifest. He has been told.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Nobody asked for a manifest, Mr. Chairman, 
because they thought 6 aircraft was reasonable, not 30, at the 
taxpayers' expense, especially after the President said that excessive 
use of aircraft by the White House was going to be curtailed. We asked 
for and demanded complete public disclosure in a timely fashion, and 
the President stonewalled the Congress, our committee, when we asked 
for that.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, because we had a constituent inquiry on the matter, my 
staff checked up on this issue, and I think it is interesting to put 
into perspective some of what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
has been saying, because my staff, when they talked to the Pentagon, 
was told the Pentagon specifically told all veterans that they were 
going to have to get over there by themselves, that they were not going 
to be able to go aboard any military aircraft; that some military 
people would be able to go on a space available basis, but that all the 
aircraft that were going were for the White House and official parties 
and that sort of thing.
  Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to the gentleman is that the 
Pentagon's information to my staff confirms much of what the gentleman 
is saying here, that veterans did not get to go along, they were not 
given free transportation over.
  The fact is that this is a evidently a specially invited list that 
got aboard all of these airplanes. That comes from what the Pentagon 
just told us on a constituent inquiry.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, CBS news interviewed three 
veterans in a California hospital who said they would have loved to 
have gone, but they could not afford to go.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, not those veterans, nor were any 
other veterans, to our knowledge, asked to attend, especially the 
veterans groups. I said before, we contacted the major veterans groups.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to the gentleman is that 
veterans who specifically contacted the Pentagon, finding out whether 
or not there was any transportation that was going to be provided, were 
told that no, there would be no transportation provided of any official 
nature; that anybody going was going to have to go by commercial 
airplane.
  Mr. Chairman, that basically confirms what the gentleman is saying, 
that the people who were aboard these were people who evidently got 
special invites of one kind or another.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have told the gentleman at least 750 of 
these were military personnel that participated. These are not special 
invitees of the President of the United States. Other people were 
former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs under previous administrations, 
nonpolitical. Mr. Chairman, some of the gentlemen who are rising here 
went. I did not go. They have personal knowledge.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to my 
colleagues in just a minute.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, there 
should not be any aspersions similar to the gentleman's. This is not 
some special list that the President invited. That is not the fact.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
guess the question some of us have, Mr. Chairman, is that it was a 
major celebration, the fortieth anniversary, and it should have been a 
major celebration at the fiftieth anniversary, but the level of 
participation here of military troops and so on, if the gentleman is 
correct, is significantly higher.
  The question is who made the plans that added significant expense to 
the overall participation by the United States.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a legitimate 
question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, as I said 
before many times, I believe, many times, those of us in the minority 
have asked for information from the White House on a number of issues, 
and we have been stonewalled time and time again. The gentleman can ask 
almost anybody on this side of the aisle.
  When we asked for that information and we finally got a sketchy 
outline like the gentleman just received, we question whether or not 
all of this is valid. I am not saying somebody lied down there, but I 
would like to have more detailed information.
  Mr. Chairman, who were these 1,000 people? The gentleman says 750 
were military. Is the gentleman sure it was 750 and not 700 or 675? 
Were 75 or 100 paid for, personal, private people paid for by the 
taxpayers of the United States? I do not know and the gentleman does 
not know.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not sufficient. We want a complete manifest and 
we want to know if these were people who were active military, retired 
people in the military, or were they even in the military. If not, did 
they reimburse the taxpayer? We are talking about $10 million to $15 
million here, and five times as many aircraft as President Reagan took 
just 10 short years ago.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have no dog in this fight, but 
I would say to the gentleman, we did have paratroopers jumping in 10 
years ago at the 40th anniversary. There was a significant jump at that 
time. I do not know how they got there, but they were jumping in 10 
years ago, too.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. There were six aircraft to our knowledge that 
were there, totally, Mr. Chairman, not 29. My initial amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, which I am talking about now, is for a cut of $16 million for 
the White House budget, to send a message to them. If we are convinced 
that much of this is accurate, we will reduce that down to $10 million 
or $5 million.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, lest the importance of the D-day commemoration get lost 
in the fog of this debate, let me say that this was certainly a very 
timely, extremely well planned and put on series of commemorations to a 
lot of brave men, both living and dead.
  Mr. Chairman, I attended the Slapton Sands ceremony where nearly 800 
soldiers and sailors died in a training exercise when they were 
surprised by German E-boats. That was kept secret for a while so the 
Germans would not learn about it.
  I attended the SHAEF Headquarters ceremony in London, and between the 
CINCUSNAVEUR Headquarters and the Embassy, what a moving experience 
that was. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Montgomery], the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, spoke 
at that event.
  I attended events both at Utah Beach and at Omaha Beach. I heard the 
President speak also at the Cambridge Cemetery. These were fitting 
tributes to Americans. I do not want all this to get lost in this 
debate, because that was truly well thought out and planned series of 
events, and much credit must go to retired Lt. Gen. Mick Kicklighter of 
the U.S. Army.
  To all those who were involved, this will never happen again, to see 
the literally thousands of American veterans with their Purple Hearts, 
with the other decorations of their European campaigns; to see Othie 
Owsley from Clinton, MO, who was captured shortly after the invasion by 
the Germans and in prison camp for 10 months; to see Dr. Tommy 
McDonald, from Missouri, Silver Star recipient, thrice wounded was over 
there. We will not see that assemblage again.
  Mr. Chairman, we should pay tribute to every American who was there, 
who came back, and those who were interred in those stone-marked 
cemeteries. Let us not lose the significance of this D-day remembrance. 
That is what it is. Young America, young America, should know and 
understand the sacrifices that occurred on June 6, 1944. That is the 
purpose of all of this. It is not to be lost in this debate today.
  Mr. SANGMEISTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the debate that is going on 
here today. I was one of those who was on the Montgomery Codel that 
went over there, and I want to say that it was the greatest experience 
anyone could have.
  My understanding was that the bulk of those people that went over 
there were all veterans. It is too bad that as we do spend money around 
here, that we did not spend twice the amount of money and bring that 
many more veterans over there to see that. Mr. Chairman, it was one of 
the most impressive commemorations I have ever seen, and I think we are 
degrading the whole process by what is going on here right now.
  Mr. Chairman, I was so pleased to see members of our own body over 
there, much less, the minority leader himself, who was involved in the 
D-day invasion, who spoke over there, movingly, about his 
participation. We had the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], who 
parachuted in behind the lines at that time and put his life on the 
line, and he was able to speak. We heard all of this.
  Mr. Chairman, I think probably one of the most moving things above 
all was to travel by bus across Normandy and see all the French people 
holding out their American flags and their English and British flags 
and saying to us, giving us the V sign. I want to tell the Members, it 
was a moving experience. I was very proud to be an American. I was very 
proud to be over there at that time. I think we ought to end this 
process and get on with the legislation.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite of words.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman Yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we were all proud as Americans 
to see the ceremonies at Normandy.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, we were all proud as Americans to see the reception 
that we received as Americans over there, the people who went, by the 
French people and the English people who experienced such a dreadful 
time during World War II. We are very proud of the people who fought 
and died on D-day and all of those who sacrificed during World War II 
for freedom against Naziism and fascism. We are all proud of them. But 
that is not the issue here. The issue is, 10 years ago at the 40th 
anniversary, 6 planes went at taxpayers' expense, and this time it was 
30 planes, and we cannot get an accounting, an itemized accounting from 
the White House on who went. We are charged with the responsibility, 
congressional oversight of White House expenditures of this type.
  I would just like to say to my colleagues, if we could get a complete 
manifest, a complete accounting and it meets with congressional 
prerogatives and approval, then fine. But the White House has 
stonewalled us, and we got an incomplete list here today. We say 1,000 
people are going, 750 were bands and so forth, but we do not have the 
answers that are required by our Congress as far as these expenditures 
are concerned. While we are very proud to be Americans and very proud 
of all those who sacrificed, and many of us served in the military for 
our country, we are proud to be members of the military, former members 
of the military, that does not answer the questions that we are asking 
here today, and we would like to have those answers for the taxpayers 
who footed this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I am looking down over the list here and I 
just would like a little bit of clarification. If I understand 
correctly, the list that we have lists three aircraft that the White 
House says were their responsibility. Then there are eight aircraft 
that carried 110 passengers, including the Secretary of Defense, senior 
officials of military departments, the National Guard bureau chief, 
retired generals and staff. If I figure correctly, that is a total of 
about 14 people per airplane there. We have eight aircraft carrying 14 
people per airplane. I ask the gentleman from Maryland, is that 
correct, for an average?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have calculated it.
  Mr. WALKER. I am dividing 8 into 110, which comes to something on the 
order of 14 people per aircraft in that case. We have no reason to 
believe that there is anybody else aboard those aircraft, is that 
correct?
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is correct. If the gentleman would look at 
the sheets that I gave to the gentleman from Indiana, the passengers 
are set forth on the attached documents.
  Mr. WALKER. Then we have 13 aircraft that were carrying people. If I 
divide that out correctly, it is somewhere on the order of 60 people, a 
little less than 60 people per aircraft that were carrying the 750 
people.
  It says it includes, it goes for participating in the ceremonies.
  Mr. HOYER. I can tell the gentleman, there were 53 from the Missouri 
National Guard Band; from the Maryland National Guard Band, which I did 
not know was going, 53 traveled.
  Mr. WALKER. So each of them took an airplane approximately.
  Mr. HOYER. National Guard Band overflow. These were all KC-135's, 53. 
Ceremonial troops on a C-130, 80; the Navy Band on a C-9, a smaller 
plane as the gentleman knows, which is why we cannot compare, some 
airplanes are obviously larger than others, 25;
  Coast Guard Band, C-9 again, 43. That would indicate that there were 
18 less on the same C-9 that went on the Navy Band plane;
  And paratroop movement, seven C-141's with 450, a total of 757 for 
those particular aircraft.
  Mr. WALKER. And those planes, the planes that carried the 
paratroopers, carried nobody else. This was all paratroopers who were 
aboard those planes. We sent over 450 paratroopers, and they were 
aboard the rest of those planes.
  Mr. HOYER. There were seven C-141's.
  Mr. WALKER. Seven C-141's carrying 450 paratroopers, and there was 
nobody else aboard those airplanes, it was just paratroopers?
  Mr. HOYER. Nobody to my knowledge. The pilots were on board 
obviously.
  Mr. WALKER. I understand that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am trying to establish here, because this is the 
information, it is the kind of information that we simply cannot get 
this administration to turn over to us. It would be very helpful for 
those of us in the minority who do have questions about some of these 
things to get accurate information and get it in a timely fashion. We 
would not have to go through these discussions. This discussion is not 
about D-day. D-day was a wonderful ceremony, America participated along 
with our Allies. It was the kind of thing that should be done. This 
does help to clarify it. It helps to go down through it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is this administration has 
been the least forthcoming administration in the time I have been in 
the Congress in terms of bringing forth information. The reason for it 
is, I can tell the gentleman, is the minority has no subpoena power and 
the majority has no desire to subpoena any information. Therefore, we 
are stonewalled by the Democratic leadership day after day in terms of 
getting information because they refuse to use their subpoena power and 
the minority has no subpoena power so we cannot get the information, 
and this administration simply stonewalls us and says, ``We're not 
going to give it to you.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am saying if the gentleman does not want this kind of 
discussion on the floor time after time, the way to stop it is to tell 
the administration that they have an obligation to the Congress to turn 
over legitimately asked for information about what is being spent on 
the taxpayers' behalf. We are not getting that from the administration 
all the time, I find it on my committee. I know the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], at the Committee on Government Operations, 
has asked for all kinds of information and has been stonewalled by the 
administration.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is any place that should be getting this 
information, it is the Committee on Government Operations that handles 
oversight. Yet the chairman there has no desire to get this information 
because he does not want to do anything to embarrass the 
administration, and the minority just simply wants to get the 
information to find out. Maybe there is embarrassing stuff, maybe there 
is not, but it is going to get a lot more embarrassing if day after day 
we have to come to the floor and face this kind of discussion simply 
because the information is not available. I would suggest to the 
gentleman that one of the signals that ought to be sent here is to the 
administration to legitimately give to Congress that kind of 
information which we are entitled to see and have when it is the 
taxpayers involved.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Respectfully, I understand what the gentleman is saying, 
but I will tell the gentleman very honestly, I believe that this is not 
about information, this is about politics. That is what I have said in 
the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I will read from a report written by the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service that investigated this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hoyer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. The report reads:
  ``Over the past year,'' and this is 1992, ``the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources held four hearings, March 31'' and this is 1992, President 
Bush is President, ``April 9, April 30 and July 21, 1992, on the travel 
and personnel topics addressed in this bill. The White House refused to 
testify at three of these four hearings. In addition, two scheduled 
subcommittee hearings, May 28 and September 8, 1992, were canceled due 
to the White House's refusal to provide witnesses.''
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the differences, I would say to the 
gentleman is, the gentleman can read off all that, the difference is 
that the subpoena power rests in the committee's hands. At the point 
that the White House did not come up and testify to those kinds of 
hearings, the committee had the power to subpoena the information, 
anyway. It was used consistently on Capitol Hill against the 
administration. The gentleman may think that this is politics, but the 
bottom line is that there can be no politics out of any of this 
information if nothing wrong has been done. However, this gentleman 
thinks if there is going to be politics played, that there is plenty 
wrong that has been done and if we get the information, it just might 
be a political disaster for this administration.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me tell the gentleman my problem with that so we can 
pursue this.
  Mr. Chairman, the trip ended on June 7 or June 8. That was 7 days 
ago. I have just handed the gentleman what I got because I believe that 
Congress is entitled to this information. The gentleman says it is not 
enough. I just mentioned the number of planes and people. I understand 
that we could go deeper. But the discussions on the talk shows last 
weekend were based upon hearsay. No manifest was available, there was 
no absolute knowledge. Why? Because it made for good politics.
  Mr. Chairman, I will work with the gentleman to get information 
because as I think the ranking member on this committee will tell the 
gentleman, I want the members of my committee, I want the Members of 
your side of the aisle and I want our side of the aisle to make sure 
that we are doing right.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may talk about the gentleman from 
Iowa, the gentleman from Iowa has run into problems at the White House 
getting information that he thought was legitimately his, not on this 
issue but on several other issues that the gentleman thought 
legitimately should be given to the minority. They have not been 
forthcoming. All I am saying to the gentleman is this is just one issue 
of about a dozen or more where information is not being provided by 
this administration to Members of Congress who are asking for it.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa, Jim Leach, has had to go to 
court to try to get information that he thinks is legitimately 
available, should be made available to him as ranking member of the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. The gentleman has had 
to go to court to take up a constitutional case.

                              {time}  1340

  That just is not legitimate. It seems to me that if information is 
done, is gathered at taxpayers' expense, we have a right to see it, 
which should not take subpoena power in order to do it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Burton of Indiana and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that my staff 
contacted Dover, DE, and Altus, OK, and a lot of these bases, and the 
manifest that we have of these planes does not jibe with the 
information we received.
  There were five C-5's and 14 C-141's that went on this trip, 
according to the information we received, 9 out of Scott Air Force Base 
in Illinois, and four out of McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, and 
they are not on this list. So there is an inconsistency. I do not know 
what that is. That is why I said we need detailed information on the 
manifest and the planes that went, No. 1.
  No. 2, in answer to the gentleman's comments earlier about not 
getting the information from previous administrations, I serve on that 
committee, and they sent us box after box after box of information. 
They did sent people up from the White House to testify. It may not 
have been the people that the committee chairman wanted, but they were 
people in relevant positions at the White House that did come up to 
give us information. So do not give us that baloney that the Bush and 
Reagan administrations were noncooperative with the committee, because 
I was there. We did get the information.
  In this administration, we cannot get anything on almost any issue we 
have asked for. We have been stonewalled time after time. If you want 
me to stand here and give you about a half hour's list of them, I will 
be happy to do that.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that I certainly understand your desire for 
accountability. That is our job, to make sure that the money is spent 
properly.
  My question to you would be: Are you familiar with a gentleman by the 
name of Bob Michel, the distinguished minority leader?
  Mr. WALKER. Well, I have no----
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Are you familiar with that gentleman?
  Mr. WALKER, Sure, I am. That is a ridiculous question, but sure, I 
am. I am willing to play the game. Yes. What do you want to say about 
him?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The point I think that I think needs to be 
made in particular with the Normandy trip, the distinguished minority 
leader was very much in attendance, the gentleman from California, the 
former peacetime fighter pilot, Bob Dornan was there, Congressman 
Bilirakis, Congressman Stearns, Congressman Henry Hyde, certainly not a 
big fan of the present administration, Congressman Charlie Taylor, 
Congressman Alex McMillian. This is just off the top of my head.
  Mr. WALKER. I understand the point the gentleman is making. We know 
that five aircraft went carrying congressional delegations. We know who 
were on those delegations. We can find that out. We would like the 
administration to be as forthcoming about who was on the airplanes 
other than congressional delegations as Congress did. We know who were 
on the congressional airplanes. The gentleman does not have to read off 
the list.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am addressing you as a gentleman, and I 
hope that you will behave as such.
  Mr. WALKER. Well, I am behaving as such by giving the gentleman my 
time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Please, let me finish.
  Mr. WALKER. Sure.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Have any of the people I indicated, and 
again, this is off the top of my head, of people that I know were in 
attendance, have any of them spoken to any irregularities that they 
saw, anything that they think should not have taken place? I would 
certainly welcome that, because I traveled with, I know, Mr. Dornan 
extensively, and I at the time do not recall him saying anything was 
out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I do not think any 
of us are claiming there are any irregularities. We simply cannot get 
the information. We would like to know why there were 30 planes 
involved. We have gotten a little bit of the information today. I do 
not know that there were any irregularities.
  I am not willing to say there were or were not. I have no reason to 
believe that the people who went from this Congress did anything but 
enhance this ceremony, and I am pleased they were able to be part of 
the international participation that was there.
  But I will say to the gentleman, again, this is symbolic of what goes 
on time after time in this administration, where you ask for 
information simply to find out whether or not there are any problems. 
You are simply stonewalled, and we are then left with the impression 
that there must be something wrong, because otherwise the information 
would be forthcoming. Maybe it is just this administration has 
absolutely no desire to give any information whatsoever, and that you 
all on the Democratic side of the aisle are accommodating that by 
refusing to demand the information. Maybe that is all it is.
  But I am telling you, you are going to face this kind of issue all 
the time on the floor if this administration does not become more 
willing to provide legitimate information to the Congress on a regular 
basis.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The Washington Times, according to my staff, 
asked the White House for this information, and the White House did 
give a list of the Congressmen that went, the congressional delegation, 
the House and Senate Members, but they refused to give a list of White 
House attendees and others, so they were very kind and helpful to give 
our names out, which I think is fine, but they would not give the list 
of those who went at the request of the White House that were 
nonmembers of the Congress.
  And therein, as Shakespeare said, lies the rub.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, personally I think it is great, you know, when we have 
an event that changes the world, and I think for the better. I have no 
qualms about any of the Members going or the responsible people going.
  I think the issue for most of us on this side of the aisle, for my 
friend, and I think you would agree that on many occasions we are 
denied information from the White House, information that allows us to 
manage the affairs of the House.
  I would hope in the future that we run it like a business. When we 
have got a codel or whatever it is, you know, First, we arrange the 
plane, second, we say we are going somewhere, and third, the 
justification of the people that are going on it, and none of this will 
ever happen, I think.
  I do not mind 30 airplanes going over there, quite frankly, 
especially if they were legitimate. I think they were legitimate 
people.
  I do have questions about why the band from Missouri. Why not the 
band from California? Did Mr. Gephardt ask for the Missouri group to 
go? Or why not a military band? And maybe if we see those 
justifications up front, there will not be any problem.
  I do not think there is any rash undercover things on this. As a 
matter of fact, I think it is great that you all went. I do not mind 30 
airplanes going, because I think it was a great event, and I support 
the Members for going to that.
  But I would just say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle: 
You know the frustrations we have on this side of the aisle, whether it 
is Whitewater, whether it is bank scandals or post office or just 
getting information out. I would ask the gentleman to be temperate of 
that, and that is the only reason I stand up.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the gentleman is on 
the floor, being a very successful military person.
  Seven days after we came back now, you were in the military, and you 
know how long it takes the military to react on the planes and 
everything else to get the list, because everybody has got to sign off. 
Am I right? Before they do that? The gentleman knows. I mean, we are 
entitled to the information, but, for God's sakes, a week, you know how 
long it takes. I have been sitting on the Committee on Armed Services 
now for 12 years, and to get information in a timely fashion is not 
very easy, because different people have to sign off, and that is the 
only thing that I will say to the gentleman.
  I appreciate his comments.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman that I have been 
in the military, and I have done aircraft lifts. Every time I went, 
they had to have a manifest that listed before we left on that trip, 
you could fax it in an hour, on who was on the plane.
  Mr. SISISKY. In reality, if the gentleman will yield further, in 
reality that is true; not in reality, but it should be true, but the 
gentleman knows what happens in this massive bureaucracy. I am not 
talking against the gentleman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. All I am asking is the other side have a little--
maybe you would call it sympathy or something--for our frustrations on 
trying to get something, and not just this issue. This issue is not a 
big heartbeat. This is the whole way that the House runs its business, 
and I think this is just a symptom of that, and I think it is a symptom 
of the frustration that we are going through on this side.
  Mr. SISISKY. I get frustrated, too, at times, I say to the gentleman.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me make one real brief comment. When we 
contacted the White House and asked for this information, they did not 
say, ``It will be forthcoming in a week, or 2 days or 5 days or 20 
days.'' They just said flat, ``No. This is within the purview of the 
President of the United States, and we are not giving you that 
information.'' And that has been the attitude of this administration 
since they took office towards those of us in the minority. They will 
not give us any information that they do not want to.
  They are required to give it to our committee, as was done in the 
past, but that is the problem we have. They did not say, ``Wait a week 
or 2 weeks or 3 weeks and we will give it to you.'' They just said 
flatly, ``We are not giving it to you, because it is within the 
prerogative of the President.''

                              {time}  1350

  I thought it was an appropriate thing for him to do. But on our side 
of the aisle the frustration is that there is a different standard 
being applied by your side of the aisle from our perspective to this 
administration than was applied to the Bush and Reagan administrations. 
That is my point.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, the only thing I would say is 
that we do not own the White House or the Senate and now the White 
House. So we have no recourse. So when we do ask, normally under the 
Bush administration we could ask it, but now we cannot.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that this controversy revolves around D-day 
because I was one of those who went on the congressional delegation and 
the best part of it for me was hanging out with the Members of this 
House who served in World War II. The best speech I heard over there 
was not the written text of some excellent Presidential speechmakers, 
it was our fellow Member and 101st Airborne paratrooper who spoke from 
his heart and his head, with no notes, at that little field outside of 
Ste. Marie Eglise, where we saw 41 paratroopers, 50 years later, 
reenact that terrifying night drop into Normandy. The oldest was 83 
years old, and one of them still suffers from back pains because he had 
to let his main ram air chute and use his emergency chute. We watched 
him coming among the cars into the parking lot. It was an inspirational 
trip.
  Let us try to sort out the frustration of what we are trying to get 
our majority colleagues to do on getting this paperwork; not on this 
trip, but on helicopters being used for golf course scouting 
expeditions, and all stonewalling that is coming from the White House.
  Toay is one of those days in history that are important for a lot of 
reasons. Ben Gilman, on our side of the aisle, was a crewman on a B-29. 
Today 50 years ago was the first time B-29's flew out of China. Most 
people forget that because today was the day we first started the 
invasion of Saipan, 50 years ago. We had just taken Biak Island and 
held off the Japanese counterattack, at great loss of life. The Brits 
were taking it hard and finally turning the tide in Burma. Yesterday 
was the Battle of Karatan, beyond Ste. Marie Eglise, where untested 
units took tremendous casualties. Until this moment, nobody is going to 
mention that today. Normandy was a battle that lasted 80 days. Every 
day is a 50th anniversary of Normandy.
  But there is some suspicion that this was an attempt to raise in the 
polls one individual's ratings and there may have been excessive use of 
airplanes and personnel.
  Do you know that 50 percent of this Chamber has had military 
experience? Precisely 50 percent of the U.S. Senate has people with 
military experience. Do you know what the average is for the 
administration, the Clinton administration? 13 percent. Do you know 
what the average is in the White House compound? 8 percent.
  Some of us are curious who the hundreds of people are who went, which 
included trips to Paris and a trip to Oxford to relive, on my behalf, 
some very bad memories of giving aid and comfort during the height of 
the bloody cold war to an enemy in Moscow and Hanoi.
  Now let us face something: I know what the resistance is on the other 
side of the aisle. Not a single Republican Senator or House Member had 
anything to do with Watergate, and yet we lost 47 seats, 37 incumbents, 
2 sophomores and 8 freshmen out of this Chamber, because Nixon covered 
up, or his staff did, and he ran it.
  I know what you are afraid of, you are afraid of the truth, and we 
are going to go after it until we get the truth because we have a right 
to know what is going on in a White House that may, may turn out to be 
the most discombobulated, if not corrupt, White House that this Nation 
has seen in 218 years.
  Stop the resistance, you will lose, and maybe like 1974 totally 
innocent freshmen and sophomores on your side of the Chamber will be 
pulled down because of the shenanigans in the White House the way Nixon 
wrecked our party, never to have seen a majority chairman in this House 
ever again because of the way they covered up. Do not be part of a 
coverup. Yes, it will bring you some pain. Seek the truth.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DORNAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to point out one more thing on Mr. Hoyer's list here. Under 
subparagraph 1 it says, ``This figure does not include aircraft 
necessary to transport security and communications equipment. For 
national security reasons, the number of such planes is never 
released.''
  So we know that these 29 planes does not include the entire armada 
that went over there; there might have been 6 or 7 more planes that 
went on ahead.
  So we are talking about maybe 36 or 37 planes instead of the 29.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DORNAN. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, to that extent I presume the gentleman would agree that 
that would apply as well to President Reagan's trip as it did to 
President Clinton's trip.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes, I presume that is the case. I just wanted 
to clarify that.
  Mr. DORNAN. Reclaiming my time, I do so to tell my colleagues and the 
American people something that was not Reagan or Bush's or Carter's 
fault but something I told President Bush on a short trip from Chicago 
to here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I went into that conference room on Air 
Force I--and there are two of them--and I said to President Bush, ``Mr. 
President, this airplane is excessive.'' The cold war was just ending. 
I said, ``This is excessive.'' And then when I saw on the ramp in Rome 
2 giant Air Force I's, 747's, I knew I was correct in telling Bush that 
that airplane was excessive. We should have one for overseas trips 
only. We should sell off the second one. The cold war is over. We do 
not need four or five big Boeing 747E-4's tied down for the White 
House, particularly for trips that are not intercontinental. I will 
stand by that.
  And if we take the White House back in 1996, I will still maintain 
that with Gulfstreams and with available 767's and 757's and other 
types of airplanes, it is excessive to fly around hundreds of people on 
two gigantic 747's. It is also wrong to pluck flags out of the ground 
at Nettuno and--you know what we did, Sonny, we laid flowers at those 
graves. We did not plant phony crosses on the beach at Omaha with the 
U.S.S. San Jacinto, named after George Bush's carrier, in the 
background.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of debate, none of which has been on 
this amendment. None. This amendment cuts $15 million from the ability 
of the White House to conduct its business. None of the expenses are 
paid out of this fund, none. This is, as the last amendment, ladies and 
gentlemen, a serious amendment. Think about what you are doing in the 
name of trying to make political points.
  Could a majority party, as we are now, with a Republican President, 
as was the case from 1981 to 1992, decimate the White House budget 
because we disagreed with their policies? We disagreed with Deavers' 
White House pass. We disagreed with Sununu's visits to the dentist. 
Could a majority party decimate the person elected by the people of 
this country to be the Chief Executive? That is the issue here because 
this money does not deal with the payment of any airplanes. This is a 
serious issue of the comity between executive and legislative branches 
of Government. This is a serious issue as to whether or not we have the 
courage and the honesty to say that when we say we will defend and 
preserve the Constitution of the United States, it also means, as I did 
for the 11\1/2\ years that I served under Republican Presidents in this 
House, that I was prepared and committed to allowing them to fund their 
constitutional responsibilities as they saw fit and, if I disagreed 
with that, to go to the American public and say they are spending 
excessively, they do not need this.
  I do not say there is never an instance when we should cut. In fact, 
as all of you know, we have cut $44 million from the President's 
request. I do not like to do that, but we are in tight times. But I 
suggest to you this is a larger issue, this $15 million out of $38 
million, about a 40-percent cut in the White House Office of 
Administration.
  This amendment ought to fail.

                              {time}  1400

  Yes, it served as an opportunity to debate issues that some may think 
are politically embarrassing to the White House, and they well may be. 
I think in this instance the substance of the debate is inaccurate; 
there is no embarrassment here. But, having said that, I understand it 
was a vehicle for debate. But I would ask my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, who have held the Presidency for longer than my party has 
in the last 40 years, to think about what this amendment does, think 
about how we can fiscally decimate the ability of the Executive Office 
to operate.
  I ask most respectfully that we unanimously either withdraw this 
amendment, which does not relate to these expenditures, or vote against 
it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield 
briefly?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think that I will concur on 
one point, and that is that due to the fact that the President ordered 
these planes and they came out in large part of the Defense Department 
budget, and let me just finish because I am willing to withdraw the 
amendment and substitute amendment No. 3 which would only cut $5 
million and then go straight to a vote on that because I think that is 
a more reasonable cut than the $15 million since it is all coming out 
of the White House----
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman does not speak of 
the character of the amendment. He speaks only of its amount, and I 
will not agree with any cuts for exactly the principle that I 
discussed. And so that everybody understands, that was my position 
under President Reagan and President Bush. I have not changed my 
position.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Just a question, Mr. Chairman; I guess I ended up a 
little confused.
  The gentleman said he cut $44 million from the budget, and that is 
not a constitutional crisis, but, if the gentleman from Indiana wants 
to cut $15 more from the budget, that becomes a constitutional crisis.
  Mr. HOYER. That was from the entire Executive Office of the 
President, as I explained. The Office of Administration is included in 
that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we did this, as I pointed out, because of 
the very tight fiscal times. I discussed this with the White House and 
told them that we were going to do this because of what we were doing 
with every other agency, not because I thought we ought to cut them, as 
I expressed to my committee members, but because I thought that they 
ought to be in the same position.
  The gentleman, I think, will admit this $15 million cut has nothing 
to do with the expenditures about which he is concerned. This does not 
pay for the airplanes; it does not pay for the trips. It pays for the 
ability to run the White House.
  Now while we have constrained them by $2.9 million, which is 1994 
levels, the fact is that this cut of 40 percent, decimates their 
ability to run a coequal branch of Government.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Walker and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. WALKER. Just to clarify:
  So, if the gentleman from Indiana was offering a $2.9 million 
amendment, that would be a reasonable kind of amendment rather than the 
$15 million because the gentleman has already cut that amount. But the 
gentleman may not agree with it, but that would be a reasonable kind of 
discussion to have on the floor about cuts in the White House budget.
  Mr. HOYER. I would say to my friend that he is a very able debater, 
but that is not what I am saying at all, and let me tell the gentleman 
why I am saying that.
  The gentleman's purpose in offering this amendment is not fiscal 
responsibility. It is not to say that we are spending $15 million too 
much at the White House office. I do not think he believes that. I hope 
he does not believe that. And that has not been at any juncture 
discussed in this debate. He is doing it to make a point. He is doing 
it to make a political statement and, perhaps, a substantive statement 
as well, but he is not doing it because he wants to save money. He 
wants to make a point.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman, I think, is characterizing the gentleman--
--
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, my point is that, if we on this side 
had done that during the 12 years that we vigorously disagreed with 
many of the policies of the White House and simply said, well, cut $15 
million because we disagreed with, for instance, Mr. Sununu's trips to 
the dentist and decimated the ability of the White House to operate, I 
would have voted against that, and I think the gentleman knows I would 
have.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that perhaps missing from this debate is some 
perspective that does not talk about the rights of the White House or 
the rights of Congress, but the rights of the public to know certain 
information. I rise, not in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], but in total agreement with the 
principle which is behind it, which is talking about the disclosure, 
the difficulty that we Republicans have, members of the press have, and 
members of the public have, in getting straight answers and straight 
information out of the White House, and the purpose, I believe, of Mr. 
Burton's amendment is not to decide, without having the information, 
whether the expenditure for the D-day commemoration was proper or 
improper, but to make sure that the information comes forward so that a 
clear decision can be made as to whether it was proper or improper. And 
certainly, looking at the information that we have been provided so 
far, and it is not complete, but the information that has been provided 
so far seems to indicate that the bulk of the persons who were 
transported overseas were parts of paratroop commemorations and 
military bands, and they were military personnel that were transported 
to be engaged in the festivities and the commemorations of a very 
crucial chapter in the history of the planet. And we may disagree or 
agree with that, but I do not think that that should be a partisan 
issue of how many people that are in the service, or former members of 
the service, would take part in those important ceremonies. But at the 
same time this debate has centered over a very troubling issue. The 
White House does not want to release simple, accurate, timely 
information to us as members of Congress, but it also denies the 
taxpayers their right to know.
  The chairman of the subcommittee with whom I serve knows that I am 
not speaking out of partisan fervor. If I were here to make a partisan 
statement, I would have voted for the last amendment. It is not a 
matter of punishing the White House.
  As a freshman, I do not have to be held accountable for whether I did 
or did not support certain things that were done in the White House 
under the Reagan or the Bush administration, and it really does not 
matter, and we should not be here discussing, well, it is OK because we 
did this under some other President. This people of America do not want 
that to be the basis for making our decisions. The people want us to be 
basing it upon is it a prudent expenditure of the taxpayers' money and 
are we being forthright in those disclosures.

  That is why we have things that I think we should be dealing with, 
telling the White House that salaries ought to be disclosed, telling 
the White House that travel and reimbursement for it ought to be 
disclosed, that whether people have proper security clearance at the 
White House to do their work, that ought to be disclosed. We had 
things, such as in our subcommittee the White House told us that the 
health care task force consumed about 300-and-some-odd thousand dollars 
of the taxpayers' money, and now media reports are saying it may have 
been $20 million. Which was it? Do we have a right to know?
  Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. So, although because of the 
information that is coming up so far about who paid the money and what 
it was used for on the Normandy activities, I do not support the 
particulars of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton], but I totally support the principle that my colleague from 
Indiana is pushing, the right of the people to know and the obligation 
that we hold accountable those in the White House just as we ourselves 
should be held accountable.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a rather curious debate on this matter. We 
have heard a lot of complaints from my colleagues on that side of the 
aisle about the fact that the President went to France to join in the 
international celebration of the 50th Anniversary of D-day. What he did 
was no different than what President Reagan did 10 years ago to 
celebrate the 40th anniversary, and it was no different than what the 
heads of state of any Nation that was involved in that particular 
invasion did. In fact, the prime minister of every European country 
involved in the Allied effort went there.

                              {time}  1410

  And they were there to celebrate a great event in the history of this 
world, one which led to 50 years of freedom and relative tranquility in 
the world. It was, even in the words of Joe Stalin, ``a great and 
defining event,'' and heaven knows he was no particular friend of the 
West.
  As I looked about me, I saw several of my colleagues who were on this 
trip, some on this side, who attended with the President of the United 
States, and they were unanimously agreed that this was a very important 
trip and a very important event. They also agreed that it was 
appropriate that the United States should send its President on the 
50th anniversary, as we did the 40th.
  I have also heard discussion about not being able to obtain 
information from the White House, but I do not think that is the real 
issue here, and I do not think that is really at stake, from the way 
the amendment was offered and the arguments that I have heard.
  The trip to Normandy was a great event, and it celebrated an even 
greater event. We honored thousands of Americans, British, French, and 
Canadians who at the risk of their lives--and many of them gave their 
lives, and hundreds and thousands of them were seriously injured--
embarked on a great crusade led by another great American who later 
became a Republican President of the United States.
  To recognize that we must honor those great men and women who served 
in our Armed Forces and suffered and died at Normandy is very 
important, and to do it with dignity and reverence and remembrance is 
also important. The history of this country is the history of great men 
and great women who have suffered, served, and sacrificed, and the 
history of that war is a great part of the history of this Nation.
  Americans from all parts of this country fertilized beaches of 
Normandy and its waters with their blood, and they enriched the history 
of the world, and they gave freedom to Americans and people of every 
other race with their sacrifice. Only by honoring them and remembering 
what they did and why they did it can this country carry forward its 
great traditions, and only in that way can we avoid the kind of perils 
we found ourselves thrust into in 1939 and on December 7 of 1941.
  I would urge my colleagues not to demean that day, not to demean 
those men and women, not to demean this country or our ideals or our 
history by making this a partisan show in which we attack the White 
House, because the President went over and participated in a great 
international event with the leaders of every other nation of the Free 
World.
  What would we have said about the United States had the President of 
the United States not gone to the 40th anniversary in 1984? And what 
would have been said had President Clinton not gone in 1994? The 
comments would have been ``Shame.''
  I say to my colleagues that it does great shame to those Americans 
who served there, to those great Americans who died and who suffered 
there, for us to debate that. It is beyond question that the President 
of the United States should have been there, and that Americans should 
have been there, and that a delegation from the Congress of the United 
States, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, should have been 
there to join in honoring not only a great event but great Americans 
and great human beings of other nationalities. Let us not demean this 
body and this debate by seeking to whimsically cut the White House 
budget on this kind of a pretense.
  Let us understand that the President needs an adequate budget to 
conduct his affairs. This party has been in control of the Congress for 
years. We have always seen to it that Republican Presidents who have 
occupied the White House a majority of the time have had the resources 
and the funds they need to do their job. Let us not convert that type 
of history to cheap partisanship.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment, and I will substitute my amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I now offer amendment number 3.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 23, line 
     2, strike ``$38,754,000'' and insert ``$33,754,000''.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to make this very brief 
because this has been a very prolonged debate.
  I would like to start off by saying that we all believe the President 
should have gone to Normandy, and we all believe that Members of 
Congress who served in the invasion of Normandy should have gone as 
well to show our respect and admiration for those who sacrificed so 
valiantly on the beaches of Normandy and in Europe during the war.
  We do believe we have had a terrible time getting a manifest of the 
aircraft that went and a manifest of the people who attended these 
events and these celebrations over there. We still do not have it. We 
have a rough outline, but we do not have the information the congress 
requested, and for that reason we are trying to send a message to the 
White House that ``If you do not respond with openness, as you promised 
during the campaign, then there will be some kind of penalty inflicted 
upon you by the Congress because it is our responsibility to oversee 
the expenditures of the entire Government, including the executive 
branch.''
  So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I have offered this third amendment 
which would cut $5 million from the White House budget to send a signal 
to President Clinton and the White House that they are to respond to 
us, the people who manage the people's money, about their expenditures, 
and if they do that in a timely fashion, they will have no more 
problems with this Member.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly, as I said I would, to oppose this 
amendment as well. The amendment is different in amount only, not in 
character.
  The $5 million suggested to be cut by the gentleman from Indiana does 
not relate to the expenditures of which he complains. It is, as he 
says, to send a message. My side of the aisle, I do not believe, did 
that in the last 11\1/2\ years that I served during Republican 
administrations, and I do not think it is appropriate to do so, for the 
reasons I stated before.
  I would hope that, as much as we want to send messages--and we send 
them all the time to each other and to the President--we would not 
accept this amendment. I concur with the gentleman from Oklahoma and 
the gentleman from Indiana, and I believe I have cooperated with our 
minority Members. Information that I deem appropriate, information that 
the Reagan-Bush White House or other White Houses of either party have 
provided, ought to be provided by this White House, and I will work 
toward that end. I will work with Members to ensure that objective, 
because I think that is appropriate and consistent with the 
responsibility we have to the people we represent.
  But there is a larger issue of undermining the ability of this 
coequal branch of government to carry out its constitutional functions. 
I hope that this amendment would be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147, 
noes, 287, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 237]

                               AYES--147

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--287

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Dickey
     Reynolds
     Thornton
     Washington
     Wilson

                              {time}  1437

  Messrs. SWETT, FALEOMAVAEGA, and BECERRA changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             amendment offered by mr. bartlett of maryland

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland: Page 23, 
     line 2, insert after the period the following:
       The amount otherwise provided under this heading is hereby 
     further reduced by $13,129.66.

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan 
amendment. All of us in government are affected when trips like this 
helicopter golfing trip occur. My amendment today does not have 
anything to do with recovering the cost of last months' helicopter 
flight to a golf course in my district. Mr. Chairman, this is purely a 
symbolic amendment. It gives the House an opportunity to make a 
statement that we requested the White House, please release the 
relevant information that we have asked for. If and when that 
information is released, we will ask the conference committee to 
reinstate the $13,129.66, which is what the White House says was the 
cost of this helicopter golfing trip.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that was not the full cost, because it does not 
include the cost of two crash wagons from the fire department at Fort 
Dietrich to go out when the helicopter landed and when the helicopter 
took off.
  This amendment is about Congress' legitimate oversight responsibility 
and the willingness or the unwillingness of the White House to 
cooperate. This amendment is an opportunity for us in the House to go 
on record that we believe there should be full disclosure of the use of 
the Presidential helicopters.
  Since I attracted attention to the photograph of the Presidential 
helicopter sitting on a nearby golf course, I have sent the White House 
three separate written requests for the flight logs and manifests of 
all of the helicopters in the Marine squadron that supports the 
President, and any flights they might have taken where White House 
staff was involved. I have not received a single response from these 
requests. There is to date no indication that they intend to honor 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, the White House did release a sanitized list of staff 
flights of the White House Presidential helicopters, but this list was 
so incomplete that the now famous golf course flight was simply listed 
as a flight from Anacostia to Camp David. There was no indication that 
they stopped off at Holly Hills to play golf on the way back. If 
Members did not already know that the flight went to the Holly Hills 
Country Club, Members would have no idea that the helicopter landed 
there.
  Mr. Chairman, we have also had a second response, but again, not to 
us. This response was through the Subcommittee on Treasury--Postal 
Service--General Government of the Committee on Appropriations. We are 
very indebted to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for providing 
this information, but again, Mr. Chairman, this was simply slightly 
expanded information on the 12 flights that they had previously 
released through the press.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, we got the first one, not sent to us. We 
got it from the Los Angeles Times. They faxed it to us. This second 
list is contradictory. There are errors in it, and there are omissions 
in it. Mr. Chairman, we have not asked for any information on 
Presidential flights, only flights that the President was not on that 
included White House staff. Mr. Chairman, we are not trying to set a 
precedent. Similar information was asked for relative to the Sununu 
flights and use of automobiles. We want the kind of response from the 
White House that the conference got when they asked for that 
information.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, when that information was released on the 
Sununu flights, there was information brought to light that the White 
House was not aware of. We continue to press our demands for full 
release of this information. We believe that the stigma of this that 
now rests on the executive branch and also on the Congress will not be 
erased from the American people without this full disclosure.
  Mr. Chairman, we ask that Members please join us in this bipartisan 
effort to ask the White House to please release this information so 
that we can move on, so that the American people can have their 
questions answered about the use of White House helicopters.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the House and my colleagues reject the 
amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Bartlett]. It is duplicative, and existing law covers the incident that 
the gentleman refers to. Existing law precludes the use of military 
aircraft for travel that is not related to the performance of official 
or reimbursable duties. Further, the sole purpose of the amendment is 
to attempt to embarrass the President over an incident concerning the 
use of the helicopter 2 weeks ago.
  I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the individual involved was 
disciplined. Since then, Mr. Watkins has resigned and agreed to 
reimburse the Government for the actual cost, which exceeds the amount 
of DOD reimbursement policy. The White House has also instituted a new 
policy requiring the Chief of Staff or counsel to the President to 
approve use of helicopters.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the White House has disclosed all other use of 
helicopters other than that by the President or Vice President, which 
demonstrates that there has been no other questionable use of 
helicopters in this administration.
  This amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
think it gets to the same point as the one that I wanted to offer 
regarding abuse of military aircraft. I would simply urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, as 
my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], said, this is 
a symbolic amendment. It is a $13,129.66 cut. The issue here is not the 
dollars, but the dollars are important.
  Mr. Chairman, let me state that Mr. Watkin's act was against the law. 
The money has been repaid. It was wrong. It should not have happened. 
David Watkins has lost his job. I think that was appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, having said that, again, this amendment does not deal 
substantively, it is a symbolic amendment. Again, I stress that the 
money has been repaid. This is another instance where, to send a 
message, we cut the Administrative Office of the White House, which 
does not pay for this expense.
  Mr. Chairman, on May 31, by memorandum of Mack McLarty, it has been 
made very clear that, from this day forward, all requests for the use 
of Department of Defense aircraft on a nonreimbursable basis will 
requite the approval of the Chief of Staff or Deputy Chief of Staff. 
Furthermore, if it is the Chief of Staff or the Deputy Chief of Staff 
that happens to be flying, there must be approval of the Counsel's 
office, or the Deputy White House Counsel.
  All requests shall be sent to appropriate approving authority through 
the Office of Management and Administration, so procedurally, the White 
House believes that misuse of military helicopters was wrong, it was 
contrary to policy, and they have made it very clear that this is not 
policy. Also, as I say, the gentleman involved has been removed from 
his job.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I concur completely that this 
is a symbolic amendment. The funds for the use of the helicopter would 
not have been paid through White House funds, we understand that. It 
comes through the Department of Defense.
  This is a symbolic amendment. By voting for this amendment, the 
symbolism is that we are sending a message to the White House: ``Please 
release the information so this cloud over government, of which we are 
a part, can be removed.''
  We agree with the gentleman that the flight in question was an 
inappropriate flight. This is a picture certainly worth at least a 
thousand words. What we want now to do is to clear the slate so we can 
move on. This will remain an issue that will continue to embarrass the 
White House and embarrass those on the gentleman's side of the aisle 
until this information is released.
  Mr. Chairman, when the information is released, we will ask the 
conference committee to reinstate the $13,129.66. The money is not the 
issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we do not need the 
symbolism. The message has been received. Mr. Watkins lost his job over 
this. Why? Because the White House concluded, correctly, in my opinion, 
that this was absolutely inappropriate.

                              {time}  1450

  Second, Mr. Watkins, first reluctantly, I am not sure why, he should 
not have been, was ordered to and has in fact reimbursed the 
$13,129.66. Furthermore, there is no stain on the White House. 
Something happened that was wrong. It has now been corrected.
  Furthermore, as the gentleman knows, I have gone over with him the 
manifests that I requested so that I could go over with the gentleman 
as chairman of the committee what they submitted to the committee. As 
the gentleman knows, some of this is classified information. We went 
over that with the gentleman. There were 12 trips and on all but this 
one the record set forth, to this Member's satisfaction, legitimate 
purposes. I agree with the gentleman absolutely that this last trip on 
May 24 had no legitimate purpose, and the individual who perpetrated 
that and decided to do that has paid the price. So we have sent the 
message.
  Furthermore, let me say just by way of example, John Sununu 
reportedly took more than 70 trips costing $600,000, not $13,129. Of 
that cost, $35,000 was in fact reimbursed by political organizations 
and Sununu personally paid $892 back. We did not have an amendment that 
was symbolic on the floor with reference to those travels.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made an 
important point, and that is that those records were released. That is 
how we know how much money was involved.
  Mr. HOYER. No, sir.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. The records were released, and that is how 
we know how much money was involved in it.
  Mr. HOYER. No, sir.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Our request was a very simple request. It 
is a symbolic amendment. Vote for the amendment. It tells the White 
House, ``Please release the information.'' Our committee has a 
legitimate oversight authority. This is an appropriations bill. This is 
the only kind of language that we can put in the bill and have the 
amendment made in order, so I think everyone understands the intent of 
the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman was incorrect. It does 
not prove the gentleman's point that the White House released the 
information. In fact, that White House was subjected to, just as this 
White House is subjected to, a GAO audit of the trips that are taken, 
and the Sununu information came from this audit, just as the audit that 
they are now undertaking, or will undertake at the end of this year, 
will reflect similar information. But the gentleman is incorrect to 
conclude that this information came from that released by the White 
House. It came from the GAO audit which has seven pages, not one golf 
trip, but seven pages of Mr. Sununu's trips. And we did not 
symbolically cut money.
  Did we criticize it? We did. Did we make a political point of it? We 
did, because we thought it was embarrassing. And we did the same thing 
the gentleman is doing, but we did not come on this floor and cut 
$13,120 or $15 or $2.85 for symbolism. We did not do that because we 
did not think that was the way to do it.
  The way to do it is to go to the American people, as the gentleman 
has done, on talk shows and in the newspapers. The White House was 
properly embarrassed by this incident. It was wrong. Watkins has been 
fired. Watkins has paid back the money.
  This incident, however, is one where we have a clearly delineated 
policy. The information that the gentleman wants to get by this 
amendment I have shown the gentleman. The gentleman then says, ``Well, 
how do I know this is all of the information?''

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. How do I know this is all of the information?
  Well, I suppose we never know unless we subpoena every record that 
the Air Force and the Marine Corps and the Army have. Then if we review 
all of their records, which of course would fill up this building, I 
presume then we can conclude that no, there is no other information 
other than what has been submitted.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The 
gentleman will admit there was an error and an inconsistency in the 
record that he released to us, and we have thanked him previously in an 
exchange for his efforts in this.
  Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Our request remains a very simple and 
legitimate request that as yet has not been honored. The two sources of 
information coming indirectly to us were not a response to our request 
that the White House release to us all of this pertinent information so 
that a judgment can be made to put this issue behind us.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand that the gentleman 
apparently wants to be personally handed this information. The 
information has been given to the committee that, as I say, has 
jurisdiction, which is why the gentleman is offering this amendment. I 
have gone over it in my office for about an hour with the gentleman 
because I believe the gentleman is correct, the gentleman has a right 
to know. We have made that information available. As the gentleman also 
knows, there is some classified information in the compendium.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the House to reject this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Maryland.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 236, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 238]

                               AYES--195

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brooks
     Dickey
     Hutchinson
     Lowey
     Reynolds
     Thornton
     Washington
     Wilson

                              {time}  1515

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


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Page 28, after line 4, 
     insert the following:

                           Reduction of Funds

       Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this title (other than under the heading ``Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy'' or ``Federal Drug Control Programs'') 
     that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5 
     percent.

  Mr. HEFLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this debate. We 
have said almost everything that could be said on the various kinds of 
cuts for the White House.
  What my amendment would do is to cut 5 percent from the budget of the 
Executive Office of the President. I have excluded the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy and the Federal Drug Control Programs, 
with this cut. Some hours ago we had the Goss amendment, which was a 
20-percent cut. If we feel that doing that, asking the President to 
face up to the promises he made about the cuts as to what he was going 
to do in his White House, if we feel that is too draconian, then this 
would ease into that. I am a little disturbed; I think the arguments we 
have had here this afternoon seem to say that for us to even consider 
cuts in the Executive Office of the White House should somehow be out 
of bounds, that we should not consider that, because if we are serious 
about cutting the way the Government spends money and reducing that 
amount of money that we spend, then there can be no account that is 
completely sacred and out of bounds. We have to look at everything in 
our role of accountability.
  So let me explain why I am offering this cut. When Bill Clinton was 
elected President, he sent a message to the Congress and to the 
American people. He promised cuts in his staff by 25 percent, cuts in 
his budget by 10 percent, and he called on Congress to follow his lead. 
We have heard a lot of talk this afternoon that, after all, this is at 
the 1994 level. But that is not what he said he would do. He said he 
would cut 10 percent. If we want to balance the budget, we cannot deal 
with what the present levels are, we have to find places to cut beyond 
present levels.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned 1994 levels. This account is 
$270 million, it is $28 million less than last year.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman. But over and over this afternoon 
we have talked in terms of the 1994 levels. I understand what the 
gentleman means.
  In the last year and a half the message sent by the actions of the 
Clintons differs completely from the promises made just a short time 
ago. Most of the so-called personnel cuts that took place actually 
occurred outside the White House.

                              {time}  1520

  Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I remain troubled over the spate of lapses 
that seem to plague the White House. For instance, and many of my 
colleagues have pointed out correctly this afternoon, there have been 
reports of political consultants and private advisers being granted 
privileged access to the White House. There have also been 
unprecedented delays in submitting the standard paperwork necessary for 
issuing permanent White House passes to employees. Mr. Chairman, there 
have even been disturbing reports that maybe the reason this has not 
happened is, because of some kind of criminal records here, they could 
not pass. We do not know if that is true or not. We simply do not have 
the information as to whether it is.
  But I think the most blatant lapse of ethical judgment occurred back 
in February of this year. The White House designated Clinton's trip to 
Chicago as an official function. However most of the press reports, and 
I think most people accept this fact, that it was a campaign trip, so 
there is a concern that President Clinton may have used official travel 
funds for partisan political, purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a disturbing trend here.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, Americans everywhere, and this is the main 
point and may be the reason for me asking for a 5-percent across-the-
board cut, and I would support that kind of a cut, or more across the 
board, in the coming congressional budget as well. The reason for this 
is that Americans everywhere work hard for their money, but it seems 
like every year Congress finds a way to take an even bigger share of 
Mr. and Mrs. America's earned money.
  As my colleagues know, one of the things that is repeated adversely 
all through my town meetings is that the taxpayers are sick and tired 
of seeing Washington continue to spend at the ridiculous levels that we 
spend, and that includes the White House as well as the other accounts. 
It is time we sent a clear message to the White House: The American 
people are not going to stand for any more of the same old spending 
levels from their Government.
  Let us show the White House and the public that we are serious about 
cutting expenditures of the Federal Government.
  Who will stand up for the beleaguered taxpayer out there?
  Mr. Chairman, this is our chance to do that and our chance to help 
the White House set the example.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The gentleman asked, perhaps rhetorically, who will stand up for the 
taxpayer?
  This budget for the Executive Office of the President was $298 
million last year. As presented, my colleagues, it is $270 million for 
fiscal year 1995, almost a $28 million cut. Now it does not take much 
of a mathematician to know that on a $298 million budget, with a $28 
million cut, it is just about 10 percent.
  That is who is standing up for the taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, my ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] stood and said this is a fiscally responsible 
bill. Why? Because we took 1994 levels or 1995 requests if the 1995 
request was lower. Why? Because I think that is an appropriate policy? 
As my colleagues know, I do not. I think we ought to cut the White 
House, but I also understand that we are cutting every other agency, 
and we are putting a notch in our belt. Why? Because times are tough.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about bringing the deficit down 3 
years in a row, the first time since Truman that we have done that. 
Does nobody want to talk about that? Does nobody want to talk about the 
fact that this budget, this deficit that we are running this year, is 
40 percent below the budget deficit projected by George Bush's OMB, as 
they left office?
  As much as 40 percent below that? That employment is up? That we are 
creating 6,000 jobs a day?
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], my friend, says we want to 
focus on the taxpayer. I suggest that focus is on the taxpayer, 
bringing unemployment down, bringing job creation way up. We have 
created more jobs under this administration, over 3 million new jobs; 
that is three times as many as were created in the previous 4 years.
  The gentleman says, ``We want to talk about the taxpayer.'' I am 
prepared to talk about it--10 percent cut. It is the largest cut in the 
White House budget report by this Committee since I have served on it, 
and I do not like it. Understand that. But I am a political realist and 
a pragmatist, and I say, ``When you ask others to cut, you got to do it 
yourself.''

  This 5 percent is on top of that, my colleagues. We ought not to be 
doing that.
  And I will reiterate. A gentleman is on this floor, Mr. Chairman, and 
he knows that I grieve, and I do not overstate it, that he is leaving 
this Congress. He and I believe, I think, in the same kind of 
democracy. We differ from time to time on specific issues. But I have 
tried to practice in the 13\1/2\ years I have been here comity with the 
President of the United States because I believe that is appropriate, 
and I have supported the President's budget every time it has been 
submitted.
  This 5-percent cut does not deal with how the White House performs 
it. This cut undermines the ability of the White Hose to perform its 
constitutional responsibilities, and again I reiterate, and in closing, 
and then I will yield to my friend, the gentleman from California, but 
in closing we are $28 million under last year's budget, not $28 million 
under constant budget, current services, but $28 million under 1994's 
expenditures. Why? Because of our concern shared by the gentleman from 
Colorado that, if we are going to pinch pennies, we pinch them across 
the board.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX. Two points:
  First, as we have discussed earlier on the floor in the context of 
other amendments, the amount that the appropriation bill allocates for 
functions in the Executive Office of the President is $157 million, 
precisely the amount that was spent for the identical functions in 
1992, George Bush's last year. We were promised by President Clinton 
that he would cut 25 percent from the White House, and frankly, I 
think, that was not a demagogic promise. It was a sound pledge by a 
candidate running for President because he saw that in the Bush White 
House there was too much staff. In this White House there is just as 
much, if not more, because of the detailees and so on.
  Mr. Chairman, having worked in the White House myself, as I have said 
in private conversations with the gentleman, I think the President can 
get by on substantially less staff and do a much better job. Certainly 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran World War II with a lot less staff than 
we require right now for purposes that are not, in my view, wholly 
legitimate.
  Second, the gentleman said that we have no longer a deficit problem, 
that everything seems to be under control, or, if he did not say that, 
he said that things are looking up, that we are reducing the deficit 
and so on.
  I would just point out that President Clinton's first budget, the 
very first one he submitted in January 1993, began with the fiscal year 
we are now in. That fiscal year does not end until September 30, and, 
as a result, the Clinton administration has yet to reduce a single 
deficit. We have not reduced three consecutive deficits or anything 
like that. We have not yet reduced our first deficit. The 1993 budget 
year was, of course, George Bush's last year, and that was the deficit 
that was reduced.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes the observation, but in 
fact it was definitely the Clinton budget that got us to where we are.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will yield to the gentleman from California in just a 
second. The gentleman will recall that he and his colleagues voted 
against that budget. As a matter of fact, against every part because it 
was unanimous on the gentleman's side, saying that that budget would 
not do what in fact has happened in the country.

                              {time}  1530

  I understand the gentleman's position, that you will not be able to 
tell until 2 or 3 years out. But the fact of the matter is, it is those 
budget policies adopted in reconciliation last year that led to that 
reduction.
  Mr. COX. If the gentleman will yield further, what we are talking 
about is a White House that has promised future reductions in deficits. 
By the way, this is not the first White House to project three 
consecutive years of declining deficits. Many Presidents have projected 
declining deficits. It is easy to reduce a projection.
  What we have not yet seen is a real deficit coming down. We will know 
after October 1 of this year whether the first budget year of Bill 
Clinton has produced a larger deficit or a smaller deficit. Yes, 
Members on our side have voted for much deeper spending cuts than were 
contained in what the Democrats offered and what President Clinton 
endorsed. As you know, the Penny-Kasich bill was actually opposed by 
this White House. We have an A to Z proposal coming up.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I am always amused by the observation 
that President Reagan and President Bush asked for more spending over 
those 12 years than the Congress appropriated. Period.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go on too much longer, because I think 
we have had ample debate on these subjects. I simply point out that 
cutting spending first is what the Republican side is all about. 
Cutting spending on the White House staff is an idea that George Bush 
and Bill Clinton agreed about during the last Presidential campaign.
  George Bush pledged to cut it 30 percent, because he recognized there 
was too much staff, and asked the assistance of Congress in doing that. 
He did not veto the legislative appropriations bill, as I urged, which 
did not cut as much as he had asked for out of that budget.
  But President Clinton then said he wanted a 25-percent reduction. 
This takes it, it seems to me, wholly out of the realm of partisan 
politics. If both the Democrat and Republican running for President 
agree we ought to cut the White House staff, let us get on it with it.
  Now, I realize as President, including this year, Bill Clinton came 
up to the Hill and said give me an 8-percent increase in what we spend 
on the White House. I realize what Congress is giving him is exactly 
the same amount that George Bush spent in 1992 before a 30-percent cut 
or before a 25-percent cut.
  We ought to, as responsible stewards of the purse, make sure that 
what the voters thought they were getting, a 25-percent cut in the 
White House staff, is actually accomplished here on the floor.
  This opportunity gives us part of that. I think it is wholly 
responsible, and I would urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Let me say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], 
most of the cuts that the gentleman is talking about come out of this 
budget come out of the Office of Drug Policy, which we exempt from 
that. We are not talking about that.
  Mr. HOYER. No, sir.
  Mr. HEFLEY. According to your own report, $25 million or so, 18.6 
percent, are cut from that.
  You brag about this great recovery that is going on right now. We 
hear this in the 1-minutes and hear it on the floor all the time. 
Economists tell us it is the slowest recovery in recent history. 
Recessions are cyclical. We know that. We can do some things to help us 
in to them and help us out of them, but mostly they are cyclical. 
Coming out of this cycle, it comes out, we are coming out the slowest 
in history.
  They also tell us, any economist that does not work for the White 
House that you can read or hear talk about it, tell you we have not had 
enough time to know whether the President's policy is working or not. 
So we do not know whether that is.
  One thing we do know, we know that taxpayers out there are bridling 
under the biggest tax increase in history. They are hurting. They feel 
they are paying too much taxes, they feel they are not getting their 
money's worth, and this is a way to start kind of at the top of things.
  The President is the face of Government. Let us start with the face 
of Government and say we are going to have cuts there, we are going to 
have cuts in the Congress, and in each one of the accounts as we go 
through this thing, we are going to have cuts, and we are going to show 
we can be more responsible in our spending.
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I wanted to simply point out that the President said he 
was going to do a 25-percent cut.
  In the White House offices that you keep talking about not having 
reductions, there were 1,394 people working as of November 7, 1992, the 
day after the election. The bottom line is, we funded last year 1,044 
people, a 25.1-percent reduction in personnel.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman I think 
agrees the amount in the bill is $157 million. The amount spent on 
those very same functions by George Bush in 1992, was $157 million. So 
we can do all we want with accounting definitions, but the fact of the 
matter is, when the dust settles, there has not been any cut at all. 
And that is what we are concerned about.
  Mr. HOYER. The $157 million, what is the gentleman defining that as?
  Mr. COX. This is the entirety of the programs funded in this bill, 
with the exception of the drug czar.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield, there has been some 
discussion about the economy and budget, and who deserves the credit 
for what kind of economic growth.
  Having worked in the White House and now having been in Congress for 
6 years, I would like to just note that it takes about 2 years for any 
President to have an impact on the economy. When I worked for Ronald 
Reagan, it was not until 1983 that his policies actually began to fully 
impact on the economy. That is when the economy began to grow. Because 
for a full year, you are working on your first budget. The fact is, 
next year we will find out whether the Democrats' budget causes growth 
or whether it causes decline.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has 
expired.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I understand 
what is being said, but I vividly recall during the course of debate on 
reconciliation, Member after Member from your side of the aisle coming 
to this podium, including Mr. Kasich. the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget, saying that within 12 months this would all 
fall apart because of the passage of that budget, which of course, was 
just about 12 months ago.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. It takes at least 12 months for a budget to impact 
on the economy. When I worked for the Reagan administration in 1981 and 
1982, we took it for granted that the economy that we were working with 
was an economy that was given to us by our predecessor, that being 
Jimmy Carter. And the fact is we knew no matter what we did, it would 
take a certain length of time, No. 1, before our policies would be 
passed, and, No. 2, for those policies to actually impact on the 
economy.
  Now, if next year there is a strong economy, even though we are 
siphoning more and more money out of the pockets of the consumer and 
taking it to Washington, DC, if our economy is still functioning well 
and prosperity is around us, then indeed the American people will know 
that this President and this Congress deserves the credit.
  But I can tell you in Orange County, where the last budget that we 
passed, the massive tax increase included in that budget will siphon $2 
billion out of our local economy. Consumers will have that much money 
less to spend, and we are struggling in Orange County just to make sure 
that we get out of this transition from the cold war, and we have a 
weak economy.
  Now there are people struggling all over the United States now. I 
think what my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], and 
other are saying, is when we are facing this time of struggle for a 
strong economy and trying to see what is going to happen next year, we 
are apprehensive at the very least.
  The Office of the President, which I worked there for 7 years, they 
can do with some cuts there in the same way other programs can do with 
cuts throughout the Government.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman has heard me say, we have cut $28 million. 
We have constrained the White House budget at the maximum number. There 
is no increase in here, however the gentleman wants to assess the cuts.
  How much would we have had to cut for the gentleman to say that it is 
sufficient. We are talking about a 10-percent cut.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will have to admit to the gentleman, when we start 
talking about figures----
  Mr. HOYER. It is the symbolism of making additional cuts.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. The public has a very difficult time understanding 
who is saying what and what the figures are, when we talk about budget 
figures. Generally, when we are talking about cutting the budget, from 
the gentleman's side it is basically cutting the increase in what was 
projected by the administration. And generally, when we talk about 
budget cuts on this side, we are talking about actually decreasing the 
amount of money that is being spent. In this particular case, my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] pointed out that 
they are spending exactly the same amount of money on the Presidency as 
we spent before, $157 million, I believe was the figure. Maybe the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] would like to amplify on that 
point.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would just like to make a point to the gentleman from California 
that just finished speaking. To the best of my knowledge, the Reagan 
budgets that were sent here during the Reagan years and the Bush years 
were not even offered but on about three occasions for the 12 years 
they were President. One year, I know the Reagan budget was offered, it 
got one vote. Jack Kemp, who is going to be running for the Presidency. 
So the gentleman likes to rewrite history and say that budgets only 
take effect for a couple of years. If the gentleman can take credit for 
the good stuff and not take responsibility for the rest of the things.
  Did it or did not President Reagan's budget pass? The best I recall, 
there was never a Reagan budget that was sent from the White House to 
this floor that passed this body.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me just make one point. The American 
public ought to have the facts on this. We have disagreements on how 
much money we are spending.
  It was implied that the Clinton White House has more detailees than 
the Bush White House. Of course the 1,384 that I talked about in the 
Bush White House, 308 were detailees. That figure has been reduced to 
143 of the 1,044 that are now there. Clearly, there has been a 25-
percent reduction.
  I urge the House to reject this amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I am interested in the argument, because a little while ago, when we 
were arguing specific incidents with regard to the White House, the 
helicopter problems, the plane problems and so on, then it was not 
legitimate to cut the budget because those were arguments having 
nothing to do with the budget that was before us. Now the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox] comes along with an amendment to cut the 
budget based upon the fact that the White House has not met its 
commitment to slash 25 percent, that it has not managed in an effective 
manner. And now the argument is that we cannot cut for that reason 
either, because we have some numbers that indicate that the White House 
is doing a great job here. And the gentleman from North Carolina 
reminds us that no Reagan budgets passed, which I am not certain what 
that has to do with anything.
  My point is, it seems that no matter what the argument is, there is 
no way that the House should look at the White House budget as a place 
that we can exact some cuts.
  I think our problem is, with the figures that the gentleman cites for 
the 25-percent cut, is we know that most of that came out of the drug 
office. And as a result, we have no effective drug program in the 
country. But that is where most of the cuts came. And we know that a 
lot of it was based upon now they figured what was in the Executive 
Office of the President. By not including whole offices that are under 
the Executive Office of the President, they were able to come up with 
the 25-percent cut that started with practically nothing. That is not 
legitimate in our view, and we ought to take a whole look at the White 
House and do what the American people, what middle class America 
thought Bill Clinton was doing and saying in his campaign. That is what 
the Cox amendment is all about. It is a shame that when he makes that 
kind of argument that we cannot get it.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the point that the 
gentleman from California was talking about the budgets, the Reagan 
budget. What does it have to do with anything? What it has to do with 
anything, if we are going to take credit for the great Reagan years, we 
have to give the credit to where the budgets originated. And not one 
Reagan budget ever passed, that was presented from the White House, 
ever passed this House, or a George Bush budget for that matter.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, we all remember that because we had a 
gridlocked Congress that decided that every one of those budgets was 
dead on arrival. And they refused to do what the American people wanted 
to do, which was to cut spending. So we understand what you guys did 
during these years that helped drive up the deficit. We understand all 
that. It is the kind of thing we are trying to correct now.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, everybody wants to end this debate.
  Mr. HOYER. In 1985, one vote. One Republican voted for the 
President's budget, untouched by Democratic hands.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, by the time you got 
around to bringing it to the floor that year, it was so totally 
outdated that the figures had absolutely no sense to them whatsoever. 
You waited. You waited months. That was during the time when you did 
not meet the law.
  Mr. HOYER. Ninety days after it was submitted it was out of date?
  Mr. WALKER. You did not bring up the Reagan budget. You brought up 
the Reagan budget as originally submitted, some months afterwards, 
because you did not meet the time lines that year. That was the year 
when, and a number of other years, when you refused to bring up the 
budgets until well into the fiscal year. And at that point, the figures 
were out of date.
  Mr. HOYER. No sir.
  Mr. WALKER. You are playing games, and we understand that.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is trying to rewrite history.
  Mr. WALKER. You were trying to keep us from building up the defense 
that ultimately won the cold war. We know what you were up to. It was a 
lot of fun.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, may I just take a moment to remind the body 
that the Budget Act of 1974 requires the President of the United States 
to make a budget recommendation to Congress by February of each year 
and for Congress to produce a budget by April 15 of each year. No 
President, Republican or Democrat, since 1974, has ever done a thing 
except recommend a budget to Congress. And rarely has Congress produced 
a budget by tax day, April 15, when the rest of the Nation ponied up.
  Mr. WALKER. I think the gentleman would agree with me that back in 
the mid-1980's that Congress never got around to doing the budget 
period, and then in many cases played political games. As I recall, we 
did not introduce the budget that year. The Democrats introduced that 
budget simply to try to embarrass the President, something which the 
gentleman from Maryland told us earlier that the Democrats never do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 236, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 239]

                               AYES--200

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bachus (AL)
     Reynolds
     Washington

                              {time}  1608

  Messrs. McDERMOTT, SKELTON, HUTCHINSON, and WAXMAN changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROWLAND changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I had pointed out earlier when not many 
Members were here that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I 
had an opportunity in the late 1980's to visit Perm Camp 35, which was 
the last gulag in the Soviet Union

                              {time}  1610

  When we visited the camp, we met with Scharansky's cellmate, whose 
picture is here, and we also met with this individual, and his name is 
Vladimir Potashov. We had debated this earlier, and I had an amendment 
to require the White House staff, which has not done it, to file their 
national security background checks in 30 days, and then to have the 
process completed in 6 months. I had commented that when we spoke with 
Vladimir Potashov, and I see the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], 
who is with us, three of the men that the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] and I interviewed late that night in the Ural Mountains 
said they worked for our Government. They basically had worked for the 
CIA. We did not believe them. When we came back, we checked, and we 
found out that it was true. This young man here, when he hollered out 
that we were Congressmen, this young man was giving the ``V,'' who 
wanted to emigrate to Israel, and Vladimir were together, we found out 
that they had been turned in after we got back, turned in by Aldrich 
Ames; Aldrich Ames, the CIA spy, had turned these men in.
  When the debate came up earlier, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer], the chairman, said, ``Well, so what?'' He said, ``Even in the 
CIA, they have had lie detectors and background checks.''

  Let me read to you what Vladimir Potashov said in an op-ed piece that 
I found in my office when I went back.
  Vladimir said:

       During the 100 or more interrogations, day and night, in 
     Lefortovo prison, I discovered that they knew of my reports, 
     quoting from letters to which they could not have had access 
     in the Soviet Union. Two things saved my life. First, I never 
     told the interrogators facts that they could not have known 
     already. Second, I was right when I urged the ``zero 
     option.''

  Then he goes on to tell how he was punished and sent to Perm Camp No. 
35.
  All we are trying to do and wanted to do was to offer an amendment 
which would keep something like this from happening again in the 
country.
  Three of these men suffered and went to jail because they worked for 
the United States Government. Ten people were killed because Aldrich 
Ames gave the information to the Soviets that killed these people.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand why this Congress will not 
permit an amendment to be offered today which would cover this 
administration and all administrations merely saying that you have to 
begin your background check in 30 days, and it has to be completed in 6 
months.
  Now, all of the people that work at the NSC, the DIA, the CIA, and 
many of the companies in your congressional districts require the very, 
very same. So I would ask the chairman, the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer], why could we not craft an amendment that would not be 
directed at the Clinton administration, but would be directed at the 
Clinton administration and any administration in the future, to require 
that these people go through the background check, and not have what 
took place whereby DeeDee Myers, who had been on for 1 year and 2 
months, had not even filed her papers because she said she was too 
busy? Could we not craft an amendment which could be accepted in a 
bipartisan way where these types of things could certainly never, never 
happen?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman I presume he is 
not offering an amendment now.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not say ``So what'' with reference to Aldrich 
Ames. What he did was awful, despicable, and had dire consequences to 
our people in Europe.
  What I said was that they had the security checks on Ames. Therefore, 
I did not think this was necessarily a case where, a security clearance 
would have prevented subsequent problems. That was my point.
  But let me ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an 
amendment at the end of this bill, if I choose to do so, after 
discussions with the gentleman on this issue. Let the gentleman and I 
talk about it and see if we can do something. I know he feels very 
strongly about it. I do not disagree with his objective.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield further, if there is no 
objection, can we do that? It will be out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman repeat his request?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to offer an amendment relative to the subject matter raised by 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] regarding security checks at the 
White House at the end of the consideration of this bill prior to the 
motion to rise.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for that unanimous-consent.
  Mr. Chairman, I am including at this point in the Record the op-ed 
article by Vladimir Potashov and the final report of the congressional 
delegation to the Soviet Union and Perm Labor Camp 35, as follows:

                [From the Washington Times, May 1, 1994]

              Vladimir Potashov--Survivor of the Ames List

       I spy? Surely, Aldrich Ames asked this question when he was 
     arrested. After all, he was the CIA's protector against 
     Soviet spies. In 1990, the KGB's Deputy Chairman B. Grushko 
     wrote, ``[Since 1985] Soviet [Counterspies] have exposed over 
     30 of the most dangerous agents of the CIA and other foreign 
     services * * * practically all of those arrested in the USSR 
     were to the supreme penalty * * * to be shot''. (Pravda, Aug. 
     26, 1990).
       Mr. Ames must have laughed at this boasting. They didn't 
     catch anyone. Mr. Ames just dumped us all into the net of his 
     counterpart, more accurately, his customer:
       Mr. Grushko: ``So what's for sale today?''
       Mr. Ames: ``Have I got the deal for you, ready in Moscow, 
     just waiting to be hauled in.''
       Mr. Grushko: ``How many and how much?''
       Mr. Ames: ``Three diplomats and one journalist, each for 
     $100,000. Next, the American source in the military 
     intelligence department of the General Staff. He's a general 
     and goes for $300,000. Next, an officer in the KGB; he helped 
     us the way I help you, $400,000. One radio specialist, 
     $200,000. Finally, a chief analyst at Arbotov's USA 
     Institute, a bargain, only $100,000.''
       Mr. Grushko: ``So it's a package deal, should be cheaper 
     that way. What about $1 million for the bunch?''
       Mr. Ames: ``What will you do with them?''
       Mr. Grushko: ``Shoot most and lock a few up, just as we 
     always do.''
       Mr. Ames: ``Good. Here are the names: Potashov . . .''
       Mr. Grushko: ``It's a deal. I'll send a wire transfer to 
     your Swiss bank account. See you soon.''
       This way or some other, I was sold. Was it really such a 
     good deal, Mr. Ames, that wire transfer to death, for those 
     people you were supposed to guard?
       Mr. Ames knew very well what he was doing, like a doctor 
     murdering his patients. He sold his soul to the devil for 
     selling the souls of others. Was it worth it, even for all 
     that money? ``What will it profit a man if he gains the whole 
     world and loses his soul?'' as Jesus asked.
       And me, am I a spy? I published two books and 100 articles 
     signed ``Soviet Expert on Disarmament.'' As a senior 
     researcher at the institute run by Kremlin adviser Georgi 
     Arbatov, I knew by 1981 that no Soviet leader would hesitate 
     to use the SS-20 missiles against Europe if he thought that 
     would save the Soviet Empire from collapse. However, I urged 
     the Soviet government to scrap them in exchange for an 
     agreement with the United States not to deploy the Pershing 
     and cruise missiles. I wanted this deal, the ``zero option,'' 
     for the sake of Europe.
       That's why, when the negotiations started in November 1981, 
     I put my life on the line. On a trip to Washington then, I 
     offered to tell the truth to the Americans. I had no access 
     to secret information. I would just report my personal 
     assessments, those things I couldn't say openly in Moscow. I 
     mailed my comments by private mail to the United States. In 
     essence, I said there was no chance for the ``zero option,'' 
     until Mikhail Gorbachev took power in 1985.
       Did I spy? At least, I paid for it. In 1986, I was 
     approached by the KGB to ``help them'' in their task ``to 
     arrange a major disinformation operation against U.S. 
     intelligence,'' as was reported in a newspaper article. My 
     choice was either to lie and live or refuse and put my life 
     in jeopardy. I chose reporting the truth and on July 1, 1986, 
     I was arrested. Fortunately a month before, I sent to a 
     British editor a manuscript of my book on disarmament, ``War 
     or Peace by the Year 2000?''
       During the 100 or more interrogations, day and night, in 
     the Lefortovo Prison, I discovered that they knew of my 
     reports, quoting from letters to which they could not have 
     had access in the Soviet Union. Two things saved my life. 
     First, I never told the interrogators facts that they could 
     not have known already. Second, I was right when I urged the 
     ``zero option.'' Soviet policy backed it before my trial.
       That's why I was not sentenced to death, but to the gulag 
     until the year 2000. I spy? Is that the right title for one 
     who revealed the truth about the KGB on their own territory? 
     I faced them in a TV interview when American congressmen, 
     diplomats and journalists visited the last political 
     prisoners camp, Perm 35, in 1991. I told them I thought that 
     my sacrifice was justified if a few drops of my blood helped 
     to tilt the scales toward disarmament and, over the gulag's 
     red banner, I raised old Russia's flag as a symbol of faith, 
     the free spirit rising above communism. I did it in front of 
     the KGB officers and four envoys from foreign embassies who 
     took pictures. The Russian people learned from their 
     interviews that the KGB was no longer allowed to shut up 
     voices even in their own gulag.
       A spy for money? I didn't want a cent for the five years I 
     spent reporting on disarmament issues in Moscow. For writing 
     those reports, the KGB seized my property, not to mention my 
     wife and my health. While in the gulag, I appealed to the 
     courts to retain the fees for my book, ``War or Peace?'' I 
     offered to donate them to a good cause. In 1989, I won my 
     suit in a Moscow court even though I was still a prisoner. 
     The court agreed to donate my fees to ``peacemaking 
     actions.''
       There were attacks on me and other prisoners from Perm 35. 
     In some newspapers, they even blamed us for the collapse of 
     Mr. Gorbachev's perestroika. There were also direct threats, 
     so in addition to the prison camp, I decided to leave the 
     ``Socialist Camp'' by going to Poland and then coming here. 
     Even now, personal articles against me still appear in the 
     Russian press.
       I used evil to make good. Mr. Ames did the reverse. He took 
     good sources for learning about the threats to the world's 
     survival and made evil by shutting them off. I hope now he 
     will reveal the truth. You shall know the truth and the truth 
     shall make you free. After my experience in the gulag, I want 
     more people to be free. There I lost not six years, but 20 in 
     terms of health. At age 42, I have lost almost all my teeth. 
     But it is not the physical damage that matters; it is the 
     affront to morality of a man like Mr. Ames.
       There are still plenty of customers for Mr. Ames' stores. 
     Looking for something special from Russia? How about a dose 
     of free truth--from Russia, with love.

  Congressional Delegation to the Soviet Union and Perm Labor Camp 35 
        U.S. Reps. Frank Wolf and Chris Smith August 4-11, 1989

     Final Report--Delegation Findings and Follow-up--October 1989

       This report provides a brief account of the findings of the 
     Wolf/Smith delegation to the USSR, outlines our joint follow-
     up initiatives, and offers recommendations for U.S. officials 
     and non-government organizations and activists interested in 
     the progress of legal and penal reforms, prison and labor 
     camp conditions, and the status of alleged political 
     prisoners.

                          Purpose of the trip

       Inspection visit to Perm Labor Camp 35 and substantive 
     discussions on legal and penal reforms and human rights. U.S. 
     Reps. Frank Wolf and Chris Smith, accompanied by Richard 
     Stephenson of the U.S. State Department, interviewed 23 of 
     the 38 inmates reportedly still in Perm 35 at the time of the 
     trip, and one inmate at the Perm investigation prison.


                        background and findings

       Perm 35, a Soviet correctional labor camp known for its 
     severe conditions and mistreatment of prisoners, including 
     prisoners of conscience, was the principal focus of our 
     delegation. Marking the first time any U.S. or Western 
     official has been allowed into a Soviet ``political'' labor 
     camp, the trip's findings served to confirm and amplify much 
     of the existing documentation on camp conditions and the 
     existence of many prisoners believed to be incarcerated for 
     basically political activities.
       Helsinki Watch, Amnesty International, and others, 
     including former prisoners themselves, provided background 
     information for this trip. Many well-known political 
     prisoners have been confined in the Perm Camp complex, which 
     now includes only Perm 35: Natan Sharansky, Professor Yuri 
     Orlov, Alexander Ginsburg, Deacon Vladimir Rusak, Father 
     Alfonsas Svarinskas, and many others.
       Interviews with prisoners ranged from 5-40 minutes, all in 
     the presence of camp administrators and an official of the 
     Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD). We viewed 
     punishment cells and other areas of camp and were permitted 
     to take photographs and videotape much of the camp and our 
     interviews with prisoners.
       The broader purpose of the delegation was to discuss Soviet 
     progress toward legal reforms advancing the ``rule of law'' 
     in Soviet society. That is, our discussions focused on the 
     need to institutionalize the positive changes occurring in 
     Soviet human rights practices, open up the Soviet prison and 
     labor camp system to greater scrutiny, and establish due 
     process. We held discussions with Ministry of Foreign 
     Affairs (MFA) officials on legal reforms, including the 
     critically important draft laws on ``freedom of 
     conscience'' (whose principal impact will be upon 
     religious communities), draft laws on emigration, and 
     reform of the Soviet criminal code. The delegation 
     questioned representatives of the Procurator General and 
     Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) regarding the Soviet 
     penal system.
       As members of the U.S. Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission), we emphasized 
     that our interest in proposed Soviet legislation is to find 
     indications that changes are systemic and not simply 
     arbitrary. We reminded Soviet officials of the importance 
     which the American people place on respect for fundamental 
     human rights like freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and 
     the right to publish and organize independent groups. While 
     not presuming to ``teach'' this to the Soviets, we spoke 
     about the lasting impression such changes would make on the 
     American people. For religious believers, in particular, a 
     well-written law on conscience will offer legal recourse 
     should local authorities decide to be heavy-handed. With 
     respect to the 1991 Human Rights Conference in Moscow, we 
     stressed that the adoption and implementation of laws 
     guaranteeing freedom of conscience will have a direct bearing 
     on U.S. support and enthusiasm for the Conference.
       The rights of religious believers, including those in 
     prison, was our major concern in meetings with the MVD, 
     Council on Religious Affairs and religious officials, 
     including the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians/
     Baptists (Baptist Union). We also spoke with activists and 
     dissidents in the religious communities, including former 
     prisoners, to find their perspective on the present situation 
     for religious communities in the USSR.
       Our visit to Perm Labor Camp 35 was a key element in the 
     overall equation of assessing Soviet human rights 
     performance. The Soviet ``gulag'' (Russian acronym for the 
     Soviet labor camp system) remains a stark symbol of ``old 
     thinking'' in a country where political reform and dissent 
     are coming into the open. Glasnost, or openness, has failed 
     thus far to penetrate into the gulag, either to change 
     conditions in the labor camps or to impact penal procedures 
     which have led to systematically cruel and unusual 
     punishment. It is important to recognize that the lingering 
     fear of incarceration in the Soviet gulag threatens to hold 
     hostage any meaningful reforms in Soviet society. Bringing 
     ``glasnost to the gulag'' is an important step the Soviets 
     can take to deal with concerns that President Mikhail 
     Gorbachev's reforms might be reversed or undermined.
       We have urged the Soviets to begin a process of opening up 
     prisons and labor camps to independent human rights monitors, 
     both Westerners and Soviet citizens. We have encouraged human 
     rights organizations to request access to prisons and labor 
     camps. And finally, we pressed the Soviets to permit visits 
     by clergymen and to allow religious literature into prisons 
     and labor camps.
       Our foremost concern remains the plight of the 24 prisoners 
     whom we met in Perm 35. They have endured severe conditions 
     and several of them are already counted by the United States 
     among the nearly one hundred remaining suspected political 
     prisoners in the Soviet Union. U.S. human rights policy has 
     long embraced advocacy for individual prisoners' cases, a 
     practice rooted in American values recognizing the inherent 
     dignity and rights of each human being.
       Our evaluation of the Perm 35 cases in question is based on 
     the claims of several inmates that they are political 
     prisoners, the documentation of human rights groups which 
     support those claims, and the findings from our interviews. 
     Our conclusion is that, regardless of any dispute over these 
     definitions of political prisoners, most of these prisoners 
     would not be prosecuted for similar ``crimes'' today, or 
     their offenses would be treated far less severely. In view of 
     the excessive punishment endured by these prisoners, we have 
     called on the Soviets to reexamine their cases in the context 
     of ``new political thinking'' and release them on 
     humanitarian grounds.


                        findings on perm camp 35

       The Prisoners and Camp Conditions:
       Mikhail Kazachkov has spent nearly 200 days of his 14-year 
     incarceration in punishment cells, up to 15 days at a time in 
     the ``shizo'' cell.
       We were given a rare glimpse of the infamous ``shizo.'' 
     Veterans of the Soviet gulag have provided vivid accounts of 
     this notorious four-by-eight-foot cell. It contains a wooden 
     plank fastened to the wall on which to sleep, with no bedding 
     or blankets, and a cement stump on which to sit. The cell, 
     and the punishment, is designed to make the natural cold of a 
     Soviet labor camp that much more severe--that is, the 
     unbearable, cold temperature is used as torture. Prisoners 
     complained that it is difficult to sleep on the hard, 
     narrow plank. The walls are made of a rough, pointed-like 
     concrete, which scrapes and cuts prisoners who might lean 
     or sleep up against it.
       We had to insist that Kazachkov be offered the opportunity 
     to speak to us. He had been moved from Perm 35 to the Perm 
     investigation prison shortly before our visit. While 
     describing some instances of physical abuse in Perm 35, 
     Kazachkov explained that general-purpose beatings were no 
     longer a regular occurrence in Perm 35. Kazachkov suffered an 
     injured arm in trying to resist a forced head-shaving, a 
     practice which he described as a widespread form of 
     humiliation against Soviet prisoners.
       Kazachkov, imprisoned in 1975 one week after applying to 
     emigrate, recently led eight other inmates at Perm 35 in a 
     work strike to protest unsafe working conditions. Together 
     these prisoners formed a Helsinki/Vienna human rights 
     monitoring group in Perm 35. Though completely within their 
     rights under the Helsinki Accords and the 1989 Vienna 
     agreement ``to promote the Helsinki process,'' camp 
     authorities used harsh measures to stop them. Just three 
     weeks after our visit, Kazachkov was singled out for his role 
     in the protest. He was put on trial for ``refusal to work'' 
     and sentenced to serve the next three years of his 18 and 
     one-half year term in the more severe regime of Chistopol 
     Prison.
       We interviewed 23 inmates in Perm Labor Camp 35 who 
     requested to meet with us. A there running through their 
     stories emphasized the conditions and treatment of prisoners 
     in the camp: long periods of isolation in punishment cells, 
     severe cold used as torture, and being cut off from family 
     and friends due to routinely intercepted mail and arbitrarily 
     canceled visits. We were never allowed to meet alone with any 
     prisoners. Prisoners gave their side of the story boldly and 
     bravely, several of them condemning the abuses of the KGB and 
     camp officials in their very presence. Many, though not all, 
     of the 24 inmates we met (those in Perm 35 plus Kazachkov) 
     claimed to be political prisoners. Many of the prisoners 
     expressed thanks to those in the West who had written letters 
     to Soviet officials on their behalf and to them personally.
       We sought and received assurances beforehand from Soviet 
     officials in the Procuracy, Ministry of Internal Affairs and 
     the camp that no retribution would be brought against any 
     prisoner. We repeated this Soviet promise loudly during 
     meetings with many prisoners. The prisoners told us there had 
     been reprisals against some who met with New York Times 
     reporter A.M. Rosenthal during his visit to Perm 35 in 
     December 1988 (the first visit by any Westerner to a labor 
     camp). Some prisoners said that they understood reprisals 
     were a possible consequence of speaking to us; however, we 
     continued to stress that assurances had been given by the 
     Soviets that there would be no reprisals. One prisoner simply 
     said, ``there is nothing more they can do to us.''
       Most of the Perm 35 cases demand a review by the Soviets, 
     including the following:
       Oleg Mikhailov said that he was put in ``shizo'' simply for 
     requesting to meet with Rosenthal. Mikhailov was imprisoned 
     in 1979 on charges of ``treason to the motherland'' and 
     ``anti-Soviet agitation'' for preparing to steal and escape 
     the country in a cropduster plane. He condemned the Soviets 
     for their treatment of prisoners. Although one and one-half 
     years of internal exile remain on his sentence, the Soviets 
     have stated that the system of exile has been abolished. 
     Mikhailov is due to be released on October 21.
       Byelorussian Christian Alexander Goldovich was charged with 
     ``treason'' for attempting to flee across the Black Sea in a 
     rubber raft, and carrying pictures allegedly depicting how 
     bad life is in the Soviet Union. Goldovich admits to having 
     the pictures, which the Soviets charged was secret 
     information, and explains that they were snapshots of his 
     apartment.
       Goldovich is a physicist. Arrested April 21, 1985. 
     Sentenced December 2, 1985, to 15 years strict-regimen labor 
     camp and 5 years exile on charges including treason (Article 
     64), anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda (Article 70) and 
     leaking government secrets. Accused of attempting to escape 
     from the USSR and intending to leak secret information. To be 
     release April 2005.
       Goldovich had requested a Bible during the Rosenthal visit 
     to Perm 35. He was denied one by camp authorities. We give 
     him a Bible and offered Bibles to any other prisoners who 
     wanted one--all but two did. The Soviets assured us they 
     would be allowed to keep them. Several times, he thanked 
     people in the West for writing on his behalf. Asked whether 
     there is any glasnost in the Perm camp, he replied, ``No, 
     not in the smallest degree.'' Goldovich's case has been 
     raised continually with the Soviets.
       Ukrainian Bohdan Klimchak attempted to flee from the USSR 
     to Iran carrying his science fiction short stories, which he 
     intended to publish abroad. After nine days in Iran, he was 
     returned to Soviet custody. His writings were deemed 
     ``nationalistic,'' and he was arrested in November 1978 and 
     sentenced to 15 years strict-regimen labor camp and five 
     years exile. His sentence was reduced under amnesty and 
     Klimchak was due to be released in September 1989 (end of 
     exile around March 1992). Convicted under Articles 64 
     (``treason'') and 70 (``anti-Soviet agitation and 
     propaganda'') of Soviet criminal code.
       Ruslan Ketenchiyev, a lathe worker, was arrested August 27, 
     1982, charged with ``treason,'' and sentenced to 10 years 
     strict-regimen labor camp. Ketenchiyev tried to contact 
     American journalists and U.S. embassy personnel in order to 
     emigrate to the West. Instead of the American diplomat he 
     expected to meet, a disguised KGB agent entrapped him and he 
     was prosecuted on treason charges. His sentence reduced under 
     amnesty, Ketenchiyev is due to be released January 21, 1990.
       Ketenchiyev told us of terrible conditions and various 
     punishment methods in Perm 35, including the well-documented 
     use of cold in punishment cells. He particularly noted the 
     lack of medical care in the camp. Responding to prisoners' 
     formal complaints about the extreme cold, camp doctors 
     declared the temperature in punishment cells to be 
     sufficiently warm.
       Leonid Lubman, an economist and electronics engineer, was 
     arrested August 29, 1977, charged with ``treason,'' and 
     sentenced to 13 years strict regimen labor camp. He is 
     scheduled to be released on August 29, 1990. Lubman compiled 
     a manuscript providing 30 profiles of corrupt officials and 
     attempted to send it abroad.
       Lubman may have become mentally disturbed in labor camp and 
     suffers from chronic headaches the stomach ailments. He 
     looked well over his 50 years and spoke much slower than the 
     others we met. He said the authorities have an interest in 
     not releasing him because he has learned the methods of his 
     incarcerators. He described some sort of torture, which 
     sounded like electrical shock and exposure to infrared waves. 
     He said he was punished after the December 1988 visit by 
     Rosenthal to Perm 35.

                      Resolving the Perm 35 Cases

       Many of the acts committed by those in Perm 35 would not 
     have been considered crimes under Gorbachev. Although the 
     Soviets frequently contend these prisoners are criminals, 
     Soviet officials have repeatedly declined to open their 
     files. They refused to open the files to us, although the 
     U.S. State Department has provided court records and case 
     files to the Soviets on disputed U.S. cases. The exception 
     was a brief look at Kazachkov's file when Procuracy official 
     Alexander Korshunov sought to refute charges of punishment 
     made by Mikhail Kazachkov. When the open file revealed a 
     picture of a head-shaved Kazachkov, it was quickly snapped 
     shut.
       Prior to the signing of the Vienna Concluding Document, in 
     December 1988, Mikhail Gorbachev declared at the United 
     Nations that there are no longer any persons in prison 
     ``sentenced for their political or religious convictions.''
       However, the release of remaining political prisoners was 
     made a condition for U.S. agreement in Vienna to schedule a 
     Helsinki follow-up conference in Moscow in 1991. The Vienna 
     agreement was signed in January 1989. The Soviets 
     subsequently agreed to a process of review for most of nearly 
     one hundred prisoners remaining on U.S. political prisoner 
     lists. Many of these ``disputed cases'' are the cases of 
     those we met in Perm 35.
       The prisoners who remain in Perm 35 are held under 
     basically three charges: attempting to flee the country 
     (including hijacking, in some cases); war crimes; and 
     espionage. Many languish under Article 64 of the Soviet 
     criminal code, ``treason,'' in combination with more clearcut 
     political offenses like Article 70, ``anti-Soviet agitation 
     and propaganda.''
       Soviet officials claim they hold no political prisoners 
     because all who were sentenced exclusively under one of the 
     four purely political criminal code articles (like Article 
     70, those used to prosecute free speech, peaceful assembly, 
     etc.) have been released in amnesties under Gorbachev.
       Prosecution on charges of treason for the forbidden 
     activities of the Brezhnev era no longer makes sense in 
     today's Soviet Union. Article 64 was interpreted far too 
     broadly under Soviet law and used to threaten prisoners with 
     capital punishment and to extract testimony before they have 
     even seen a lawyer. Those who landed in Perm 35 for acts of 
     violence related to hijack attempts, or other acts of 
     violence, are not political prisoners, although cruel 
     punishment should not be simply excused in their cases 
     either. It is high time, however, for review of the excessive 
     punishment meted out for nonviolent ``crimes'' that would not 
     be prosecuted today, or would be treated far less seriously.
       We conveyed to the Soviets that it was in the interests of 
     all sides for these cases not to linger beyond preparations 
     for the Vienna Follow-up Meeting at Copenhagen in 1990. 
     Should they linger until the already controversial Moscow 
     Human Rights Conference in 1991, the Soviets would face a 
     great embarrassment.
       While these prisoner's cases remain unresolved, we sensed 
     from our discussions the Soviets' desire to be cleared of the 
     charges that political prisoners remain. Therefore, we call 
     on the Soviets to reexamine these cases in view of their 
     ``new political thinking'' and release them on humanitarian 
     grounds.


                 Prospects for Legal and Penal Reforms

       To the Soviet's credit, the kind of access we were granted 
     to Perm 35 would have been unthinkable even months ago. The 
     Soviets have closed down two political labor camps in the 
     vicinity of Perm 35 for lack of need as a result of prisoner 
     amnesties. Soviet authorities say that they have removed 
     hundreds of camp guards responsible for past human rights 
     abuses. Officials of the Soviet Procuracy, as well as the new 
     Supreme Soviet legislature, have talked about penal reforms. 
     The highest ranking Soviet procurator supervising Legality in 
     Correctional Facilities, Yuri Khitrin, admitted to us that it 
     was necessary to discuss ``humanizing'' the Soviet penal 
     system.
       These statements would bode well for the prospect of 
     reform. However, the practical impact on prison and labor 
     camp conditions has thus far been minimal, and the Soviets 
     have publicly stated few commitments to improve or 
     reconstitute their gulag practices. On the other hand, the 
     Soviets have promised for more than two years to institute 
     legal reform which will decriminalize political dissent.
       We discussed legal reform with officials of the Council on 
     Religious Affairs. Deputy Minister Alexander Ivolgin 
     explained to us that they were reluctant to discuss a draft 
     of ``laws on conscience'' which we put before them--one of 
     two thus far published. Ivolgin claimed that the new law on 
     religious groups had not yet been formally drafted for 
     consideration by the Supreme Soviet. An official from CRA's 
     legal office, Tatyana Belokopitova, offered a very 
     disappointing response on the question of requiring 
     registration of religious groups. The latest proposal would 
     establish the right of ``juridical person'' (legal recourse) 
     only for religious groups who submit to registering with 
     central religious authorities. This proposal would fail to 
     resolve either the present lack of legal rights for all 
     churches or the desire of many believers not to register--it 
     would instead pit these concerns against each other.
       In a meeting with First Deputy Foreign Minister Anatoly 
     Adamishin, the question of new religious laws was side-
     stepped by referring us to the Council of Religious Affairs. 
     However, Mr. Adamishin assured us that the Supreme Soviet 
     would place a high priority on new religious laws during its 
     fall session. He was less optimistic about action on draft 
     emigration (exit/entry) legislation. In general, Adamishin 
     declared that economic and constitutional reforms would take 
     precedent over both matters. On freedom of conscience, 
     Adamishin commented, ``We used to have a problem in regards 
     to freedom of conscience, but we never had a total absence of 
     religious freedom. The freedom to perform religious rites was 
     always allowed, so we are not starting from scratch.''
       Regarding penal reforms, there appears to be a much tougher 
     hill to climb. We met with a panel of procurators and 
     investigators from the All-Union Procuracy and Ministry of 
     Internal Affairs who denied our references to the arduous 
     conditions in prisons and labor camps. We encountered a 
     Soviet willingness to discuss ``rule of law'' questions, even 
     while some observations caused a degree of discomfort: 
     prosecutors bring charges only with sufficient evidence for a 
     presumption of guilt; they are held responsible for 
     ``losing'' cases; and all trial attorneys are answerable to 
     the Procurator General.
       We raised the issue of establishing due process for charges 
     brought while prisoners are serving sentences--no sooner had 
     we left than Milkhail Kazachkov was victimized for such 
     pitfalls in the Soviet system. We identified those issues 
     raised by former prisoners: cruel punishments, 
     malnourishment, inadequate medical care, severe 
     restrictions on family visits. We were assured that draft 
     legislation excludes provisions which disallowed family 
     visits in the past. In addition, we were told that the 
     Procuracy now shares the responsibility for supervision of 
     correctional facilities with public commissions under the 
     new Supreme Soviet which guarantee ``law, legality and 
     order.''
       The Soviets indicated openness to future visits to prisons 
     and labor camps by official and non-official groups. Mr. 
     Khitrin offered agreement in principle to a follow-up visit 
     by Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Michael 
     Quinlan, and Chairman of Prison Fellowship International, Mr. 
     Charles Colson. We mentioned that groups such as Amnesty 
     International, Helsinki Watch and the International Red Cross 
     should be permitted access to prisoners in prisons and labor 
     camps to monitor and report on conditions. We advocated on 
     behalf of independent Soviet monitors who wish to have access 
     to correctional facilities.
       Finally, we received assurance that prisoners could have 
     Bibles and other religious literature and that clergy would 
     be allowed to visit. Both have been forbidden in law and 
     practice in the past. Khitrin told us that a decision had 
     been made that from now on ``all correctional labor colonies 
     will have Bibles in necessary quantities and permit ministers 
     of faith to visit.'' We urged the Soviets to put such 
     commitments into practice by granting requests to visit 
     prisons and camps.


                     follow-up and recommendations

                      Release of Perm 35 Prisoners

       We have an obligation to work for the immediate release of 
     all remaining Perm prisoners on humanitarian grounds. The 
     Soviets are obligated to release all political prisoners in 
     compliance with their commitments under the Helsinki Final 
     Act and Vienna Concluding Document. In addition, one criteria 
     for agreeing to the Moscow Human Rights Conference was the 
     release of all political prisoners. While Soviet authorities 
     have raised questions in connection with many of these cases, 
     we as members of the Helsinki Commission have argued that the 
     burden of proof is on the Soviets to prove the individuals in 
     question are criminals. We have initiated or recommended the 
     following action on behalf of remaining prisoners, including 
     those in Perm 35:
       (1) We have publicly called on the Soviets to release all 
     those in Perm 35 convicted for nonviolent acts. We believe 
     that in view of the excessive and cruel punishment these 
     prisoners have suffered, a positive Soviet response would 
     signal a truly humanitarian gesture.
       (2) We have written Secretary of State James Baker to urge 
     him to continue the practice of raising individual cases at 
     the highest levels in U.S.-Soviet dialogue.
       (3) We have discussed Soviet reforms and the status of 
     prisoners with Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence 
     Eagleburger, urging that human rights remain a top priority 
     in U.S.-Soviet relations. While Soviet human rights 
     improvements have occurred, we should continue identifying 
     problems that persist and pressing our concerns while the 
     Soviets seem willing to discuss and respond to them.
       (4) We have urged human rights groups to advocate the 
     immediate release of political prisoners.
       (5) We urge concerned Westerners to reinvigorate campaigns 
     on behalf of these prisoners, including letter-writing to 
     Soviet officials, camp authorities and to the prisoners 
     themselves.

                    Advancing Glasnost to the Gulag

       The Soviets should begin a process of opening up prisons 
     and labor camps to interested individuals and human rights 
     groups. Only by following our inspection visit by 
     permitting further visits will the Soviets make progress 
     in erasing the Stalinist stigma of the gulag.
       (1) We have urged Westerners and human rights organizations 
     to request to visit prisons and labor camps and meet with 
     prisoners in order to report on conditions.
       (2) We have urged members of the media, particularly the 
     Moscow press corps, to make visits and report on prisons and 
     labor camps. Since our visit, a few members of the media have 
     been granted access to camps.
       (3) We have helped to secure official Soviet approval for 
     the visit of Bureau of Prisons Director, Michael Quinlin, and 
     Prison Fellowship international chairman, Charles Colson, to 
     visit several prisons and labor camps in the USSR and discuss 
     reforms and ways to reduce crime and recidivism in that 
     country.
       (4) We have urged that Western leaders and human rights 
     groups advocate on behalf of Soviet citizens who wish to 
     visit prisons and labor camps, including clergy to perform 
     religious rites or offer pastoral counsel.
       (5) We have raised these concerns in congressional 
     hearings, and support Helsinki Commission hearing to focus on 
     conditions in the Soviet gulag.

                                Reforms

       (1) We have shared our findings on the progress of legal 
     reforms--including ``freedom of conscience,'' freedom of 
     emigration, and criminal code revisions--with prominent non-
     government organizations and urge their continued vigilance 
     in encouraging further institutionalization of basic freedoms 
     and that such laws be consistent with international law and 
     with CSCE commitments.
       (2) We have raised concerns about Soviet legal reforms in 
     recent hearings sponsored by the Congressional Human Rights 
     Caucus and, in the past, in CSCE hearings.
       (3) We have expressed our support to Soviet and American 
     officials for programs developed in a human rights framework 
     to promote Soviet progress on ``rule of law'' issues and in 
     other areas where U.S. expertise is helpful and welcomed by 
     the Soviets.


                        prisoners met at perm 35

       Following is the list of prisoners (not all of them are 
     necessarily political prisoners) who spoke with Reps. Wolf 
     and Smith at Perm Labor Camp 35 in August 1989. For more 
     information on these prisoners and their cases, please 
     contact Helsinki Commission (U.S. Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, House Annex 2, Room 237, Washington, 
     D.C. 20515).
       Mailing address for prisoners (Moscow post office box): 
     SSSR, RSFSR, S. Moskva uchr.5110/VS, Last name, First 
     initial.
       Aleksandr Goldovich, Bogdan Klimchak, Viktor Makarov, 
     Aleksandr Rasskazov, Valery Smirnov, Igor Mogil'nikov, 
     Aleksandr Udachin, Maksim Ivanov, Vadim Arenberg, Akhmet 
     Kolpakbayev, Igor Fedotkin, and Viktor Olinsnevich.
       Ruslan Ketenchiyev, Lenoid Lubman, Nikolay Nukradze, 
     Mikhailov Kazachkov, Oleg Mikhaylov, Yuriy Pavlov, Arnol'd 
     Anderson, Vyacheslav Cherepanov, Vladimir Potashov, Anatoliy 
     Filatov, Vladimir Tishchenkov, and Unidentified Central 
     Asian.
       Acknowledgment: We wish to thank Richard Stephenson, Soviet 
     Desk Officer at the State Department, who accompanied us on 
     the trip to Perm 35, providing translation and other 
     assistance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inquire further of the gentleman 
concerning his unanimous-consent request. Does it apply to an amendment 
that would be otherwise in order under the rules of the House, or is 
the gentleman asking for any kind of a waiver of the rules?
  Mr. HOYER. My belief is that it would be difficult to draft an 
amendment that would not be subject to a point of order, because it 
would have to be legislation on an appropriation bill which, of course, 
is the problem the gentleman now has.
  It would be subject to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. So the gentleman's unanimous-consent request to permit 
him to offer an amendment on the subject of security checks at the 
White House, prior to the motion to rise and report, if the Chair 
understands it correctly, also includes the request that the amendment 
in question be in order notwithstanding, in other words, to waive a 
possible point of order under clause 2, rule XXI?
  Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not intend to object at this time, but I would like to reserve that, if 
you and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] work this out.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Further reserving the right to object, I am happy to 
yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I intend to discuss it with him as well. I 
know the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is a very conscientious 
member of our committee. He feels very strongly about this, and I would 
like to see if there is a possibility of working out something between 
now and when we finish this bill. If we can, I would like to 
accommodate the gentleman. His objective is a good one.
  I do not know whether the ways and means of getting there are 
agreeable, which is why I am offering it. I think the gentleman knows I 
will deal with him in good faith and see if we can resolve this issue. 
I will discuss it also with the Ranking Member.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Further reserving the right to object, I was going to 
suggest: Would you want to withdraw it now and discuss it later?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's unanimous-consent request is pending, 
and the gentleman reserves the right to object.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, 
do you want to withdraw your unanimous-consent request, let us discuss 
it, and then you can make the request later?
  Mr. HOYER. No. If we get out of this title, the gentleman is 
concerned about losing the right to offer it.
  Mr. WOLF. Right.
  Mr. HOYER. It would be relevant to this title, and that is why I ask 
for unanimous consent to propose it at the end of the bill even though 
it will not be in order. If we can agree, I want to accommodate the 
gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. I think that is very fair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] has the floor 
under his reservation of objection.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Further reserving the right to object, I appreciate 
what the Chair is trying to do to accommodate the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. If we can work this all out, I think we can get to 
some conclusion here.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

             Administrative Conference of the United States


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Conference of 
     the United States, established by the Administrative 
     Conference Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 571 et seq.), including 
     not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, $1,800,000.


                    amendment offered by mr. istook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook: Page 28, strike lines 8 
     through 14.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It zero 
funds the Administrative Conference of the United States. This 
particular agency last year, under the appropriations that originally 
came through this House, would have been zero funded. In fact, in the 
report from the subcommittee in last year's bill, it was written, ``The 
committee recommends the elimination of appropriation for a reduction 
of $2,314,000. The committee believes that this agency has fully 
accomplished its mission.'' That was the report of a year ago.
  However, before the bill was finally completed, funding was restored 
for this particular agency. In our subcommittee hearings, the head of 
this agency testified to our subcommittee that if we were not going to 
restore funding at the level which they had requested, which was $2.6 
million, then we might as well zero fund the agency and not fund them 
at all.
  The committee, the subcommittee, put in this bill the level of $1.8 
million, though beneath the level the Administrative Conference said 
was necessary for them to operate.
  I believe a proper decision of this body ought to be to either fund 
the agency at a level to operate, or defund the agency entirely. This 
particular agency has as its mission an advisory role, essentially, to 
give advice to other Federal agencies, boards, and commissions on 
crafting regulations. It is thus duplicating a function that is 
contained within almost every department, commission, or board in the 
U.S. Government. There are multiple sources of expertise regarding the 
crafting and drafting and preparation of Federal regulations without an 
agency that has a specific task to zero in upon that.
  As such, I believe this is, as we said last year, an agency that 
really does not have a mission. It is a duplicative mission.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk about eliminating 
needless boards and agencies and the reinvention of Government, 
proposals to make a Government that works better and costs less. We 
talk about reducing the size of Government. We talk about eliminating 
employees. We talk about eliminating spending. This is a very simple 
opportunity to do it on a small amount of money compared to the overall 
Federal budget, $1.8 million. It is not, however, a small amount of 
money to most taxpayers in the United States. I would submit that if we 
have difficulty taking an agency such as this and eliminating its 
funding, being a duplicative agency, then how are we going to make 
tougher decisions that involve much larger sums of money?
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Members join me in adopting this 
amendment to zero fund the Administrative Conference and provide that 
money--it cold go wherever else we might wish it because, after all, 
Mr. Chairman, we do not have to spend it at all.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this amendment is 
the latest move that stems from the anger of a series of administrative 
law judges who were offended by the fact that the Administrative 
Conference of the United States made recommendations with regard to 
their procedures and the way they operated that offended a number of 
those administrative law judges. They came forward beginning about a 
year ago and made an attempt, fairly successfully, to eliminate this 
agency. Unfortunately, the agency does exactly what I would assume the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and others have as goals, and 
that is it is an advisory agency that has a very small budget of $1.8 
million that is focused on recommending on a regular basis to our 
entire Government and its various agencies ways in which we can improve 
the efficiency with which their decisions are made, vis-a-vis each 
other, vis-a-vis citizens, and vis-a-vis business. It is an effort to 
improve the fairness and efficiency of the administrative process and 
to make nonpartisan, nonideological recommendations with regard to 
achieving the goals of the various agencies.
  Considering the extremely low budget, it is a very good investment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law 
and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary. We held a 
hearing on this agency in April. No witness appeared this year in 
opposition to the continuation of the agency. In fact, the hearing 
indicated that the Conference has done a good job in carrying out its 
mission to make recommendations for improving these various areas.
  I also point out that the Vice President, as head of the National 
Performance Review, specifically asked that this agency continue in 
order that it might continue to play the role it has played with regard 
to the National Performance Review with regard to promoting means of 
alternative dispute resolution, negotiated rulemaking, streamlining of 
the regulatory process, and coordination of agency legal counsel 
offices.
  This is a necessary function.
  I realize that there are many Members here who would like to comb 
through the budget and find an agency which they can nail and then 
claim that they have, when they go home, they can claim they killed an 
agency. There are probably some agencies like that that deserve it. But 
this is not one of them.
  The budget of this agency is $1.8 million. It has been reduced from 
$2.6 million asked for by the White House. That is as it should be. We 
support that in the Judiciary Committee, and that is what the 
Subcommittee on Appropriations is recommending today.
  But for goodness sakes, do not kill an agency that is doing a good 
job, moving us in the direction of greater efficiency, helping this 
Government run and to serve the public as well as respond to the needs 
of the business community when they come before these agencies, in a 
way that makes sense rather than continuing in ways that are 
inefficient.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment of my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], to eliminate the 
Administrative Conference of the United States. I think this is a 
legitimate debate we are having over this particular council and 
another one that we are going to talk about a bit later, which gives 
people an opportunity to come forth and really show the justification 
of why we should continue spending tax dollars on various agencies. Our 
former colleague and former Secretary of Labor, Lynn Martin, once made 
a comment that she did not believe in reincarnation but if she did, she 
would like to come back to Earth as a Federal program because that is 
the only thing that she knew that had eternal life. And I think there 
is maybe a lot more fact than fiction in that particular comment.
  I have had a lot of my good friends, a lot of my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle who have let me know that they support the Conference 
and support it very strongly. But I believe we have got to find some 
place to start making some tough choices, and I do not see so far in 
the debate we have had, evidence that this particular group has 
contributed to the economy of this country to such an extent that they 
therefore should continue on.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a relatively small amount of money, 
obviously, but we have got to start saving somewhere. I would like to 
applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Istook's amendment and urge 
everyone to support it. I think it is time we can show the taxpayers 
that once an agency is created, it does not have eternal life.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman's statement, that we ought 
to certainly find anywhere we can to cut the budget. But when you talk 
about $1.8 million, an agency that the Vice President has asked be 
continued in order that it might play the role that it has been playing 
with the National Performance Review, that seems to be a curious place 
to start.
  Is the gentleman [Mr. Lightfoot] in possession of any studies or any 
authoritative opinions that indicate that the Conference should be 
abolished? I am not aware of any.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. We have had a series of hearings on it, and from those 
hearings I was not particularly convinced that they justify the 
continuance or the cost of the agency.
  Mr. BRYANT. We held hearings also, a hearing in April, and there was 
not a single witness who came forward in opposition to the continuation 
of this agency. And of course we have a specific request from the Vice 
President that this agency continue.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Obviously, we 
do not always control the witness lists, as well. Again, I think it is 
a legitimate debate. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is very much 
in favor of it. Obviously, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and 
I and others have a different opinion. That is what we are here for.
  I guess we would probably vote on this eventually.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen of the House, it would be 
difficult for me to summon up a great deal of passion opposing this 
amendment in light of the fact that I supported zero funding this 
agency last year.
  Having said that, let me oppose the gentleman's amendment and let me 
tell you why.
  First of all, in the interim we have had the Vice President's report 
on reinventing government. The gentleman who chairs the subcommittee is 
absolutely correct. The Vice President specifically pointed out that he 
believed this agency could play a significant role in reinventing 
Government. As a result, it is obvious that the administration, this 
administration, has focused on this small, important, agency.

                              {time}  1630

  Second, Mr. Chairman, after we zero funded this agency in our bill, I 
received a number of phone calls, but two in particular that I will 
reference.
  The first call I received was from Boyden Gray. Many of my colleagues 
will recall Boyden Gray as counsel to the White House under George 
Bush. Now, Mr. Gray and I have worked very closely together, not always 
agreeing, on the Americans With Disabilities Act, but I have a great 
deal of respect for his legal competence and for his views. He urged, 
in the strongest possible terms, the continuation of this agency 
because he believed that it was a very important asset to the 
administrative processes of the government and that in fact, as the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has said, it provided a very useful 
oversight and advisory role with respect to the administrative process. 
He further stated that it was a forum in which many, many very able 
people from the private sector could work, which was pro bono work, and 
in fact we, as a Federal Government, obtained a great deal of benefit 
from that work.
  The second telephone call I received, shortly after this, was from 
another gentleman who has been in the papers recently, the former 
director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Miller. Jim 
Miller, as my colleagues know, recently ran for the United States 
Senate in Virginia. Jim Miller supported all that Mr. Boyden Gray had 
told me, and he indicated he felt, as the former director of the OMB, 
that this little agency performed a very important, cost effective 
service for the Government and for the public, and he urged me at that 
time to fund it.
  Now we came to the floor. We zero funded it. We did not add it back 
on the floor. We did go to conference. The Senate included it. I 
recounted to my colleagues on the Committee the opinions of Mr. Gray 
and Mr. Miller. Those opinions have now been, of course, supported by 
and reinforced by Vice President Gore.
  In light of that, Mr. Chairman, our committee agreed to fund at the 
1994 level, which was a reduction from the 1995 request.
  I would also tell the Members of the House that Sally Katzen, who is 
with the Office of Management and Budget, and, because there was a 
vacancy in the directorship, she represented the agency at our budget 
hearing and represented very strongly that it was OMB's view that this 
agency performs a very important function.
  For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would not support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the other 
Members regarding this. I would like to reassure my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas, that the origin of this particular amendment is 
not from any angry administrative law judges or angry anyone else that 
has any sort of ax to grind against this agency. Whoever those persons 
may be, I have had no communication with them.
  However, Mr. Chairman, we have had, as we have mentioned, hearings 
last year and this year. I would mention that as far as supporting the 
zero funding of this agency, it was something which I saw in the 
subcommittee and, thereafter, last year, even though at that time the 
particular head of the agency happened to be a constituent of mine, 
happened to be a fellow attorney, a fellow Republican, a fellow 
Oklahoman, and his arguments, I have to say, did not dissuade me 
either. Certainly people who are an alumnus of a particular agency 
often have an attachment to it. We are all familiar with that process. 
However the expertise that people have, whether they be part of the 
handful of employees of this agency, or whether they be persons 
otherwise employed, that provide pro bono assistance to this agency, 
that expertise remains available without having to have a special 
Federal group for it. We have hundreds of Federal workers through HUD, 
through EEOC, through OSHA, EPA, HHS, the list goes on, who work with 
these regulations, who have this expertise, who have the ability to 
share this information and who coordinate their efforts on a constant 
and consistent basis without having to hire additional people just to 
do this under the name of the administrative conference.
  If we are serious about trying to eliminate 252,000 Federal workers, 
then I think we have to be serious about taking a look at an agency 
that has less than 25. That is less than one ten-thousandth of the jobs 
we need to do, so I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, 
and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for having 
yielded this time to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he will 
vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the Committee 
appears.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.

                              {time}  1646


                          quorum call vacated

  The CHAIRMAN. One hundred Members have responded. A quorum of the 
Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, 
proceedings under the call shall be considered as vacated.
  The Committee will resume its business.
  Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] insist on his demand for a 
recorded vote?
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The demand is withdrawn, and the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is agreed to.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
     Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provision of the 
     Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Act of 
     1959, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4271-79); $1,000,000, and 
     additional amounts collected from the sale of publications 
     shall be credited to and used for the purposes of this 
     appropriation.


                    amendment offered by mr. istook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook: Page 28, strike lines 15 
     through 23.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is also dealing with one of 
the other small agencies within the purview of our subcommittee in this 
bill. The President, of course, previously, through executive action, 
advised the public that he was eliminating 284 commissions, and he 
invited the Congress to suggest further eliminations.
  This, again, is an agency that through action in this House last year 
we had agreed to eliminate by zero-funding it. That was on a voice vote 
during last year's appropriation bill.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. Chairman, this agency, the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations, is also one that many of us believe, and I 
believe, taxpayers would agree exists to duplicate the functions that 
are being performed in so many other areas.
  Essentially, the ACIR is an assemblage of a small number of federal, 
state and local officials that are supposedly coordinating the entirety 
of the relations between the tens of thousands of persons all around 
the country who are involved in coordinating the efforts of federal 
government, state government, county government, city government and 
other units of government.
  Of course, Mr. Chairman, we have a multitude of groups that perform 
similar functions. These vary.
  There is the National Association of Intergovernmental Relations 
Officials. There is the National Association of Counties, the National 
League of Cities, the Council of State Governments, the National 
Association of Towns and Townships, the National League of Cities, the 
United States Conference of Mayors, Democratic Governors Association, 
National Conference of Lieutenant Governors, National Conference of 
State Legislatures, National Governors Association, Republican 
Governors Association, Reason Foundation, Sunbelt Institute, National 
Association of State Park Directors, and the list, Mr. Chairman, goes 
on and on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not possible to think that a small federal agency 
that has a budget of slightly over a million dollars can somehow be the 
grease that coordinates everything that goes on between all levels of 
government in this country.
  I submit that it exists to give certain people a platform from which 
most of what they say goes unnoticed.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a small federal agency. It is a federal agency 
that we do not need. If it were abolished, it would not be noticed. The 
functions that it seeks to perform are being performed by thousands of 
other citizens already who would be surprised at the audacity to think 
that the Federal Government had organized a group to be their spokesman 
on their behalf. We have plenty of other spokesmen for federal and 
state officials. We do not need the Advisory Council on 
Intergovernmental Relations.
  I ask the House to repeat the activity which it took when this vote 
was up last year on the appropriations bill then and zero fund this by 
passing this amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman 
from Oklahoma runs through a litany of different organizations, most of 
which are private associations such as the National Governors 
Association, the Democratic Governors, the Republican Governors, the 
National Council of Legislatures, and so on. What this is is separate 
from that. They all have an axe to grind at some point. Some of them 
have more of an axe than others.
  This is an organization that I believe becomes particularly 
compelling in light of two circumstances. First of all, it is the 
national performance review in which the Federal Government is 
rethinking its role, its functions for many of its agencies and 
particularly its relationship to the States. That then leads me to the 
second major development.
  That is an interest in this Chamber in particular, and I think one 
championed by the gentleman from Oklahoma, about the need to be looking 
at States, looking at the State experience on different issues. I hear 
a lot of talk on unfunded mandates. I hear a lot of talk about other 
issues supposedly that local governments can do better than the Federal 
Government.
  Perhaps in some cases that is correct. But the ACIR is one that 
brings all of that together in a structure where we do not have a clear 
axe to grind.
   Mr. Chairman, there are a number of issues that are going to be 
before this body, and that the ACIR is dealing with. For instance, 
resolving problems caused by Federal mandates on State and local 
governments, achieving more effective and inefficient intergovernmental 
service delivery, particularly with welfare reform and health care 
reform and infrastructure investment, streamlining the Federal aid 
system, re-balancing the intergovernmental public finance system to 
produce more efficient outcomes.
  So on a bipartisan basis, the ACIR brings groups together and begins 
to hammer out suggestions that are helpful to this body. For instance, 
just this year, the ACIR, in conjunction with the Army Corps of 
Engineers, put together an infrastructure conference and discussed 
capital budgeting, which was a major topic on this floor, and it is 
moving forward on recommendations. Already the process initiated by the 
ACIR has resulted in Executive Order 12893, the Principles for Federal 
Infrastructure Investments, promulgated in January of this year.
  So at a time when people are understandably saying we need the States 
more involved, we need the local governments more involved, here is an 
institutional structure at very low cost within the Federal Government. 
I would urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
  As I say, particularly in light of the national performance review 
and an increasing role that this body would be playing in that, I think 
this is not a good time to be eliminating that source of input to this 
Congress.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of my colleague's amendment to eliminate the ACIR. 
This amendment did pass this body last year. I believe it is an 
opportunity for us to make the hard choices and face reality. Just 
because something is nice does not necessarily mean it is absolutely 
necessary for the Federal Government to continue to fund it.
  I once served on the ACIR, and I realize they do good work. But when 
it comes to counting the beans, the pot is nearly empty. And I think we 
have better places to spend the money.
  It is performing a service, I think, to let us have its clients pay 
for the Commission's services. As the gentleman from West Virginia 
pointed out, and as did the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], there 
are a number of private groups that are involved with it. Quite 
frankly, I think if they would all divvy up a little bit, they could 
continue to keep it in place but fund it from private sources rather 
than from the taxpayers.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the suggestion that private associations, 
which perform this effort at coordinating between the different levels 
of government at no cost to the taxpayers of the United States, the 
suggestion that a private association has an axe to grind is to suggest 
that only someone under the control of the Federal Government can speak 
for the States, that someone under the control of the Federal 
Government can speak for the communities, that someone under the 
control of the Federal Government can speak for the counties. I do not 
believe that to be the case.
  I do not think that the Federal Government needs to appoint a 
spokesman on behalf of every water district or school board or county 
commissioner's group or city council or town board or State assembly or 
legislature in the country. They appoint their own spokesman. They send 
us delegates. They even have lobbyists that they hire.
  They have associations. They have people that are coming up here 
constantly. Most Federal agencies already have an office of 
intergovernmental relations.
  We have private groups that come here to petition the Federal 
Government for redress of grievances.

                              {time}  1700

  They do not need to be told that we are going to decide who speaks 
for us. They can make their own decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that most Members of this body have 
never had occasion to seek the counsel or advice of the Advisory 
Council on Intergovernmental Relations to tell them how to deal with 
their constituents from these other units of government.
  Mr. Chairman, I myself have served in local government and State 
government and now in Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I have never, 
repeat, never, had the occasion to need the advice of ACIR, and I 
submit to the Members that most Members of this body are in the same 
group.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members have ever had to rely upon ACIR to know how 
to deal with their officials back home, then perhaps they want to vote 
for this; but if, as I believe, Members are in the majority that do not 
need it, then I suggest that Members vote for the amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the amendment to 
eliminate the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. This 
is silly. If there were no ACIR, we would have to invent one.
  Mr. Chairman, I am actually surprised that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] would go after this Commission in 
particular, since this Commission is not a commission of spokesmen, it 
is a commission of technicians whose work is to help Federal agencies, 
the Congress, the States, and the cities engage in bipartisan 
federalism. They coordinate the activities of the Federal executive, 
legislatures, State government, local government, and private parties 
to come together on issues that require the assistance of all of them 
for solution.
  Because of this unique arrangement, ACIR was the first to identify 
unfunded mandates as an emerging issue. They found it. They found it 
before anybody on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle 
found it, and the only reason they were able to find it is because, 
uniquely, they have all the parties at the table.
  They are still, by the way, the prime source for all concerned on 
this issue. I have used them on this issue, and they get more calls on 
the issue of unfunded mandates than they do on any other issue, because 
this is an issue they have patented as their own, because of the 
expertise they have developed.
  It is these tough financial and technical issues in which they have 
specialized, Mr. Chairman. I submit, Mr. Chairman, there is no other 
forum for the solution of such problems that puts everybody at the 
table: State government, local government, private sector, Federal 
agencies, Congress. Increasingly, the problems of this society are at a 
level of complexity that if you do not have them all there, then 
somebody is off the page and solutions elude us.
  Mr. Chairman, it is these finance issues which stultify this body. 
Members have heard what ACIR has done on the National Performance 
Review. Let me give the Members another example. Since we have talked 
about the ACIR only in the abstract, let me give the Members another 
example.
  Mr. Chairman, they are working now with the Army Corps of Engineers, 
as we have instructed them, meeting cooperatively with Federal, State, 
local, and private officials to help develop a Federal infrastructure 
strategy. If they were not doing it, I defy Members to tell me which 
among the existing agencies has the range and scope to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, these people do not depend exclusively on us for 
funding. They have, in fact, gone out and found funding from other 
sources. Forty-eight States voluntarily give them money. Forty-eight 
States that do not have to give them money, help to support them. If 
you are a State in this country today, you do not give somebody money 
unless you are getting something in return.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a small investment, a $1 million investment, 
that has already brought us many millions more in return. Mr. Chairman, 
this is a cheap shot. Leave these folks in the budget.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise also in opposition to this amendment cutting 
funds for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. It is 
really the last forum in which, Federal, State, and local elected 
officials, as well as the technicians that the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] mentioned, meet on a very regular 
basis to consider issues which are critical to the smooth operation of 
our Federal system.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact that Members may not have had occasion to 
personally deal with the members of the Commission, or have access to 
their work, does not mean that the work that they are doing is 
inconsequential. It is very consequential, and it has had enormous 
impact over the years in straightening out the very complex 
relationships that exist between the various levels of government.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are going to find that the decisionmaking 
process has been very definitely aided throughout the years by this 
little-known, very lightly funded organization.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it has been pointed out here that the 
Commission has been given a charge to deal with the emerging issue of 
unfunded mandates. Until this issue became a national issue, Congress 
displayed an unfortunate lack of interest in intergovernmental issues, 
and in the Commission's work in particular.
  Those who have paid attention know that it was ACIR which first 
identified the issue of unfunded mandates, and that was 20 years ago, 
before it ever emerged on the radar screen in this body or, indeed, 
elsewhere. For those engaged in the debate over unfunded mandates, ACIR 
is one of the few sources of objective, historical information on what 
has become a very unfortunate trend which costs States and localities 
billions of dollars and promises to cost billions more.
  Eliminating ACIR this year, in this year when this is finally coming 
to the fore as a critical issue, would be, I think, a disaster, because 
that is the one agency that really has an historical perspective, has 
been gathering data, has been giving thought and consideration to this 
issue for a long period of time. Their advice, their counsel, their 
recommendations are going to be invaluable as we move to consider this 
issue.
  ACIR is working to answer some of the difficult questions on 
mandates, questions which have vexed us from the start: For example, 
how do you define a mandate? What is an unfunded mandate? We need them 
to complete this very important project. It is an agency that is 
focused, it has a clear mandate to do this, and I think, Mr. Chairman, 
we would be absolutely ridiculous if we were to unfund this project or 
this Commission at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just remind my colleagues that the Commission 
this year is funded at one one-thousandth of the cost of the unfunded 
mandates on States and localities, and that is not, it seems to me, an 
unreasonable price to pay. Considering what we are asking States and 
local governments to pay, this is a minuscule amount to try and 
straighten out this incredible thicket.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that a number of the groups that 
conceivably or purportedly could pick up the slack, National 
Association of Counties, National League of Cities, National Government 
Association, it was suggested these groups could take up the burden 
which the ACIR is now carrying.
  The point is, Mr. Chairman, all of these organizations support the 
ACIR. They are solidly behind the ACIR, and were very concerned a year 
ago when we were proposing to eliminate the ACIR. They must feel that 
this has utility, that it has merit and value. Mr. Chairman, I would 
urge in the strongest possible way that this amendment be defeated.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments that 
were made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], as well as 
the gentlewoman from District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. They pointed 
out some of the principal reasons why the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations exists and why it must be maintained.
  Mr. Chairman, when we look back over recent history in terms of 
intergovernmental relations, we will find that the ACIR has in fact has 
been a persuasive voice and had a significant influence on some of the 
policies we have adopted here in the Congress. They do not get any 
credit for it, it is not a particularly visible organization, but they 
have a tremendous amount of credibility and professionalism, as well as 
objectivity and bipartisanship. That is what guides the commission.
  Mr. Chairman, as we all know, during the 1960's and 1970's there was 
an attitude on the part of the Federal Government, the Feds could do 
almost everything better, more equitably, we were more progressive and 
so on. We gradually assumed more and more responsibility from States 
and localities.
  Whether the accusations that were leveled at States and localities 
were true or not, they are no longer true today. One of our principal 
objectives has got to be to devolve some of those responsibilities now 
that we have taken on at the Federal level, give them back to States 
and localities where States and localities can implement them in a 
fair, responsible, particularly fiscally responsible way, and in a way 
that is consistent with the priorities of local communities. That is 
what the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is focusing 
on today.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. Chairman, they were a principal consultant to the National 
Performance Review. In fact, they were an integral part of that effort 
to consolidate Federal programs, to devolve some of the Federal 
responsibility, to beef up the capacity of States and localities to 
carry out programs in a way that best meets the priorities of the 
citizens within communities who pay the money, who are most affected by 
the quality of schools, of public safety and the like.
  They made these recommendations, they largely result in the National 
Performance Review. It is now up to us to act on those National 
Performance Review recommendations. One aspect of that is going to be 
the issue of unfunded Federal mandates as that is integral to the role 
of the Federal Government versus States and localities.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot pass the kind of legislation that addresses 
the problems that we know need to be addressed in terms of all the 
mandates that are being put upon States and localities without the 
money accompanying them to meet those mandates. What will be the effect 
if we go ahead and pass an unfunded mandate bill that says there will 
be no more Federal mandates unless they are fully funded? What will be 
the impact on the regulatory bodies, on the environment, on public 
works, on many other social programs that people are dependent upon? We 
do not have adequate information. We need to acquire that kind of 
information. That is exactly what ACIR is doing today. They are doing 
that objective, bipartisan analysis of what role can States and 
localities assume that the Federal Government is now doing and perhaps 
not doing as efficiently as it could.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know what their recommendations are going to 
be, because they are objective. They do not represent any particular 
perspective. They are not funded by the States, they are not funded by 
localities, they are not funded by the Federal Government exclusively 
or by the private sector. As the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton], said, if there was not an Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations, we would have to create one, create one 
that would give us the kind of objective perspective that the ACIR 
gives us.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize that the ACIR 
traditionally was funded at about $2.6 million, we have cut it to 
almost a third of the funding that it is used to having available, and 
yet it has not cut back on the scope of its activities. This is a very 
important organization. If we cut this out, I promise one day we are 
going to be on the floor trying to create it again. It has been in 
existence for 35 years, the people who work with it are the best 
testament to its importance, to its objectivity and to its 
professionalism. I would strongly urge my colleagues to maintain the 
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. For the paltry sum 
of $1 million, it sure gives us advice that is worth far more than the 
amount of money it costs us.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with regret to oppose the amendment, and I say 
``with regret'' because I think the entire house should commend a 
Member who is willing to go through the budget item by item by item and 
to propose those expenditures which in the Member's opinion we can 
eliminate. I personally supported the previous amendment which passed 
the committee sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, though, because 
I think the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has been 
a bit mischaracterized. It has been characterized as do we really need 
as Members of Congress, for example, to call them to ask their advice 
on how to deal with our counterparts in State and local government. 
That is not really, of course, the function of the Commission.
  The Commission, by being constituted with commissioners from the 
Federal level of Government, the State level of government and from 
local governments attempts to be a forum to examine and discuss 
policies and to try to resolve the problems that exist, now perhaps in 
a more complicated fashion than ever, between the different levels of 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, as several speakers have already indicated, the prime 
subject which the Commission is studying now is unfunded mandates. If 
the Commission can, through its role of processing information, come up 
with even part of the solution to that problem, a problem that has been 
complained about on the House floor as well as by our counterparts in 
State and local government, I think it is an expenditure well-made. 
Therefore, I urge that we preserve the Commission and reject the 
amendment.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook] to eliminate funding for the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations. I commend him for his efforts to cut 
unnecessary fat out of a budget which is in excess of $1 trillion but 
at this time I think he is looking in the wrong place. He can be penny-
wise and pound-foolish in this particular item.
  The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations was 
established to ensure coordination between the different levels of 
Government. It is uniquely qualified to provide us with the expertise 
to give technical assistance on current issues at every level of 
Government, from here in the Congress to the most local level of 
government. As a former member of the municipal council of the city of 
Newark, NJ, a member of the county commission, the Essex County NJ 
Board of Chosen Freeholders, and a NJ State commissioner of the 
hospital rate setting commission, I realize the importance of 
coordination between the various levels of government and the 
interdependence of one level to the other.
  The Commission has garnered an impressive body of research on 
intergovernmental issues and has convened regularly to develop 
consensus on issues important at every level of government.
  It is easy for us here in the Congress to become removed from issues 
that affect the very people who elected us here and to vote on them 
without having the foggiest idea as to how they will impact the local 
governments and the communities that they serve. The Advisory 
Commission is an invaluable resource at providing a holistic picture of 
the issues before us.
  Most of my colleagues are very concerned about the issue of unfunded 
mandates. This organization is a prime source of information for 
everyone involved in this very important debate.
  I was pleased when my colleagues accepted my proposal to have the 
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations take the lead in 
overseeing the implementation of the recommendations and principles set 
out in Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, his plan for 
reinventing government.
  The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, under the 
leadership of the newly appointed chairman, William F. Winter, the 
former Governor of Mississippi, is enjoying a new surge of energy. 
President Clinton attended the reorganizational meeting last year to 
lend his interest and support of our task. The ACIR has adopted an 
ambitious new agenda to take on the challenges facing our Nation today. 
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment so that it 
may continue its work.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment as I did 
last year. This has been funded by the previous two administrations and 
this Administration as expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], and by 
others on our side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity in the early 1970's to work with 
the ACIR. I believe, as has been stated, they are a valuable resource 
for the Federal, State, and local governments. I think it would be, as 
someone has said, penny wise and pound-foolish to eliminate this 
agency.
  Mr. Chairman, $1 million is a significant sum of money. But when we 
divide that between 50 States, thousands of municipalities and the 
Federal Government, it becomes a very small sum as it relates to each 
and every instrument of Government which it serves. As a result, I 
think it is a wise investment, and I would hope very much that the body 
would concur with two previous Administrations and this Administration 
that this organization is worthwhile and provides a service that will 
save the Government money and will, in fact, help the Government divide 
responsibilities between its various levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also observe in closing, the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Payne], mentioned that Gov. William Winter, the former 
Governor of the State of Mississippi, now heads this organization. The 
Governor testified before our committee. I share the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Payne's view that Mr. Winter is reinvigorating the Advisory 
Committee's work, I believe we will find it even more effective than it 
has been in the past, and I urge the House to reject this amendment 
which eliminates it as an active agency of our Government.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious when occasionally we strike a 
nerve when we have people fearful that the Federal Government is going 
to eliminate a program that spends $1 million. Supposedly the program 
exists to do all the coordination, the communication, grease the 
wheels, if you will, between, and somebody gave me this figure, 86,000 
units of State and local and Federal Government in this country.

                              {time}  1720

  And we expect that agency that we fund for a million dollars is going 
to be handling that coordination? If so, Mr. Chairman, I submit we 
ought to change that to the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Magic 
rather than Intergovernmental Relations.
  There is an encyclopedia that is published. This is just the cover 
page of the Encyclopedia of Governmental Advisory Organizations, the 
1994-1995 edition. It is a reference guide to over 6,500, I repeat 
those numbers, a guide to over 6,500 permanent, continuing, and ad hoc 
U.S. Presidential advisory committees, congressional advisory 
committees, public advisory committees, interagency committees, and 
other government-related boards, panels, task forces, commissions, 
conferences, and other similar bodies serving in a consultative, 
coordinating, advisory, research, or investigative capacity.
  We have 6,500 of these around this country, and people here are 
saying we cannot do without one to cut Federal spending by $1 million.
  Now, I realize in the Government of the United States and in our 
budget, $1 million is the Federal equivalent of picking up a penny off 
the sidewalk. Mr. Chairman, I tried to teach my kids pick up those 
pennies. They are going to add up. Benjamin Franklin taught us a penny 
saved is a penny earned. But, you know it is still not a penny, it is 
still a million dollars. It is still duplicating what is done in almost 
every Federal agency that we have.
  They have their own intergovernmental relations office. We are 
constantly petitioned and visited by people representing the State and 
local and area governments, and we have 6,500 advisory groups that seem 
to think that they can advise us.
  Why do we say that the Federal Government has to be in charge to have 
just one more to pile on top of all the other Federal spending to pile 
on top of all the other national debt? I do not think anybody here 
depends upon the ACIR to make their decisions, and it is the height of 
audacity for someone to think that this is the agency that coordinates 
the problems with unfunded mandates or the national performance review 
or anything else. That is ridiculous.
  It is just another group that has been sucked in to play minor roles 
in almost everything, and such a minor role that it will not be missed.
  I would urge everyone, Mr. Chairman, to adopt this amendment to save 
the million dollars.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 210, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               AYES--223

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grams
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walker
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cooper
     Ford (MI)
     Reynolds
     Rostenkowski
     Sharp
     Washington

                              {time}  1744

  Messrs. SUNDQUIST, QUILLEN, and DOOLEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. POMEROY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Committee for Purchase From 
     People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled established by the 
     Act of June 23, 1971, Public Law 92-28; $1,682,000.

                      Federal Election Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended; 
     $27,106,000, of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available 
     for reception and representation expenses.


                  amendment offered by mr. livingston

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Livingston: On page 29, line 12, 
     strike ``$27,106,000'' and insert ``$23,564,000''.

  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the 1995 
appropriation for the Federal Election Commission from $27.1 million to 
$23.564 million, which represents the fiscal year 1994 level. In 1990, 
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Election Commission got $15.3 million. The 
next year it got an 11.9-percent increase. The next year after that, a 
9.7-percent increase. Following that year it got an 11.8-percent 
increase. And in 1994, which brings us to the level that I want to keep 
us at, it got a 12-percent increase.
  So, Mr. Chairman, since 1990, when the FEC level was $15 million, and 
this last year the FEC asked for almost $22 million, or a 34.9-percent 
increase. Even OMB could not swallow that; the Office of Management and 
Budget agreed to a 15-percent increase, at a level in the bill of 
roughly $27 million. Interestingly enough though, Mr. Chairman, OMB's 
request intended to provide $4 million in fenced-off money for a 
computer upgrade which would speed efficiency of the FEC.

                              {time}  1750

  The committee gave the FEC the extra $4 million, over and above the 
fiscal year 1994 levels, but did not fence off the computer money. So 
the money will be used for additional personnel and personnel expenses, 
but not for any computer upgrade. In other words, there is not going to 
be any improvement in the FEC after we spend the additional $4 million.
  We do have a 15-percent increase, and the FEC still cannot afford to 
improve their computers. And that is only one example of how the 
Federal Elections Commission has failed to prioritize their efforts 
effectively.
  There is a strong concern among candidates and political committees 
that the FEC has become a burdensome bureaucracy, which makes running 
for office and participating in the electoral process a complex and 
dangerous endeavor. The FEC has spun out so many regulations over the 
years and dragged on so many enforcement cases, and yet performed so 
few audits in House and Senate elections, that I fear what is happening 
is that the Federal Elections Commission is making criminals out of 
honest folk, while it does not effectively deter the serious offender.
  I am concerned about the FEC's decision last December to dismiss 137 
enforcement cases, showing that the FEC is not able to carry out its 
duties in a timely and efficient manner. They just wipe the troublesome 
cases off the books.
  I am reluctant to vote for extra money for this Government agency 
that is not capable of fulfilling its responsibilities. Over the last 
couple of years, I have proposed 11 amendments, at least, to the 
authorizing committee on which I serve with the distinguished chairman, 
the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Swift] but none of my amendments 
and none of the gentleman's amendments have ever seen the light of day.
  We have not changed this commission since its inception 20 years ago. 
It needs improvement, it needs to be upgraded into the modern computer 
age, and it never gets attention, because an authorization bill never 
gets passed. Hence, my need to come before the House on an 
appropriations bill and try to send a message to the Federal Elections 
Commission that they are not doing their job, and, if you are not doing 
your job, you need no more money.
  While the FEC complains about not having the resources to handle its 
workload, it has continued to promulgate such new regulations on how 
Federal candidates can spend campaign funds. It appears that the FEC is 
still actively searching for more and more activities to regulate, 
while not adequately addressing the agenda currently on its plate.
  Over regulation and inability to prioritize has tied the FEC in 
knots, while it has mystified candidates and their supporters above how 
they can exercise their first amendment right to participate in the 
electoral process.
  The FEC has only conducted 17 audits of House candidates in 9 years: 
two in 1985, two in 1986, and six in 1987; but in the years 1988, 1989, 
and 1990, zero; and in 1991, three, 1992, four, and 1993, four.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, they have taken up to 8 years to 
conduct audits of presidential campaigns, only recently finalizing some 
of the 1988 presidential audits and enforcement actions. The FEC 
dismissed 137 ongoing cases in December of 1993 because of its 
inability to keep up with the caseload, as I have noted. A truly 
wonderful example is an audit they began of a Texas Republican 
congressional committee in July 1985, and yet they didn't reach a final 
decision on that audit until July 10, 1992, some 7 years later.
  During that case, the matter was in the hands of the Commission for 
73 months, while the Texas Republican congressional committee responded 
to all the FEC requests in the short space of 11 months.
  In an unbelievable twist, after waiting 84 months to reach a 
conclusion in the case, the FEC issued an ultimatum that the case had 
to be settled within a couple of weeks, or a lawsuit would be filed 
prior to June 5, 1993, during the special election for the U.S. Senator 
from Texas. The FEC procrastinated for 84 months, and suddenly chose to 
threaten the new Senate candidate just before the election.
  That is either rank partisanship, or at the very least, ineptitude, 
and cases like it are reported by many attorneys who practice before 
the Commission. They are just some examples of the wrongs committed by 
the FEC.
  The partisanship could have something to do with the fact that the 
general counsel of the FEC just happens to have been a former employer 
of Ralph Nader. Maybe, maybe not.
  One episode clearly demonstrates the FEC's partisan bias. Last year 
the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in FEC versus The National Rifle 
Association that Congress exceeded its authority when placing its 
agents, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, on the 
Commission as nonvoting ex officio members. The Court said the makeup 
of the Commission was unconstitutional, thereby calling into question 
every single decision by the FEC since its inception.
  One would think the FEC would quickly remedy the situation and remove 
the special deputy of the ex officio members from the Federal Elections 
Commission. But the FEC decided to allow the ex officio special deputy 
to keep office space inside the Commission and to provide him with an 
ad hoc secretarial staff assistant, not to mention his $100,000-plus 
salary.
  The special deputy should not be there. He has been told by the court 
that he makes the whole process illegal, yet he is still in the 
building, and this kind of decisionmaking does not make me enthusiastic 
about supporting a 15-percent increase in the FEC's budget.
  My amendment would freeze the funding of the Federal Election 
Commission at the 1994 figure. We should not reward the FEC's poor 
performance with a 15-percent increase, and therefore I move the 
adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following chart and Wall Street Journal 
article for the Record.

                                                                               AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED BY FEC 1985-93                                                                              
                                                                                  [Non-presidential committees]                                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Type of committee                      1985            1986            1987            1988            1989            1990            1991            1992            1993     
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate candidates...............................               0               0               0               0               1               0               2               0               0
House candidates................................               2               2               6               0               0               0               3               4               4
National parties................................               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0
Other parties\1\................................               1               3               5               4               1               0               0               2               4
PAC's...........................................               1               5               1               4               0               1               0               1               2
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................               4              10              12               8               2               1               5               7              10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes minor national, state, and local party committees.                                                                                                                                  

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 14, 1994]

Congress' Representative to Election Commission Has Six-Figure Salary, 
                      Big Office and Little to Do

                           (By Rick Wartzman)

       Washington.--Douglas Patton has a great government job. He 
     has a six-figure salary, a big office, a secretary and an 
     assistant.
       Just one thing is missing: For the past few months he has 
     had relatively little to do.
       Since 1976, Mr. Patton has served as Congress's nonvoting 
     representative on the Federal Election Commission, the agency 
     that oversees the campaign-finance laws. Critics have long 
     sneered at the position, arguing that it's absurd for a group 
     that is being regulated to have a seat at the regulator's 
     table.
       Last October, the U.S. Court of Appeals here took 
     essentially the same view. It ruled that the inclusion of 
     congressional employees on the FEC violates the 
     constitutional separation of powers between the legislative 
     and executive branches of government.
       While the case is pending before the Supreme Court, Mr. 
     Patton has been unable to participate in closed-door 
     commission meeting and has been forced to turn back all 
     confidential FEC documents in his possession. That has left 
     some wondering just what he does all day for a salary that in 
     1993, according to congressional payroll records, totaled 
     $108,234.
       ``This guy is just sitting there . . . and taking up 
     space,'' charges Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana, who is the 
     ranking Republican on the House subcommittee on elections.


                        in constitutional limbo

       Only in Washington, it seems, could someone find himself in 
     Mr. Patton's predicament: stuck in constitutional limbo, 
     unable to carry out a job that is hard to justify in the 
     first place.
       Mr. Patton, who carries the title of special deputy, 
     declined to comment.
       Over the past few weeks, Mr. Patton's status has caused 
     great consternation inside the FEC. Mr. Patton's boss, Clerk-
     of-the-House Donnald Anderson, asked the FEC to allow the 
     special deputy to maintain his ninth-floor office at the 
     agency's downtown headquarters until the Supreme Court 
     resolves the matter. After some hand-wringing, the FEC's six 
     voting members--three Democrats and three Republicans--agreed 
     to do so.


                               staff cuts

       Meanwhile, some FEC officials are grumbling privately that 
     Mr. Patton gets to keep his job while the FEC is slated to be 
     squeezed by the Clinton budget released last week; under the 
     president's plan, the FEC says it would be forced to cut 33 
     staff positions.
       How Mr. Patton is earning his pay these days isn't clear. 
     Trevor Potter, the FEC chairman, notes that he hasn't seen 
     Mr. Patton sitting in the audience at any of the agency's 
     public meetings. But FEC officials say Mr. Patton sends his 
     assistant to keep an eye on things. And some figure Mr. 
     Patton can keep pretty busy fielding calls from members of 
     Congress who have questions about the election laws.
       Raymond Colley, the deputy clerk of the House, says he 
     won't discuss Mr. Patton's situation, except to suggest that 
     Mr. Patton continues to play an important liaison role at the 
     FEC. ``He's still our eyes and ears there,'' Mr. Colley says.
       Of course, to critics of the special deputy slot, that's 
     precisely the problem. Some, like Rep. Livingston, believe 
     it's unfair that because the Democrats control both the House 
     and Senate, it's the Democratic leaders who get to select two 
     special deputies, while the GOP picks none. The Senate 
     special deputy retired last September and hasn't been 
     replaced.


                           nothing but a spy

       But others think the issue is more fundamental. They 
     contend that the special deputy--no matter which party 
     appoints him--is nothing but a spy in the FEC's midst. 
     ``There is no legitimate rationale'' for the post, says Larry 
     Sabato, a professor of government at the University of 
     Virginia. With such a setup, ``this is a commission 
     guaranteed to fail.''
       The special deputy positions have been around since the 
     early days of the FEC, which was established in the aftermath 
     of Watergate. At first, the FEC had eight commissioners. Six 
     of them--two picked by the president, two by the House and 
     two by the Senate--were voting members. In addition, the 
     Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate each got 
     to act as nonvoting members of the FEC. But in 1976, the 
     Supreme Court ruled that such an arrangement violated the 
     separation-of-powers principle. So Congress rewrote the 
     rules: The president would appoint and the Senate confirm all 
     six voting members of the FEC.
       Yet despite a stern warning from Antonin Scalia--who was 
     then a senior Justice Department official and is now a 
     Supreme Court justice--that the presence of congressional 
     representatives ``perpetuates a serious constitutional 
     issue,'' they remained part of the FEC.
       ``Congress was real nervous and I guess they wanted to keep 
     an eye on the commission,'' says Rep. Al Swift, the 
     Washington Democrat who heads the House subcommittee on 
     elections. ``They're still not our favorite agency because 
     they regulate us,'' he adds. ``But that high-level of 
     paranoia has since abated into a simmering one.''
       Scott Thomas, an FEC commissioner who has been with the 
     agency since 1975, says that having the special deputies 
     around doesn't make things uncomfortable. ``I haven't really 
     seen any kind of improper influence,'' says Mr. Thomas, a 
     Democrat.
       Republican Joan Aikens, who has been an FEC commissioner 
     since the agency's creation, says that the special deputies 
     often bring added perspective to deliberations. ``When 
     questions arise on various issues, they can provide useful 
     information, ``she says, noting that Mr. Patton, for example, 
     is a director of First National Bank of Maryland/DC.


                           fowler appointment

       But such sanguine feelings haven't kept the special deputy 
     post from becoming embroiled in controversy. After he lost 
     his Senate seat last year, Georgia Democrat Wyche Fowler was 
     named a special deputy--even though the FEC had gotten 
     complaints alleging that Mr. Fowler and Paul Coverdell, his 
     Republican opponent who won the election, had received 
     excessive campaign contributions from their respective 
     national parties.
       Mr. Fowler, who has since left the FEC for a private law 
     practice, insists that his sole mission at the agency was to 
     help bring along campaign finance reform legislation. ``I'd 
     like to think I made a contribution,'' he says.
       Last fall's appeals court decision has led to its own 
     difficulties. The case involved a challenge by the National 
     Rifle Association of an FEC ruling concerning a transfer of 
     $416,000 from one branch of the NRA to the gun group's 
     political action committee. The appeals court agreed with the 
     NRA that the FEC couldn't pursue the case because of the 
     separation-of-powers problem. Now, seven other FEC rulings 
     are being challenged on the same grounds. Among them are 
     cases involving former presidential candidates Pat Robertson 
     and Lyndon LaRouche.
       As for Mr. Patton, he still has his share of defenders. 
     ``Should he be laid off until the Supreme Court case is 
     decided?'' Rep. Swift asks. ``Is that fair?'' Nonetheless, 
     the congressman recently agreed with Rep. Livingston to 
     consider abolishing the special deputies positions as part of 
     a broader restructuring of the FEC.
       In the meantime, Mr. Patton appears to be trying to fill 
     his time the best he can. ``He's here when I leave, and I 
     leave around 6 o'clock,'' says John Surina, the FEC staff 
     director. ``He seems very busy. But the assurance I can give 
     you is that he's not busy on matters he ought not be busy 
     on.''
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a body that likes, in most recent times, to 
talk a lot about reform--reform this and reform that, and reform 
something else, and be purer than the driven snow. We have had a great 
deal of discussion here just in the most recent days about the need to 
see that laws we apply to other people apply to ourselves.
  The FEC appropriation is an excellent place to find out whether we 
really mean all of that, because the Federal Elections Commission is 
essentially an agency Congress created to regulate us. Now, for all of 
that rhetoric about how we should have everything apply to us that we 
apply to others, let us look at the sorry record of what Congress has 
done with the agency that regulates it when it comes to our campaigns.
  We have starved it to death year after year after year. We have cut 
it, we have pared it back, and we have criticized it for not doing its 
job.
  Make no mistake about it, this vote on this amendment is a reform 
vote. If you are for reform, you vote ``no,'' because you cannot be for 
reform and vote to cut the guts out of the agency that is set up to 
supervise our behavior when we go out to campaign. But that is 
precisely what this amendment does.
  What the FEC has had to sustain is a series of incredibly cheap 
appropriations, beginning in the early eighties. This is not an agency 
that is now suddenly finding that it is going to have to face severe 
cuts because Congress and the administration are finally getting down 
to deal with the deficit.

                              {time}  1800

  This agency gave at the office in 1981 and has been having its 
appropriations reduced by both OMB and this Congress every year since.
  What has the agency had to do? Well, they were just criticized in the 
well because they took a great number of the cases, gave them cursory 
examination, and felt that they simply did not have the wherewithal to 
go into them, that they were not major cases in any event. And they 
dismissed them.
  They have done other things. The law has said for years that they 
need to have available to the public information on any campaign 
contribution of $200 or more. The FEC for years did not even have the 
personnel to input the information to provide it for anything below 
$500.
  If we talk about reform, one of the key reforms is that the public 
can find out what is going on. There, in fact, have been editorial 
calls and calls by public interest groups that that threshold should be 
$100, that people should know where we get any contribution for $100 or 
more.
  The question is, where do we find the people? Where do we find the 
resources? Where do we find the time so that we can, in fact, provide 
that information?
  If we want to make the case that the FEC in many instances has not 
done the job the way Congress envisioned, I think we have to plead 
guilty to that. But then Congress should also stand up and plead guilty 
to the fact that it is the cause of the FEC being incapable of 
delivering on its responsibilities in the fashion that they should.
  If they do not have the money, they cannot do it. And we have been 
cutting their appropriation for decades. So if we are going to talk 
about reform, if we are going to talk about living up to the kinds of 
things we expect others to do, we should start by living up to what we 
have set up as an agency to guide us in our campaigns and not keep 
cutting the budget so it cannot do it and then piously taking the floor 
and criticizing the agency because it has not done a good enough job.
  If I understand the remedy that is being offered for the ills at the 
FEC, caused because they do not have enough money, the remedy being 
proposed here is give them even less money.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Swift was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, the situation in which we find ourselves is 
we are talking seriously about passing a big new campaign finance 
reform law. We want to do that because we want to clean up campaigns 
even further. We want to do a better job than we have done in the past. 
But we are not going to do that on the cheap. It is going to cost 
money.
  And here we are, in the very session in which we will no doubt vote 
on that bill, we are cutting the FEC's ability to carry out even what 
it has got already.
  Now, are we for reform or are we not? If we are for reform, this vote 
is ``no.'' If we vote ``yes,'' the public can draw its own conclusions.
  We are talking about campaign reform bills and more and more we have 
the calls, as I suggested, to lower the threshold in which they have to 
keep records down to $100. And what does OMB do? It cuts their budget. 
And what does the Committee on Appropriations do? It cuts that figure. 
And what does this amendment do? It cuts that figure and then says, go 
out and do right.
  They cannot do it, and this vote, make no mistake, is about reform. 
If we are for reform and if we are willing to put our money where our 
mouths are, vote ``no.''
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWIFT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make it clear, in fact, the 
committee gave what the OMB requested, $27,106,000. I just wanted to 
make that clear.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for doing that. In the 
past, that has not always been the case. It is the case of where they 
tell OMB what they need. That gets pared. We pare it and there are 
always amendments on the floor to pare it back.
  This is an agency that started out, maybe like all agencies did, way 
back when I came here 16 years ago. Maybe it had a little fat. That fat 
was gone 15 years ago.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the 
Chairman of the authorizing committee. I happen also to serve on that 
authorizing committee with its ranking member, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. livingston].
  Clearly, I think most of us believe that if we are going to ask this 
agency to perform a task and expect it to then perform the task, then 
we need to give it the resources to do so. I agree with the remarks of 
the chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], when he says 
that we made a very substantial reform.
  The reform in campaign financing was to tell the public where money 
comes from to fund their politics and their politicians.
  Frankly, I am one of those who do not believe that the level of 
giving ought to be reduced. I am one of those who does not believe that 
PAC's, which were adopted as a reform to allow small givers to come 
together, are bad. But I do believe that the public ought to have the 
information to form a judgment on whether or not campaign giving 
affects the policies of those to whom those contributions are made.
  Let me review the bidding just a little bit on this in terms of the 
dollars. The FEC, which under statute has the right to make a budget 
request directly to the Congress, requested $31,793,000 for fiscal year 
1995. That is $4 million more than OMB gave them and $4 million more 
than the Committee was able to give them.
  This is one of the few agencies that we have approved an increase. As 
I said, we took, for the most part, the 1994 level or the 1995 request, 
whichever was lower. In this case, however, we gave an increase.
  My opinion is that the committee gave the increase that OMB suggested 
for the same reason that the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] 
enunciated. If we are going to tell the public that we believe 
disclosure is essential, then we need to give the resources to the 
agency that we have given the responsibility to oversee disclosure.
  I would urge the Members to reject this amendment.
  In addition to their present responsibilities, when we pass campaign 
finance reform, it is the FEC's opinion that it will take them an 
additional $4 million to carry out the responsibility expected of them 
in the campaign finance reform bill. So the bottom line is, the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] is right.
  If we want reform, if we want disclosure, if we want the public to 
know what we are doing, we need to give the agency the responsibility 
to make sure this happens and the resources to carry out that 
objective.
  I understand the concern of my good friend, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] with whom I not only serve on the Committee 
on House Administration but also this committee, the Committee on 
Appropriations. It is not an unfounded concern. I look forward to 
working with him in both the Committee on Appropriations and the 
authorizing committee as we try to make sure this agency operates 
effectively and fairly.
  I urge the Members to reject the amendment.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate, as we discuss what should or 
should not be done with the Federal Election Commission, to remember 
that over the years we have relied on the Office of Management and 
Budget, whether it was under the Reagan administration or the Bush 
administration or now the Clinton administration, to advise us about 
what we ought to do in expenditures for the Federal Election 
Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, this is from a letter dated March 4, 1994. The 
signature is Leon Panetta, Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget. It says this:

       To put the Commission's budget in perspective, it is worth 
     noting that, compared to most agencies, the Commission has 
     received substantial increases in recent appropriations; for 
     example, the $27.2 million in budget authority the 
     President's budget proposes for 1995 is 45 percent over the 
     1992 level of $18.8 million.

  And continuing to quote: ``About $4 million of the increase is for 
new computer capacity. Factoring out that increase''--that is, going 
from the $27.1 million, factoring out the $4 million, and therefore 
leaving $23.1 million, which is the position of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]--``does mean that the FEC 
would have a flat budget between 1994 and 1995.''

       Even so, the agency has done very well recently. The fiscal 
     year 1995 budget authority is $3.6 million over 1993, and in 
     a time when most of the government is being asked to reduce 
     staffing drastically, the Commission's full-time equivalent 
     level of 294 people proposed in the budget is 10 percent over 
     the comparable 266 full-time equivalent the Commission had in 
     1992.

  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget said that $23.1 
million is enough, and the number of employees at the FEC is enough. If 
we give them the $27.1 million, we should give it to them in increased 
computer capacity. What will they do with increased computer capacity? 
They will do exactly what the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] has 
passionately pleaded for us to do, and that is to increase the ability 
of the FEC to do the job, to check returns, to determine who gives and 
who does not give.
  What has happened in the Committee on Appropriations is the fence 
requiring that funds be spent to computerize was broken down. The FEC 
is not going to spend that $4 million for the computers that would in 
fact make it better able to do the job that the gentleman from 
Washington wanted it to. What the FEC is going to do is hire more 
people.
  Leon Panetta has already said that there are enough people in the 
$23.1 million budgets do not add more people. Breaking down the fence 
between the $4 million for computers and the $23.1 million to keep the 
funding of the FEC reasonable, according to Leon Panetta, creates a 
situation in which the FEC will add more people, and more people will 
not do a better job, along the lines that the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Swift] wants to see done.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems entirely appropriate that if we do not want to 
give the FEC the money for the computers, we should not give them more 
people. Do not take my word for it, that is what the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, Leon Panetta, said should be done. 
Leon Panetta asks Members to vote ``yes'' on the Livingston amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 197, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--231

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blackwell
     Cooper
     Fish
     Kennelly
     Neal (NC)
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Sharp
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Wolf

                              {time}  1833

  The Clerk announced the following pair on this vote:

       Mr. Cooper for, with Mrs. Kennelly against.

  Mr. RAHALL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. QUILLEN, TAUZIN, KLINK, and VOLKMER changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the distinguished chairman of the 
committee in a colloquy for two purposes, first, to thank him for his 
interest as indicated by a letter that he has written recently on the 
two-tier system that now exists in the administrative judges between 
AJ's and ALJ's, and how the chairman inquiringly wants to try to 
accomplish some conversion in the near future.
  I want the Chair to know, and I want the chairman to know, that I 
have, as he knows, introduced legislation to try to bring about that 
conversion, because I think it is in the best interests of our Federal 
employees as they seek justice in their various claims not to have to 
be bogged down in perhaps a system that is overlapping and perhaps 
self-defeating.
  So I ask the Chairman to concur with me, if he can, that this problem 
will be one that we will be facing shortly following the debate on the 
present legislation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
also thank him for focusing on this issue and bringing it to our 
attention.
  We have written, on behalf of the committee, for further information 
on this issue that the gentleman just referred to.
  We expect to get some information back before conference, and I will 
be working with the gentleman and with our Committee to address this at 
conference, if that seems to be appropriate.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the Chair, and I am satisfied with that response.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Federal Labor Relations Authority


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the 
     Federal Labor Relations Authority, pursuant to Reorganization 
     Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 
     1978, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere; $21,341,000: Provided, That public 
     members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel may be paid 
     travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence as 
     authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons employed 
     intermittently in the Government service, and compensation 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received from fees 
     charged to non-Federal participants at labor-management 
     relations conferences shall be credited to and merged with 
     this account, to be available without further 
     appropriation for the costs of carrying out these 
     conferences.

                    General Services Administration

                         Federal Buildings Fund


                 Limitations on Availability of Revenue

       For additional expenses necessary to carry out the purpose 
     of the Fund established pursuant to section 210(f) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as 
     amended (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), $366,896,000, to be deposited 
     into said Fund. The revenues and collections deposited into 
     the Fund shall be available for necessary expenses of real 
     property management and related activities not otherwise 
     provided for, including operation, maintenance, and 
     protection of Federally owned and leased buildings; rental of 
     buildings in the District of Columbia; restoration of leased 
     premises; moving governmental agencies (including space 
     adjustments and telecommunications relocation expenses) in 
     connection with the assignment, allocation and transfer of 
     space; contractual services incident to cleaning or servicing 
     buildings, and moving; repair and alteration of federally 
     owned buildings including grounds, approaches and 
     appurtenances; care and safeguarding of sites; maintenance, 
     preservation, demolition, and equipment; acquisition of 
     buildings and sites by purchase, condemnation, or as 
     otherwise authorized by law; acquisition of options to 
     purchase buildings and sites; conversion and extension of 
     Federally owned buildings; preliminary planning and design of 
     projects by contract or otherwise; construction of new 
     buildings (including equipment for such buildings); and 
     payment of principal, interest, taxes, and any other 
     obligations for public buildings acquired by installment 
     purchase and purchase contract, in the aggregate 
     amount of $4,979,106,000, of which (1) not to exceed 
     $507,990,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     construction of additional projects at locations and at 
     maximum construction improvement costs (including funds for 
     sites and expenses and associated design and construction 
     services) as follows:
       New Construction:
       Alabama:
       Montgomery, Courthouse Annex, $40,547,000
       Arizona:
       Tucson, Courthouse, $12,241,000
       California:
       Santa Ana, Courthouse, $25,193,000
       Colorado:
       Lakewood, U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory/Building, 
     $25,802,000
       Florida:
       Jacksonville, Courthouse, $4,600,000
       Orlando, Courthouse Annex, $7,724,000
       Georgia:
       Albany, Courthouse, $6,000,000
       Savannah, Courthouse Annex, $5,597,000
       Kentucky:
       Covington, Courthouse, $3,100,000
       London, Courthouse, $1,620,000
       Louisiana:
       Lafayette, Courthouse, $5,363,000
       Montana:
       Babb, Border Station, $333,000
       Missouri:
       Kansas City, Federal Building-Courthouse, $84,895,000
       St. Louis, Courthouse, $176,863,000
       North Dakota:
       Pembina, Border Station, $11,113,000
       Ohio:
       Cleveland, Courthouse, $30,048,000
       Steubenville, Courthouse, $3,000,000
       Pennyslvania:
       Erie, Courts Complex, $3,335,000
       Tennessee:
       Greeneville, Courthouse, $3,123,000
       Texas:
       Austin, VA Annex, $1,430,000
       Brownsville, Federal Building-Courthouse, $6,361,000
       Corpus Christi, Courthouse, $6,857,000
       Laredo, Courthouse, $24,341,000
       Virginia:
       Charlottesville, U.S. Army Foreign Science & Technology 
     Center, $4,178,000
       Washington:
       Blaine, Border Station, $4,472,000
       Oroville, Border Station, $1,483,000
       Point Roberts, Border Station, $698,000
       West Virginia:
       Martinsburg, IRS Computer Center, $7,547,000
       Non-prospectus construction projects, $126,000: Provided, 
     That each of the immediately foregoing limits of costs on new 
     construction projects may be exceeded to the extent that 
     savings are effected in other such projects, but not to 
     exceed 10 per centum unless advanced approval is obtained 
     from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 
     of a greater amount: Provided further, That all funds for 
     direct construction projects shall expire on September 30, 
     1996, and remain in the Federal Buildings Fund except funds 
     for projects as to which funds for design or other funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to such date: 
     Provided further, That claims against the Government of less 
     than $250,000 arising from direct construction projects, 
     acquisitions of buildings and purchase contract projects 
     pursuant to Public Law 92-313, be liquidated with prior 
     notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     and Senate to the extent savings are effected in other such 
     projects; (2) not to exceed $815,268,000, which shall remain 
     available until expended, for repairs and alterations which, 
     beginning with fiscal year 1995 and in subsequent fiscal 
     years, includes associated design and construction services: 
     Provided further, That funds in the Federal Buildings Fund 
     for Repairs and Alterations shall, for prospectus projects, 
     be limited to the amount by project as follows, except each 
     project may be increased by an amount not to exceed 10 per 
     centum unless advance approval is obtained from the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate of a 
     greater amount:
       Repairs and Alterations:
       California:
       Los Angeles, U.S. Courthouse, $24,910,000
       Menlo Park, USGS Building 3, $7,631,000
       Sacramento, Federal Building, $16,574,000
       San Pedro, Custom House, $5,429,000
       Colorado:
       Denver, Federal Building and Custom House, $8,896,000
       District of Columbia:
       Ariel Rios-Facades, $3,946,000
       Customs/ICC/Connecting Wing Complex (phase 1), $9,662,000
       National Courts, $4,588,000
       Illinois:
       Chicago, Federal Center, $52,982,000
       Maryland:
       Baltimore, George H. Fallon Federal Building (phase 3), 
     $17,179,000
       Woodlawn, SSA East High-Low Rise Buildings, $19,212,000
       New Jersey:
       Trenton, Clarkson S. Fisher Courthouse, $15,675,000
       New York:
       Holtsville, IRS Service Center, $21,313,000
       New York, Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, $2,891,000
       New York, Silvio V. Mollo Federal Building, $963,000
       North Carolina:
       Asheville, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, $7,052,000
       Ohio:
       Cleveland, Anthony J. Celebreeze Federal Building, 
     $12,192,000
       Oklahoma:
       Oklahoma City, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, 
     $5,878,000
       Pennsylvania:
       Harrisburg, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 
     $16,903,000
       Philadelphia, Byrne-Green Complex, $34,028,000
       Philadelphia, R.N.C. Nix, Sr., Federal Building and U.S. 
     Courthouse (phase 3), $14,730,000
       Rhode Island:
       Providence, Kennedy Plaza Federal Courthouse, $8,600,000
       Texas:
       Lubbock, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, $13,517,000
       Virginia:
       Richmond, U.S. Courthouse and Annex, $13,899,000
       Washington:
       Walla Walla, Corps of Engineers Building, $2,827,000
       Nationwide:
       Chlorofluorocarbons Program, $100,135,000
       Energy Program, $50,803,000
       Advance Design:
       $21,685,000
       Minor Repairs and Alterations, $301,168,000: Provided 
     further, That additional projects for which prospectuses have 
     been fully approved may be funded under this category only if 
     advance approval is obtained from the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate: Provided further, 
     That the difference between the funds appropriated and 
     expended on any projects in this or any prior Act, under the 
     heading ``Repairs and Alterations'', may be transferred to 
     Minor Repairs and Alterations or used to fund authorized 
     increases in prospectus projects: Provided further, That all 
     funds for repairs and alterations prospectus projects shall 
     expire on September 30, 1996, and remain in the Federal 
     Buildings Fund except funds for projects as to which funds 
     for design or other funds have been obligated in whole or in 
     part prior to such date: Provided further, That the amount 
     provided in this or any prior Act for Minor Repairs and 
     Alterations may be used to pay claims against the Government 
     arising from any projects under the heading ``Repairs and 
     Alterations'' or used to fund authorized increases in 
     prospectus projects; (3) not to exceed $127,531,000 for 
     installment acquisition payments including payments on 
     purchase contracts which shall remain available until 
     expended; (4) not to exceed $2,204,628,000 for rental of 
     space which shall remain available until expended and (5) not 
     to exceed $1,323,689,000 for building operations which shall 
     remain available until expended of which $3,400,000 shall be 
     available for essential functional requirements for primary 
     structural, electrical, and security systems of the Bureau of 
     Census, New Computer Center: Provided further, That of the 
     funds available to the General Services Administration for 
     the Albany, Georgia, Courthouse; Stuebenville, Ohio, 
     Courthouse; Corpus Christi, Texas, Courthouse; Providence, 
     Rhode Island, Kennedy Plaza Federal Courthouse; and the Walla 
     Walla, Washington, Corps of Engineers Building, shall not be 
     available for expenses in connection with any construction, 
     repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a 
     prospectus, if required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959, 
     as amended, has not been approved, except that necessary 
     funds may be expended for each project for required expenses 
     in connection with the development of a proposed prospectus: 
     Provided further, That for the purposes of this 
     authorization, buildings constructed pursuant to the purchase 
     contract authority of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 
     (40 U.S.C. 602a), buildings occupied pursuant to installment 
     purchase contracts, and buildings under the control of 
     another department or agency where alterations of such 
     buildings are required in connection with the moving of such 
     other department or agency from buildings then, or thereafter 
     to be, under the control of the General Services 
     Administration shall be considered to be federally owned 
     buildings: Provided further, That none of the funds available 
     to the General Services Administration, except for the line-
     item construction and repairs and alterations projects in 
     this Act shall be available for expenses in connection with 
     any construction, repair and alteration, and acquisition 
     project for which a prospectus, if required by the Public 
     Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, has not been approved, 
     except that necessary funds may be expended for each project 
     for required expenses in connection with the development of a 
     proposed prospectus: Provided further, That funds available 
     in the Federal Buildings Fund may be expended for emergency 
     repairs when advance approval is obtained from the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House and Senate: Provided further, 
     That amounts necessary to provide reimbursable special 
     services to other agencies under section 210(f)(6) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as 
     amended (40 U.S.C. 490(f)(6)) and amounts to provide such 
     reimbursable fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other 
     facilities on private or other property not in Government 
     ownership or control as may be appropriate to enable the 
     United States Secret Service to perform its protective 
     functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056, as amended, shall be 
     available from such revenues and collections: Provided 
     further, That revenues and collections and any other sums 
     accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 1995, excluding 
     reimbursements under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     490(f)(6)) in excess of $4,979,106,000 shall remain in the 
     Fund and shall not be available for expenditure except as 
     authorized in appropriations Acts.


                    amendment offered by mr. istook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       Page 31, line 23, strike ``$40,547,000'' and insert 
     ``$39,091,363''.
       Page 31, line 25, strike ``$12,241,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,980,177''.
       Page 32, line 2, strike ``$25,193,000'' and insert 
     ``$21,917,910''.
       Page 32, line 7, strike ``$4,600,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,186,000''.
       Page 32, line 8, strike ``$7,724,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,075,184''.
       Page 32, line 10, strike ``$6,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,676,000''.
       Page 32, line 11, strike ``$5,597,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,294,762''.
       Page 32, line 13, strike ``$3,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,917,100''.
       Page 32, line 14, strike ``$1,620,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,500,120''.
       Page 32, line 16, strike ``$5,363,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,971,501''.
       Page 32, line 21, strike ``$84,895,000'' and insert 
     ``$82,945,635''.
       Page 32, line 22, strike ``$176,863,000'' and insert 
     ``$159,353,570''.
       Page 33, line 1, strike ``$30,048,000'' and insert 
     ``$27,523,968''.
       Page 33, line 2, strike ``$3,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,982,300''.
       Page 33, line 4, strike ``$3,335,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,964,815''.
       Page 33, line 6, strike ``$3,123,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,863,791''.
       Page 33, line 10, strike ``$6,361,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,979,340''.
       Page 33, line 11, strike ``$6,857,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,274,155''.
       Page 33, line 12, strike ``$24,341,000'' and insert 
     ``$24,260,675''.
       Conform accordingly the 3 aggregate amounts set forth on 
     page 31, line 15; and page 40, line 22.

  Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment relates to the $508 million 
which this bill expends on Federal courthouse construction.
  The bottom line of this amendment is that it does not eliminate any 
of the courthouse construction projects. However, it does reduce the 
total amount of spending on courthouse construction by $32 million, 
apportioned among 19 different projects. It is not an across-the-board 
percentage. Instead, this amendment relates most to those which are 
most expensive in terms of cost per square foot.
  Mr. Chairman, now, there have been a number of studies recently. 
There has been a great deal of activity in the Senate. The GAO has 
become involved. There have been multiple media reports. Some of them 
questioned the construction of Federal courthouses in general and 
questioned the total square feet that are being added, and others 
related to what we are doing.
  How many times are we putting marble rather than some other form of 
construction in place? Are we putting in hardwood or decorative wood? 
Are we putting in private kitchenettes in chambers, multiple law 
libraries rather than shared law libraries, larger space than is 
necessary, and otherwise are we increasing the cost to the taxpayers of 
this construction?
  Here is a telling point, Mr. Chairman: If you are building a 
courthouse for State government or local government, it will cost you 
less than $100 per square foot. In fact, a company in Boston that did a 
report on this reported that to build a typical State courthouse or 
local courthouse, the cost is $90 per square foot. The State of Arizona 
recently built a new supreme court building at a cost of $93 per square 
foot. And I understand that is even with the use of expensive stone.
  Yet for a Federal courthouse the average cost is about $200 per 
square foot, more than twice as much as it costs the State government 
to build a courthouse or local government to build a courthouse.

                              {time}  1840

  We can talk about differences, Mr. Chairman, between how you 
construct a Federal courthouse or one for any other level of 
Government, but I do not believe we can justify spending twice as much 
per square foot to build it because it is for the Federal Government. 
This amendment is proportional, as I say; basically we took a formula 
and we took the projects the new projects proposed in this bill, and we 
calculated, or actually the GSA had already calculated, the cost per 
square foot. And as to those which exceeded $100 per square foot, we 
are proposing reducing the excess above $100 per foot by 25 percent.
  Now, this difference in per-square-footage cost is not because of 
regional variations. We have checked with services that report average 
construction costs in different parts of the country, to make sure 
these were not regional differences in construction costs.
  So, for example, Mr. Chairman, the bill, as written, has a courthouse 
in Cleveland at $200 per square foot. This amendment would reduce the 
allowance to $175 per square foot. There is a courthouse in St. Louis 
that is proposed for $187 per square foot; the amendment would reduce 
the cost of that building by $22 per square foot.
  The point, Mr. Chairman, is that this does not say that everyone has 
to have the same price per square foot, because there are regional 
differences; this does not kill anybody's project. But it does try to 
bring a lower level of per-square-foot construction expense into this 
process.
  What has been the experience of many people is they find that funds 
are over-allocated for construction, and then at some stage in the 
process extra expense is added. It may be extra space, it may be 
enlarging something, it may be making it fancier, it may be using brass 
rather than cheaper metal; it may be any of a number of things. But 
this puts us on record as saying that we want to meet the needs of the 
Federal judiciary but we want to meet the needs of the taxpayers as 
well. If State and local government can spend $90 and construct very 
fine and satisfactory courthouses, then I do not think we need to spend 
twice that much to construct a Federal facility. I believe this is a 
commonsense approach, Mr. Chairman. The bottom line, as I say, is that 
it reduces the $508 million in this bill for Federal courthouse 
construction by $32 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all let me put in context where we are in 
Federal courthouses. First of all, as the committee knows, last year 
the committee recommended a 10 percent cut across the board in 
courthouse construction funding. On the floor we cut an additional 2 
percent. So that meant we cut 12 percent.
  In addition, the administration undertook, under Administrator 
Johnson in the General Services Administration, a pause and review of 
all GSA projects that were recommended. In that pause and review they 
recommended that certain savings be affected. In fact, in our bill we 
did, not at the administration's request but our own initiative, cut an 
additional $78.2 million through rescissions. Now, that is in 
juxtaposition to adding $28 million.
  So that there was a net reduction in Federal construction of $60 
million by the committee at our instigation below what the President 
asked for. That was because of the rescission.
  Now, the fact of the matter is there is a difference. There have been 
recent news reports on the cost to build Federal courthouses. The 
reports are focused on the cost per square foot of a Federal courthouse 
versus a country courthouse as well as the extra touches often found in 
Federal courthouses which could be viewed as too generous and too 
opulent. Frankly, that is why we made the 12-percent cut. That is why 
we urged GSA to make a very careful review of the Federal courthouse 
proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Istook's amendment is 
across the board, and that is based on his view of what the cost per 
square foot for construction of these courthouses ought to be. Let me 
make it clear, however, there has been no testimony before our 
committee with respect to this issue
  There were questions asked, but we have not had a hearing on all the 
components that would be impacted by Mr. Istook's amendment.
  Despite the way Mr. Istook may have come up with the figures, it is 
an across-the-board reduction, pure and simple, similar to Mr. 
Pomeroy's to reduce the amount available for construction of each of 
the named courthouses.
  Ladies and gentleman of the House, Mr. Pomeroy intends to offer an 
amendment to reduce by 6 percent the courthouses that are being 
proposed. We will support that amendment. The reason we will support 
that amendment is the newly recommended courthouses were not subjected 
to the previous cut last year. We believe, therefore, that it is fair 
and appropriate that the new courthouses be subjected to the same cut.
  I am pleased that Mr. Pomeroy's diligence brought that to our 
attention. And he has been very tenacious in trying to make sure that 
we have, in effect, such savings as we can make while at the same time 
providing courthouses for our people so that justice can be served.
  Mr. Istook's amendment, however, also reduces funds for courthouses 
which are beyond the design stage, not just new.
  Now, what does that mean? Santa Ana and St. Louis and others will cut 
money of their construction, though they are under way. They are 
already being proposed and they have been subjected, I will tell you 
again, to the GSA timeout and review. What Mr. Istook should be 
interested in, in my opinion, is the courthouses which are being 
initiated this year for which design has not yet been complete.
  Quite obviously, if design is not complete and the cuts are made, as 
Mr. Pomeroy suggests, then in fact that can be accommodated.
  Now, I see the gentleman from California, who has one of the major 
courthouses in this bill, on his feet, and I would be glad to yield to 
him.
  Mr. DORNAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and tell him that he 
assumes correctly, I say to my distinguished colleague from Maryland.
  I cannot speak for the St. Louis courthouse, I will let the gentleman 
eloquently do that. However, with a heavy heart, and I do not say that 
sarcastically, I go against my distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma. May his tribe increase on November 8, at least by 30 
people. But the Santa Ana courthouse is in an earthquake-prone area. 
After all, we do call it the San Andreas fault that runs very close to 
there. Our Santa Ana courthouse has already taken about 4 hits. I point 
out it is not the charming name of Ronald Reagan----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. I yield further to the gentleman from California, my new-
found friend.
  Mr. DORNAN. I will wrap up by saying that if Orange County were a 
State, it would be bigger than 19 States. We have passed in the past 3 
years Oklahoma, with all due respect, Mississippi and Arkansas. Look 
out, Oregon, here we come.
  My point is you cannot ask people to get in the gridlock of traffic 
on those main arteries between San Diego, our second biggest county, 
and Los Angeles, our biggest, and spend 3 hours going to court and 4 
and 5 hours driving home. Orange County is entitled to a modern 
courthouse. It has come down--and I will submit this for the record--5 
times already. We are now into the bone of the seismographic building 
to withstand an earthquake. So, I repeat, with great pause I will have 
to vote against this amendment.
  I rise today in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma that would cut funding for construction of the Ronald Reagan 
Courthouse.
  The Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, California has already 
experienced more than its share of cuts. Indeed, if every courthouse 
project in the country were scrutinized and held to the same standards 
as the Ronald Reagan Courthouse, the budget would be in much better 
shape.
  Let me recite a few facts. Orange County's population is greater than 
the States of Mississippi, Kansas and Arkansas and 16 others and is 
rapidly approaching passing the population of Oklahoma. Look out Oregon 
here we come. So Orange County right now is more populous than 19 
States. Currently, the Federal court system in Orange County has just 
three permanent courtrooms and three temporary courtrooms which are in 
modular structures. The long-range need of the courthouse, however, is 
for 29 courtrooms. So the current facilities, which are spread 
throughout Santa Ana, are obviously grossly inadequate. But get this, 
even upon completion of the Ronald Reagan Courthouse there will still 
not be adequate space.
  But as we consider this further cut to the Ronald Reagan Courthouse, 
let me remind my colleagues that the project has already been cut 
substantially, by one-third. It started out as a $168 million project. 
It was then subjected to cuts of 10 percent and then 2 percent. After 
those cuts, it was subjected to the time-out-and-review process, which 
recommended an additional $25 million cut. Eventually, after all this, 
we arrived at the $123 million figure in the committee bill.
  The cuts have resulted in substantive changes to the courthouse's 
design. An entire floor has been chopped off and most of the parking 
has been lost. These are not luxuries that are being cut. We have 
looked long and hard at the expenses, and we have cut them, in my mind, 
beyond the bone.
  I believe that although past cuts may well have been justified, this 
additional cut attacks the substance of the project.

  Furthermore, consider that the citizens of Santa Ana, a working class 
city in the center of my district, support the project so much that 
they have donated the land for the courthouse. Their donation has saved 
the Federal Government $4.5 million.
  And with all due respect to my friend from Oklahoma, construction 
costs in southern California cannot be compared to construction costs 
in Tulsa. Orange County has one of the most expensive real estate 
markets in the country, especially when you add in the increased 
expenses stemming from seismic requirements. Anybody who has been to 
Southern California knows what I am talking about. Again it is simply 
ridiculous to think that you can build in southern California for the 
same price you can build in Oklahoma.
  Lastly, if this cut goes through, the courthouse will have to be 
redesigned for the third time, wasting even more taxpayer dollars. This 
amendment may seem penny wise but, in the case of the Ronald Reagan 
Courthouse, it is definitely pound foolish.
  The Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, CA has been chopped, 
topped, and scrubbed. And while I have great respect for my 
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma and I applaud his commitment to 
reducing the deficit and in probably every other case will be 
supporting him, I must say that in this case he is just plain wrong. 
The Ronald Reagan Courthouse, which will serve a legitimate Federal 
function, has already been subject to severe cuts. I therefore urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from California for his comments. He 
reflects the problem caused by adoption of this amendment. To reduce 
the cost per square foot would require a redesign in some instances of 
these buildings, which would cost more, not less, in the final 
analysis.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. ISTOOK. Just to clarify, I understand, of course, Mr. Chairman, 
what the gentleman is saying regarding the necessity to redesign in 
some instances, but is he contending that the cost of redesign would 
exceed the 32 million dollars worth of savings, because we have figures 
here on what it costs to design these buildings today--
  Mr. HOYER. It is our contention to pause at this point in time. The 
Santa Ana Courthouse, as the gentleman knows, at this time is under 
way, and the gentleman has pointed out what is going on. To pause at 
this time, not just in the redesign costs, but in delay and 
construction, yes, our premise is that it could approximate or exceed 
the savings the gentleman seeks.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly disagree with that 
contention, but I will seek my own time and present those things rather 
than doing it on the gentleman's time.
  Mr. HOYER. In fairness to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, I do not have 
an estimate on that, but the information I have is that it is possible 
to exceed the costs so that the savings may be somewhat illusory. But 
the gentleman could speak to that question.
  Mr. Chairman, the Members will have an opportunity to reduce the cost 
of construction of new courthouses with the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. The Pomeroy amendment 
reduces funding for the new courthouses which have not yet been 
designed. This will ensure that savings which will reduce the cost per 
square foot will be built into the design of the facility. The 
Committee has included a provision in the GSA portion of the bill which 
prohibits the transmission of a fiscal year 1996 request for courthouse 
construction which does not meet the standards established by GSA and 
OMB.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. I am taking this time, Mr. Chairman, because I think this 
is a substantive, important amendment, but I think there are very 
important reasons to oppose this amendment and support the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  The committee, as I said, has included in the GSA portion of the bill 
language which prohibits the transmission of a 1996 request for 
courthouse construction, which, as I said, does not meet the standards 
applied by GSA and OMB. These standards include benchmarks currently 
being developed by GSA which establish a design for courthouses to 
lower the cost per square foot of these facilities.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate to the Members of the House 
that we have reduced, not at the administration's request, but on our 
own initiative, by $78 million existing facilities, not all 
courthouses. Let me say, as the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] 
knows, $30 million of that comes out of a reduction in a project, 
frankly, in my district because I was convinced that in fact that money 
could be saved without diminishing the scope and quality of the 
project.
  The benchmarks that the GSA will come up with will also increase the 
occupiable square footage from the current 60 percent to 67 percent, an 
appropriate step forward. This effort has the effect of lowering the 
cost by approximately 10 percent. While the discussion of cost per 
square foot for the courthouses is a valid one, of course we have not 
had such a discussion in our hearings, and to base an amendment on such 
a proposal without the opportunity to question GSA about the basis or 
the effects of such a reduction on their cost estimate in our opinion 
is not warranted.
  Mr. Chairman, I would, therefore, ask that the Committee defeat this 
amendment.


  amendment offered by mr. pomeroy as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by mr. istook

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pomeroy as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       Page 30, line 15, strike ``$366,896,000'' and insert 
     ``$361,615,520'';
       Page 31, line 15, strike ``$4,979,106,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,973,825,520'';
       Page 31, line 15, strike ``$507,990,000'' and insert 
     ``$502,709,520'';
       Page 31, line 25, strike ``$12,241,000'' and insert 
     ``$11,506,540'';
       Page 32, line 8, strike ``$7,724,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,260,560'';
       Page 32, line 10, strike ``$6,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,640,000'';
       Page 32, line 11, strike ``$5,597,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,261,180'';
       Page 32, line 13, strike ``$3,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,914,000'';
       Page 32, line 14, strike ``$1,620,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,522,800'';
       Page 32, line 16, strike ``$5,363,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,041,220'';
       Page 33, line 1, strike ``$30,048,000'' and insert 
     ``$28,245,120'';
       Page 33, line 2, strike ``$3,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,820,000'';
       Page 33, line 4, strike ``$3,335,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,134,900'';
       Page 33, line 6, strike ``$3,123,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,935,620'';
       Page 33, line 10, strike ``$6,361,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,979,340'';
       Page 33, line 11, strike ``$6,857,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,445,580'';
       Page 40, line 22, strike ``$4,979,106,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,973,825,520'';.

  Mr. POMEROY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment offered as a substitute be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Dakota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, my substitute amendment addresses the 
issue addressed by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and I 
applaud him for his attention to the issue of excessive courthouse 
construction costs with a difference in one important respect, and that 
is it addresses contracts not yet let, agreements not yet made, on 
behalf of this Government for the formal construction of Federal 
courthouses.
  As my colleagues know, we believe and talk every day that Government 
ought to be run like a business. Government ought to be run like a 
business. Well, that is darn right, Government ought to be run like a 
business, and that means a contract is a contract. I think it is bad 
business to have let the construction contracts on these projects, and 
come back through a slapdash House amendment this afternoon, and redo 
those agreements. I think the cost savings to be generated by the 
amendment for which I am offering this substitute will be uncertain in 
light of design changes that might be necessary
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the construction 
costs at issue were addressed by an amendment I offered last year which 
added to the 10-percent reduction made by the committee an additional 
2-percent cut saving millions for taxpayers across the country.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I worry about the forward precedent of not 
holding some sanctity to the contracts let by the Government. I believe 
we would force an agency like the GSA with so many millions of dollars 
of construction under its authority to rush forth the construction so 
that they would not find themselves caught in the plight they are 
presented with this afternoon.
  However I believe cuts can and must be made in the construction 
projects for courthouses not yet let. My amendment addresses 
specifically projects where I am convinced costs can be cut. We have 
seen examples of excess in the construction including expensive marble, 
soaring ceilings, plush judges chambers, and ornate woods. Those are 
just a few of the examples of the wasteful spending rolled into the 
Federal construction projects for our courthouses. The amendment to cut 
6 percent from the 13 new courthouses would save taxpayers $5.6 million 
and encourage the type of belt tightening which taxpayers have 
rightfully been calling for.
  Last year, as I mentioned, the House took this step, put a 10-percent 
cut in the committee, passed an additional 2-percent cut offered by me 
in an amendment last year. I mentioned in that debate last year, and I 
mention it again this year because of its direct applicability, an 
example where Fargo, ND, led the way in reducing unnecessary courthouse 
construction costs. Two years ago Congress authorized $46 million for a 
new courthouse in Fargo. My colleagues would not have believed what 
happened on the way to the Federal Treasury. The folks of Fargo, ND, 
said, ``That is ridiculous. That is way too much of a taxpayer 
investment. We don't care if it's coming right here to Fargo. It's too 
much. Build it for half of that cost.'' And sure enough costs of that 
project have been rolled back 50 percent. Imagine a community saying no 
to Federal spending right in their backyard.
  Mr. Chairman, if Fargo can take a 50-percent cut, then these new 
projects can certainly take a 6-percent cut. I urge my colleagues to 
support my substitute amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would not want anyone to mistake what the gentleman 
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] proposes in his amendment. The Pomeroy 
substitute for my amendment proposes reducing spending by $5.6 million. 
However at the same time it does away with the proposed additional $26 
million in spending in my amendment because the Istook amendment 
proposes a $32 million cut, and the Pomeroy substitute seeks to reduce 
the $32 million cut to $5.6 million. So, although we agree upon the 
basic principles of reduction to spending, there is a significant 
difference in the degree.
  Someone mentioned to me, ``Well, Pomeroy is kind of Istook Lite on 
this.'' I think that what we have is a mistaken premise that somehow it 
costs more money to save on these projects. There is a mistaken notion, 
perhaps, that these are buildings that are almost complete. That is not 
the case. In most cases they are buildings that exist only on paper, 
and I think in only two instances in all the bill have they even gotten 
so far as to even break ground for site preparation. It is not a matter 
of changing existing contracts. It is a matter of saving taxpayers' 
money.
  Certainly it is common in construction to have change orders, if 
necessary, when the scope of a project is changed, especially in the 
planning stages, which is what we are seeking to do. That is routine. 
It happens frequently, and the cost is not the cost of the change order 
that is proposed. The cost, depending upon the architectural fees 
involved, may be, 10 percent of the change orders, and may be even far 
less than that.

                              {time}  1900

  The question then is, would we spend 5 percent of $32 million in 
order to save that $32 million? And I submit that the answer to that is 
yes. I have not heard the opponents of my amendment say that we have 
not overplanned. I have not heard them say that we need all the space, 
that we need all the trim, that we need all the marble, that we need 
all the private baths and the private kitchenettes and the high 
ceilings. I have not heard that suggestion. But that is what my 
amendment is trying to do, strictly to go and cut out the frills which 
routinely pop up. And usually we do not see them until the edifice is 
completed, and we read the press accounts of the new Taj Mahal that has 
been constructed at Federal expense.
  Taxpayers going to a courthouse are seeking simple justice, not a 
fancy building. As an attorney by profession, I can tell you I have 
been in plenty of courthouses and plenty of courtrooms. And I can see, 
and anybody that goes into them, can see the difference between a state 
and local and a Federal Courthouse, or the courtrooms.
  I have been in huge courtrooms that you rattled around in and the 
sound gets lost. I have seen judges that each have their own private 
law libraries, rather than sharing books with the judge next door, who 
may be as far as 50 or 100 feet away.
  I think we need to meet the needs of our judiciary, but we also need 
to meet the needs of our taxpayers. And I submit it would be 
inappropriate to say let us not cut spending by $32 million, let us 
adopt the Pomeroy substitute and say that $5 million is enough savings.
  We have got to put a halt to the practice. They have been having 
hearings on this over in the Senate. I have copies of transcripts of 
much of that. They have had the testimony, they have had the studies. 
We simply need to pay attention to it.
  Again, I reiterate, this is not a threat to a project in anyone's 
district. This does not cancel any project. This merely says we are not 
going to be as fancy, we are not going to have as many frills, we are 
going to use more common sense, we are going to save the taxpayers $32 
million.
  I request that Members reject the Pomeroy substitute and adopt the 
Istook amendment.
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I do not want to prolong the debate, 
because I am not really completely aware of the courthouse contracts 
that currently exist. I do want to strongly support the Pomeroy-Dickey 
amendment, because I think it moves us in the right direction.
  Last year, of course, I watched with great interest as the gentleman 
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] had discussed the experience they had 
in Fargo, ND. I think his point was very well taken.
  On the overall issue, I think really we are agreement, Mr. Chairman. 
The goal here is to try to cut down on some of the frills we spend in 
courthouse spending.
  I think this amendment that the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. 
Pomeroy], and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], have put 
forward accomplishes that goal. It is a way to try to save money over 
the long-term, and I think it is a good amendment. I strongly support 
it, and I hope we adopt it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pomeroy amendment. I believe, 
as I said in the initial debate, that the Pomeroy amendment does reach 
the objective the proper way. The reason I believe that is because it 
deals prospectively with projects that are not now on the ground and in 
construction as the Santa Ana and others are.
  I understand what the gentleman is saying, that he believes this will 
just do away with frills. The fact of the matter is, as was discussed 
by the gentleman from California, there are other things that make 
costs expensive unrelated to frills. His happens to be in the 
earthquake fault area, and therefore construction requirements are 
heightened.
  The fact of the matter is that the GSA has had a time out and review 
and looked at existing courthouses with the specific objective of 
reducing frills. In fact, we have reduced numerous courthouses, as the 
gentleman knows, as a result of that time out and review, part of which 
was in some instances scope changes, and others were known as value 
engineering savings.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the House to adopt this amendment. It does 
save about $5.5 million, and it does so appropriately, and I think 
without adverse consequences to projects that are ongoing.

  I would reiterate, I do not have the figures and I cannot therefore 
say it definitively, but it is not just redesign costs that are 
involved here, it is delay costs as well. I do not know what they would 
be, frankly, because I do not know how long the delays would be, but 
that would be a consequence of moving forward and trying to adopt this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the substitute is appropriate, it will not 
adversely affect us, and will speak to the issues raised by both the 
gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from North Dakota of 
excessive costs on courthouses. I urge the adoption of the Pomeroy 
amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman may proceed.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I do so simply to try to wind it down.
  Since the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] mentioned the Santa Ana 
Courthouse, that particular project is proposed at $123 million. This 
amendment, because of the amount that is appropriated this year as 
opposed to prior years, would only diminish that $123 million projected 
by $3.5 million. So it is less than 3.5 percent differential on that 
particular one.
  Furthermore, although the national average construction is less than 
$100 per square foot, and according to the Associated Building 
Contractors, the differential for building in Los Angeles is only about 
15 percent higher than elsewhere in the country. Nevertheless, the per 
square foot cost of this courthouse in California is $205 per square 
foot, more than double what I have been talking about on the average, 
even though the local differential would only be 15 percent. I commend 
that to the gentleman's attention.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote may be taken on the Istook amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 302, 
noes 120, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 242]

                               AYES--302

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--120

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roth
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Taylor (NC)
     Towns
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Cooper
     Edwards (CA)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Kanjorski
     McCandless
     McCurdy
     Michel
     Neal (NC)
     Reynolds
     Sharp
     Torres
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wolf

                              {time}  1927

  Messrs. BATEMAN, LEWIS of Florida, BEREUTER, COBLE, GUNDERSON, 
HANCOCK, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, BARRETT of Nebraska, HERGER, SAXTON, 
QUILLEN, SUNDQUIST, MOORHEAD, HALL of Texas, LINDER, and BOEHNER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KOPETSKI, SHAYS, and PACKARD, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of 
Texas, and Mr. CARR of Michigan changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 393, 
noes 22, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 243]

                               AYES--393

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--22

     Ackerman
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bishop
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Clyburn
     Fowler
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mica
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rogers
     Serrano
     Vucanovich

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bonior
     Clay
     Cooper
     Cunningham
     Edwards (CA)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Gingrich
     Hunter
     McCandless
     McCurdy
     Michel
     Neal (NC)
     Reynolds
     Sharp
     Slaughter
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wolf

                              {time}  1936

  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. fawell

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell:
       Page 31, line 15, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before ``, 
     of which''.
       Page 34, line 16, insert ``(less $11,427,000'' before ``, 
     which shall''.
       Page 36, strike line 25 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 2.
       Page 37, strike lines 9 through 11.
       Page 38, line 24, insert ``and'' after the 1st semicolon.
       Page 38, line 24, strike the last semicolon and all that 
     follows through ``Building''on page 39, line 2.
       Page 40, line 22, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before 
     ``shall remain''.

  Mr. FAWELL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, this is the first of two amendments that I 
will offer to strike unauthorized and unrequested projects from the 
bill. These amendments are supported by our bipartisan porkbusters 
group.
  Mr. Chairman, the first amendment strikes three unauthorized new 
courthouse construction projects. These new projects are $6 million for 
a courthouse in Albany, GA; $3 million for a courthouse in 
Steubenville, OH; and $6.8 million for a courthouse in Corpus Christi, 
TX.
  Mr. Chairman, the Albany, GA, project is unauthorized and was not 
requested by the administration for fiscal year 1995. The Steubenville, 
OH, courthouse was not requested by the administration and it was not 
requested by the General Services Administration for fiscal year 1995, 
either. The GSA study of Steubenville, OH, came back with this verdict:
  ``Federal space needs can easily be met with low cost leases.''
  Moreover, it was not authorized by the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, which means that they are in violation, of course, of 
the rules. That is true with all of these projects, but, of course, the 
rules were waived, and so although I would have had a right to make a 
point of order and we could have all gone home, I do not have that 
right, and we have to have a debate on the subject of striking these 
projects.
  Mr. Chairman, the $6.9 million Corpus Christi, TX, courthouse was not 
requested by the administration, it was not requested by the General 
Services Administration for fiscal year 1995, it was denied funding by 
the Office of Management and Budget, and it was not authorized by the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
  To the many taxpayers who may be listening in at this later hour, 
what is at stake here, I believe, is whether to allow a few Members of 
Congress to circumvent the rules and to spend millions of tax dollars 
on what could be called pork-barrel projects.

                              {time}  1940

  And by that, I mean not substantively referring to those particular 
projects, but I mean that they had no authorization, no hearings, no 
determination of the needs for these projects. That is to say, there 
was a complete failure to follow the basic procedures in the House in 
regard to spending.
  To taxpayers who want to know why, why Congress will not cut 
unnecessary spending, watch the vote on this amendment. A vote against 
this amendment is a vote in favor of breaking the rules of the House 
and to spend $16 million on what I think can be called pork-barrel 
projects.
  And who wants these projects built? Neither the General Services 
Administration nor the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
that alone have the statutory authority to request them via a 
prospectus.
  In addition, these projects are all over the President's budget. How 
much over? Even the Committee on Public Works and Transportation cannot 
estimate the final cost of these projects. There have been no 
estimates, and most important of all, no prospectus.
  Public Works has not had, therefore, the chance to really pass on in-
depth information about these projects.
  The appropriators will say, ``Do not worry, funding for construction 
of these projects is still subject to the approval of a prospectus by 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.'' The Committee on 
Appropriations, by the way, then in their appropriation proceeded to 
authorize expenditures for a prospectus on these projects. But, in 
fact, the appropriators know that once the prospectus is under way 
there is no way of stopping this train. A prospectus will, in essence, 
set in motion funding for these projects.
  But the underlying law, the Public Buildings Act of 1959, gives this 
power only to the General Services Administration and to the Committee 
on Public Works. The Committee on Appropriations just usurped that 
power and said, ``Go ahead now, we authorize you to come up with a 
prospectus.''
  This is a classic case also, from my viewpoint, of legislating on an 
appropriation bill. That is against the House rules, too. But there is 
no problem. The Committee on Rules simply waived that rule, too.
  Furthermore, last year similar language requiring subsequent 
authorization in an appropriation bill was dropped by the conference 
version of the Treasury, Postal appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Fawell was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say this: We are being 
asked as a body to approve this spending when neither this body nor the 
GSA nor the authorizing committee know the facts. Shall we vote blind? 
No. Because that is why prospectuses and authorizations and facts ought 
to precede appropriations.
  This is our only chance, at least insofar as someone like myself, an 
average Member of this Congress, to ever vote on whether to start the 
funding train for these unstudied and unauthorized projects.
  These projects have to be stopped before the prospectus is funded or 
ordered to be funded, or there will be no way, of course, of stopping 
them.
  The communities back home and everyone else will say, ``Well, this is 
just something that has to be done, because after all, the 
appropriations have approved this.''
  A ``yes'' vote on the Fawell amendment is a vote for cutting $16 
million unauthorized pork-barrel projects. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for 
cutting wasteful spending. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which speaks to 
three projects, as the gentleman has indicated.
  I will speak to them briefly. But let me first make the general point 
that historically the so-called pork-busters have referred to projects 
that were, in fact, being passed by the Committee on Appropriations 
without approval of the authorizing committee, and going through the 
regular process.
  Now, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] mentions that, ``Oh, 
well, the Committee on Appropriations will get up and say it has 
language.'' That language is critical.
  Now, I think we will have some members of the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation reference that. We work very closely and have 
told the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the chairmen of the full committee and the 
subcommittee, who do very, very careful work on these projects, that we 
would not either appropriate something they had not authorized or not 
appropriate funds and not make them subject to authorization. In other 
words, in the final analysis, none of these projects can go forward 
without the Committee on Public Works and Transportation giving them 
approval. That is the process. That is what we have agreed to follow.
  We have a good, close working relationship, and that is what we do.
  Now, the gentleman is correct. These projects were not in the 
President's request. However, as you will hear from the Members who 
represent the areas that these projects are located in, there was very 
strong feeling that there was a need. I will not speak to that, because 
I presume they will.
  On pages 38 and 39 of the bill, we say that the funds available to 
the General Services Administration for Albany, GA, for Steubenville, 
OH, and for Corpus Christi, as well as the two projects that will come 
in the next amendment, shall not be available for expenses in 
connection with any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition 
projects for which a prospectus, if required pursuant to the public 
law, has not been approved. That is the key.

  In other words, this committee is not saying we are the final word on 
this. We understand there is an authorizing process. We understand that 
we need to make sure that both Committees, as well as this House, 
believe those projects are appropriate.
  I will yield in just one second. But let me finish my comments here.
  That is the way the process is set up to work.
  The gentleman is correct. We are putting the appropriation in now so 
that if the Committee on Public Works decides this is appropriate, they 
can move forward. We do, as the gentleman observes, provide for the 
limited authority so that the prospectus can be prepared for review by 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. The gentleman is 
absolutely correct on that. And the gentleman is also correct that it 
is legislation on an appropriation bill.
  We adopted a rule, of course, that said that we would be all right on 
that.
  Now, let me say that the law to which you refer says that, subject to 
the exceptions contained in the preceding proviso, in no case shall 
funds be made available for any lease, line item, construction, repair 
and alteration project referred to in the preceding proviso if, prior 
to February 1, 1994, the lease, line item, construction, repair and 
alteration project has been disapproved by the House Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation or the Senate Committee on Environment.
  Now, that refers to last year's language which the gentleman 
mentioned. He is correct. We did change that language as a result of 
conference, and as a result of the request of the Senate. That is what 
the Senate did.
  However, they wanted to have it just by the Senate committee. We said 
no, that is not the way we are going to play; obviously two Houses need 
to act on this. As a result, we made it subject to the actions of both 
committees and had either committee disapproved the project, it would 
not have been able to go forward.
  Happily, the Committee concurred with the judgment of the Committee 
on Appropriations in both the House and the Senate, and those projects 
went forward. But I would suggest to the gentleman that this is not the 
kind of pork projects that the gentleman has historically had great 
concern about.

                             {time}   1950

  And the reason it is not is because this project is going to have to 
go through the same review process ultimately. It may not go through in 
the same sequence, but it ultimately has to go through in the same way 
of any other project in order for money to be spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I will have more to say on this as we conclude, but I 
know that Members who know intimately about these three projects will 
want to speak to them.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, despite the pleas from our chairman 
of the subcommittee, we have rules. The rules say we do not appropriate 
money unless there is an authorization. The fact is that the chairman 
of the subcommittee has just admitted that there is no authorization 
for these projects today, which means, under the rules, that the money 
should not be appropriated.
  The second point I would make is, under the rules of the House, under 
the proceedings of the House, unauthorized projects in a bill such as 
this should be subject to a point of order, except that once again the 
Committee on Rules has waived all points of order.
  Now, what kind of a body do we have if we ignore the rules that we 
set up for ourselves? And we have been through this on appropriation 
bills for the 3\1/2\ years that I have been here, and probably for some 
time before that. But I think it is time that we all vote on the rules; 
those of you on the other side of the aisle impose the rules on us, and 
yet you cannot live by your rules.
  So, to stand up and say that this is not pork is wrong; because it 
has not been authorized, it is pork-barrel spending. It is business as 
usual.
  The authorization committee, if they felt this was so important, why 
in fact was it not authorized? Why has it not been brought to the 
floor? We do not know whether these projects have merit, whether they 
are practical, whether they are needed. We are probably going to hear 
from some Members in whose districts they happen to be located come to 
the floor and tell us that. But the fact is they are not authorized. We 
all know what the rules are. So, to say it is not pork, let us all be 
honest, this is nothing but pork-barrel spending, business as usual.
  If you really want to send a message home to your constituents, stand 
up and do the right thing and vote for the Fawell amendment and for 
fiscal sanity.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman understands, of course, how the authorizations are 
affected, I am sure. That is by resolutions of the authorizing 
committees both in the Senate and the House. Once that is done, it is 
presumed to be authorized. It does not have to be signed into law. The 
gentleman, does he understand that?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I understand that.
  Mr. HOYER. That being the case, exactly the same process, the 
gentleman is correct, has to occur in order for these projects to go 
forward. It just doesn't have to happen in the same order. That is my 
point.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman is saying is we 
are not going to follow what the rules say, that because we do not have 
the authorization bills, we are going to go ahead and appropriate this 
and say if they get authorized, the money is going to be there. Is that 
what the process of the sequence is going to be on this?
  Mr. HOYER. What I am saying is that historically we have found a 
problem, not all the time, but a consistent problem. That is that the 
committee of the other body simply has not acted. So we went for 
literally years without any authorizations on the other side. So what 
happened was the House committee would do its work in timely fashion, 
authorize the project, we would put it in the appropriation bill, send 
it over to the other body, and it would be passed and signed by the 
President.
  You talk about the rules, this is a law. This cannot go anywhere 
unless the House acts, the Senate acts, and the President signs it. 
This is the law of the Congress of the United States that makes these 
expenditures. Unfortunately, though there is a process it has to go 
through, it has not worked all the time. It has worked better in the 
House, I would suggest to the gentleman. All we are doing is providing 
for these projects at the request of Members that these are, in their 
judgment, necessary in their districts. But to also say, as the 
gentleman says, because our rules require authorization, these are 
subject to authorization as any other project would be.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, the chairman has made it clear to 
all of the Members that we are not following the rules. Now, we can 
complain that the Senate has not acted on our authorizations, and maybe 
there is good reason, maybe there is not. I do not know the history of 
it. But we know that to get an authorizing bill passed, that it has to 
pass the House and the Senate and be signed by the President. If the 
projects cannot get through that process, then under the rules we are 
not allowed to appropriate money. Now, the chairman of the subcommittee 
knows that. Now, the question is: Are we going to follow the rules or 
are we not?
  I suggest to all my colleagues that if we vote for the Fawell 
amendment, we will be supporting ourselves, we will be supporting our 
rules, and you bring some fiscal sanity to what is going on in this 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell] for a correction.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I understand perhaps the wrong amendment 
was read. I just wanted to ascertain if that is so. It should be 0.020. 
If that is not the case, I would make a unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the originally 
intended amendment, which in fact has been debated.
  There was no objection:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell:
       Page 31, line 15, insert ``(less $15,857,000)'' before ``, 
     of which''.
       Page 31, line 16, insert ``(less $15,857,000)'' before 
     ``shall remain''.
       Page 32, strike line 10.
       Page 33, strike line 2.
       Page 33, strike line 11.
       Page 38, line 23, strike ``Albany'' and all that follows 
     through the last semicolon on line 24.
       Page 40, line 22, insert ``(less $15,857,000)'' before 
     ``shall remain''.

  The CHAIRMAN (during the reading). Without objection, the amendment 
is considered as read and printed in the Record.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Fawell] is properly before the House.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the Fawell amendment.
  The Fawell amendment is straightforward. It deals with three 
construction projects in the Treasury/Postal Service appropriations 
bill.
  The projects have been described earlier: one for Corpus Christi, TX. 
This project was not requested by the administration, was denied 
funding by the Office of Management and Budget for fiscal 1995, and it 
has not yet been authorized by the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation.
  The second project, in Albany, GA, was not requested by the 
administration, was denied funding by OMB, and has not yet been 
authorized by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
  The project in Steubenville, OH, again not requested by the 
administration, has not yet been authorized by the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation. In fact, the General Services Administration 
has stated that downtown Steubenville currently has an office vacancy 
rate of 18 percent, or 36,000 square feet. There appears to be very 
little demand for this available space. Federal space needs can easily 
continue to be met through low-cost leases.

  Three examples of projects that have found their way into an 
appropriations will without having gone through the committee process 
on Capitol Hill that may have, may have, demonstrated their merit. 
These projects were clearly not on a priority list in terms of the 
Clinton administration's budget submission to Congress. For that 
reason, it is important to draw attention to the fact that this 
represents, once again, an example of the appropriations legislation 
funding projects which are primarily local in their importance and 
questionable in terms of the expenditure of Federal tax dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Fawell, for 
his diligent work over the years in gleaning appropriation bills in 
order to identify this sort of spending, unauthorized and unrequested 
projects which have no place in our appropriation bills. I join with 
him again this year, as I have in the past, in support of amendments to 
strike these projects from the legislation before us.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just briefly, I do 
want to make it clear--and this is not understood by a lot of people, 
and it was not understood by me until I went to the books and reviewed 
it--that before you can have a new construction--and, by the way, there 
are $507 million toward new construction. So it is not that we are not 
spending money on new construction. But before you can have one under 
the Public Buildings Act, either GSA on its own initiative or the 
authorizing committee can ask for and commence the prospectus--ask for 
a prospectus, which is a full evaluation of the needs. They review the 
area where the courthouse would be built, the amount of office space 
that must be available. It is an in-depth survey. Then the GSA has to 
go through OMB, and it is quite a process before they ultimately come 
up with a prospectus which basically allows the authorizing committee 
to do the authorizing.

                              {time}  2000

  Now obviously none of that has taken place, and there has been plenty 
of time for it. Now whether it might sometime in the future, because of 
one or two people that may believe it can or may take care of it, is 
something else, but I think that it is important to know that on all of 
these projects there has never been a favorable prospectus that has 
come out of the GSA, and that is awfully important, I think.
  Mr. PENNY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is making 
the point that clearly this is an example where the cart is now before 
the horse. We do not have any, any of the elements, in place that would 
normally precede the funding of a construction project, and yet here we 
are today dealing with an appropriations bill that offers funds for 
these projects that are not requested, that are not authorized and that 
have not even received the benefit of a prospectus.
  Mr. FAWELL. That is the way I view it, yes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman, I think, would agree that, pursuant to the 
language, the cart cannot get there without the horse. What I mean by 
that is the process that the gentleman referred to is required by this 
bill.
  The gentleman is correct obviously; the cart, as he says, is before 
the horse, they both have to get there or this project does not go 
forward.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  I want to say, first of all, that this has nothing to do with the 
penalties involved because the Members whose districts are affected by 
this are some of the finest Members that we have in this body. But as 
the last two speakers have accurately stated, this is putting the cart 
before the horse.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the way that people want us to do their 
business. None of these projects have been authorized. There have not 
been hearings held in the authorizing committee on these projects. None 
of these projects have been requested by the GSA. To vote against this 
amendment would be to vote for millions of dollars with no real 
knowledge of the need, the ultimate cost or anything else about these 
projects.
  The overspending, the exorbitant, excessive spending, on courthouses 
around the Nation is fast becoming, and has become, a national issue. 
It has been reported on in recent months by all the national networks 
and by many of the leading national journalists. The people are 
becoming very angry about all the waste that is popping up in these 
courthouses. In Boston we have a courthouse plan with 33 kitchens, a 
$1.5 million boat dock, a six-story atrium, 709,000 dollars' worth of 
artwork and so many other things. Can we really be sure that these 
courthouses will not have private kitchens, marble floors, private 
elevators, and all these over-elaborate things we are seeing in these 
other courthouses? The judges in the Foley Square project in New York 
City have upgraded their gold-plated project with over $30 million of 
elaborate extras.

  The GAO, the General Accounting Office, in a September 1993 audit, 
Mr. Chairman, found that Federal courts had overestimated their needs 
by 3 million square feet, which is probably $4 to $6 billion 
conservatively at the present rate of the cost of these Federal courts. 
In fact, the Boston Courthouse, as I mentioned, if it comes in on 
budget, will be $285 a square foot. Many others are coming at over $200 
a square foot. One of the national networks reported that the average 
hospital cost in this country was $97 a square foot even with all of 
their special construction needs, and yet these Federal courthouses are 
coming in at ridiculous amounts, and that will be the case with these 
courthouses if we do not really look at them first, if we do not go 
over them with a fine tooth comb and if we do not go through the normal 
procedures, the processes, that are called for by the Public Buildings 
Act of 1959 which specifically says that these courthouses must start 
with the authorizing work done first.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is becoming one of the most 
bipartisan issues in the Congress, and, in fact, in my position as 
ranking member, ranking Republican, on the Subcommittee on Public 
Buildings and Grounds, I have just a few days ago signed a letter 
requesting a new GAO investigation of the exorbitant and excessive 
costs in regard to these courthouses. That letter was signed by 8 
Members of the Congress: Senator Dorgan, Senator Glenn, Senator Sasser, 
Senator Kerrey, all Democrats, Senator Cohen, Senator McCain, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and myself.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell] has a fair and reasonable amendment here. It does not means 
that these courthouses will not be approved later, at least we will be 
doing it. If we follow this amendment, we will be doing what the people 
want us to do, and that is spending their money as if it were our own 
instead of just blowing it right and left as if we did not have a $4\1/
2\ trillion national debt, as if we were not still losing hundreds of 
millions of dollars each day on top of it.

  We cannot afford to keep doing business as usual in this Congress. 
There has to be a stop some place, and this amendment is a good place 
to stand up in favor of some fiscal sanity and to pay some regard to 
the taxpayers sacrifices that they are making on a daily basis to 
provide the money that is doing all the things we want to do.
  I urge support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. ROWLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ROWLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROWLAND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $6 million, 
which has been included in the appropriations bill, to begin 
construction on the courthouse in Albany, GA. The Albany courthouse has 
been on the General Services Administration list of requests in fiscal 
year 1994 as well as for fiscal year 1995. According to GSA, this is a 
sound project.
  It is my understanding that the design for the Albany courthouse is 
95 percent complete and will be 100 percent complete on July 5, 1994. 
The city of Albany has already donated a prime site for the courthouse.
  Pages 38 and 39 of H.R. 4539 clearly state that the funds 
appropriated for the Albany courthouse and the other courthouses the 
gentleman from Illinois has referred to will not be spent without the 
authorization of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. So, 
I really do not know what the gentleman's problem is.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words to speak on behalf of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. Chairman, the old adage in politics is that one man's pork is 
another man's project. More often than not parochial debate about what 
is or is not pork gets wrapped up in personalities and partisan 
politics. The gentleman from Illinois has sought to put an end to that 
shallow and vindictive way of approaching the public purse strings and 
has said, along with his colleagues, we ought to have some objective 
criteria, objective criteria that focuses on procedures of 
decisionmaking consistent with the rules of the House of 
Representatives, and only, only if a project for spending in an 
appropriation bill is brought to the floor without having gone through 
this decisionmaking process, shall we deign to call it pork or 
otherwise characterize it as unjustifiable spending, never on the basis 
of geographical region, personality or party definition.
  I watched the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] today after having 
done his research into the spending bill, after having checked, project 
by project, to see the extent to which the separate projects have 
fulfilled their criteria of decisionmaking procedure of this body in 
its own rules, identify some that failed, failed the test of process, 
and with total disregard to all other considerations that brought them 
forward. Furthermore, I have come and gone from the floor today, and I 
have watched the gentleman from Illinois diligently and passionately 
wait his turn within the processes of this House as we assign turns to 
offer amendments, and so it has come his lot to make his offer late in 
the evening. The gentleman from Illinois has, more than anybody I have 
ever seen in this process, consistently put principle ahead of 
parochialism, principle ahead of partisanship, and principle ahead of 
personalities.

                              {time}  2010

  This is not some random selection on his part. It is a matter of 
saying we should have a consistent process by which we make decisions 
that every Member should bring a project to the process and compete 
against every other project by every other Member, fairly, and without 
consideration to stature of the Member involved, party of the Member 
involved, schmooze, as we know it in politics, but on the merits of the 
project relative to the others.
  Now, the chairman gives us an elaborate explanation about the 
relationship of the appropriations bill to the authorizing bill, all of 
that in consideration to our relationship with the other body. And then 
he makes the very cogent point to the gentleman from Illinois, ``That 
is the way,'' the chairman says, ``That is the way the system is 
intended to work.''
  But, Mr. Chairman, if that is the way the system is intended to work, 
why does the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee then need to 
go to the Committee on Rules and ask the Committee on Rules to waive 
the rules of this body, and bar the gentleman from Illinois of the 
normal procedure of raising a point of order against these 
expenditures, by the House waiving its own rules in defense of these 
projects?
  No, I reject that argument. When the system works the way the system 
was intended to work, the Committee on Rules does not have to waive the 
rules of the House and preempt the system to preserve the pork.
  So, as I applaud the gentleman from Illinois for his commitment, the 
quality of his workmanship, and his persistence and patient tenacity, I 
implore the Members of this body, vote ``yes'' for the gentleman's 
amendment, vote ``yes'' for a process by which we as a body can put 
principle and process and procedure ahead of personality, parochialism, 
and partisanship.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fawell and in support of 
the funding for the Albany courthouse. I say no to obstructionists. I 
say no to those people who engage in obstreperous debate. I say yes for 
action.
  In fiscal year 1992 in the appropriations bill, legislation was 
passed to fund designs for a new courthouse in Albany, GA. In July 
1991, the city of Albany adopted a resolution donating land for the 
construction of a new courthouse. In fiscal year 1993, Congress 
appropriated $6 million of the total almost $12 million necessary for 
construction, management and inspection of the building.
  Now, in order to complete this project, the people who live within 
the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle 
District of Georgia need the additional $6 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the House recently passed a major crime bill to keep 
criminals off the streets. How can we expect to get and keep criminals 
off the streets if our U.S. judges, probation officers, clerks of 
court, and other administrative officers of the court are handicapped 
by insufficient work space?
  We now have four district judges, three bankruptcy judges, two 
magistrates, serving 70 counties in the middle district of Georgia, 
operating out of one courtroom when they sit in Albany, GA.
  The existing courthouse cannot accommodate the requirements of the 
Federal courts and the related agencies. As designed, the proposed 
courthouse could accommodate the future growth of the courts beyond 
their 10 year requirements. An additional courtroom can be provided by 
converting office space. Noncourt court agencies can be relocated when 
additional space is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, plans for the Albany courthouse have been around since 
fiscal year 1992. This project did not just appear out of thin air. The 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] knows very well that before any 
money can be spent on the courthouse, the House Committee on Public 
Works will have to approve an 11(b) prospectus for the courthouse. A 
vote against the Fawell amendment means that the city of Albany will be 
eligible for funding in March or April of next year, rather than 
waiting until November of 1995, when costs and inflation will make the 
construction costs go higher.
  GSA is well aware of this project. According to the prospectus, in 
May 1993, leasing agreements over 30 years could cost the Federal 
Government more than it will cost to construct this facility.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not pork. Our area and areas like ours where 
jobs can be created through the construction of a major facility, where 
justice can be had and communities made safer by the swift and 
efficient administration of justice, this is not pork. This is beef and 
potatoes.
  Vote ``no'' on the Fawell amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would call this body's attention to the report from 
the Committee on Appropriations for this particular bill, page 3, and 
would read the following words. It says:

       The American people want their government to be held 
     accountable. As the Committee on Appropriations, we hold a 
     special responsibility in restoring their faith in their 
     government by ensuring them that their money is being spent 
     wisely on programs that they want and in a way that they can 
     judge results. We must ensure that governmental institutions 
     are in place and functioning effectively to eliminate 
     government waste and inefficiency that do nothing but 
     increase our national debt. The debt is strangling our 
     economy. If this country is to grow, create jobs, and compete 
     in the world marketplace, we must reduce our national 
     defense, and one of the methods for doing so must be the 
     reduction of waste and inefficiency in government spending.

  Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of this matter coming before the 
authorization committee and the argument that the gentleman from 
Georgia just gave should not be made here, but should have been made in 
the appropriate committee. That is the whole purpose of that committee, 
and that is to authorize the construction and the nature of the 
construction. In fact, that is to comply with that law that was passed, 
the Public Buildings Act of 1959. But what we see here is using this 
body, using this forum this evening as a hearing, as a total program 
for saying we need this, let us go ahead and do it.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about three courthouses. We are talking 
about $60 million. These expenditures may be necessary, they may not be 
necessary.
  I have in front of me a letter from a Federal district judge in one 
of the districts saying, ``in my opinion, the construction of a 
courthouse would be a monumental waste of the taxpayers' dollars.'' If 
we are to fulfill these words and the words in the preamble of this 
report from the Committee on Appropriations, then we should hold those 
hearings in the appropriate committee. We should bring in the judge 
that wrote this letter saying this is a waste. But let us not thrash 
out the necessary and the desire for these courthouses here in this 
body, bypassing the authorization process.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would request and ask the Members of this 
body that they vote in favor of the Fawell amendment to eliminate those 
expenditures that have not been authorized. They can always come back 
next year and use the appropriate procedures. And if these in fact are 
necessary, as the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, has stated, then 
do so at that time, using the appropriate remedy.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Fawell.
  I agree with the thrifty spirit of the gentleman's amendment and 
appreciate his intentions. This is not parochialism, this is dire need.
  We both agree on the importance of authorizing the expenditure of 
funds before they are appropriated.
  Unfortunately, in this case, fate has delayed the authorization.
  I was scheduled to appear before the authorizing committee, chaired 
at the subcommittee level by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Traficant, to 
testify to the need for the courthouse in Corpus Christi.
  That hearing was delayed but will take place tomorrow.
  The Corpus Christi courthouse was included in this appropriations 
bill because the need is so great--and the authorization course will be 
followed this week.
  In fact, the General Services Administration does support this 
project, and I understand it is ready to release an 11(b) study as soon 
as it is requested by the Public Works and Transportation Committee.
  I have every reason to expect that an 11(b) request will be made by 
the committee.
  Most importantly, this appropriations bill has a safeguard built in.
  It requires that a prospectus be approved before any funds 
appropriated in this bill will be made available.
  This protection assures that the authorization process must be 
complied with before the funding is released.
  The Appropriations Committee did not want to delay for a year this 
badly needed courthouse.
  The need here is great--the current courthouse was built in 1916.
  We have judges in three different locations; security officers in 
three different locations; and files in three separate locations across 
the downtown area.
  This operation is inefficient to the clerk's operations, as well as 
to the judges and the community they serve.
  Corpus Christi needs a courthouse 70 percent times larger than 
current housing just to meet today's needs.
  The volume of criminal cases before the Southern District of Texas is 
influenced by the increased instances of illegal drugs, illegal 
immigration, and illegal financial practices associated with the S&L 
disaster of the 1980s.
  These trials are complex and cumbersome--and can consume as much as a 
month.
  The process is slowed even more by the lack of space.
  For these reasons, I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment 
by the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fawell amendment to strike 
three unauthorized courthouses from the fiscal year 1995 Treasury/
Postal Appropriations bill. Mr. Fawell has been tireless in his efforts 
to strike porkbarrel spending from various appropriation bills, and I 
am glad to stand with him on this particular amendment.
  The courthouses funded in this bill are located in Albany, GA, at a 
cost of $6 million; Steubenville, OH, at a cost of $3 million; $6.9 
million for a courthouse in Corpus Christi, TX.
  None of these courthouses were authorized by the Public Works and 
Transportation Committee; there have been no congressional hearings on 
the proposed projects; the three projects were not awarded on a 
competitive basis; and the projects are for purely local interest.
  After this amendment there will still be over $4\1/2\ billion for 
courthouses left in the budget justified by standard procedures. 
Additionally, these three projects at a cost to the taxpayers of $15.9 
million were not requested by the President or agency of oversight, the 
General Services Administration.
  Now, maybe these three new Federal courthouses are needed; maybe they 
each have merit; we do not know, because there were no hearings in 
committee. The practice of placing projects such as these in 
appropriations bills without following the standard congressional 
procedure must end.
  Let us not saddle the taxpayers with the bill for more pork. Vote in 
favor of the Fawell amendment to strike these three examples of 
porkbarrel spending.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell]. I would like to congratulate the gentleman for 
his diligent efforts in trying to take on the problem we have with pork 
projects. Once again, we have an appropriations bill with a number of 
unauthorized projects.
  Within this bill there are close to 25 million dollars' worth of 
unauthorized courthouse projects. Some will argue that this is not a 
lot of money. Why should we bother? But if every day this year Congress 
found just $25 million to cut, we could reduce spending by over $9 
billion by the end of the year.
  Finding items to cut is basically our job. I believe that the 
American people want it done. They are tired of waste, and they are 
tired of unauthorized pork barrel projects.
  Under the rules of the House, each of these courthouse projects are 
subject to a point of order because they are unauthorized. The 
leadership knows this, and that is why they have crafted a rule that 
waives all points of order.
  This unfortunate practice has become routine and so what is the point 
of having budget points of order, if the House is going to wage them 
whenever a violation is identified?
  Let us restore the rules of the House and strike these projects. If 
they are important and necessary expenditures, then they should be 
authorized.
  I believe that we should go through a process that says we go through 
the authorization process first and then, after we have gone through 
the authorization process, we make the funds available for those 
specific projects.
  It is also my belief that we have the rules of the House here for a 
purpose, and that is to assure a certain amount of reliability in the 
process in the House. This guarantees fairness to all Members, both in 
the majority and the minority. I think that we need to make more of a 
conscientious effort to stick with the rules of the House and diminish 
the times that we have to waive the points of order because we have not 
followed the rules of the House.
  Mr. APPLEGATE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Let me just say, there is a couple of points I want to make, but 
first of all, I would like to address a couple things.
  I hear all these arguments about authorizations and appropriations, 
and I know that, I have been around here long enough to know that we 
are not going to appropriate without the authorizations.
  We went through that last year with the Transportation Subcommittee 
on Appropriations. We did not ask to kill all the amendments, only that 
they be subjected to authorization first, which is the way it ought to 
be. And it was not always that way with appropriations. They used to go 
about doing whatever they wanted. Bill Natcher came in, and he made 
those changes and so the Members now come to the authorizing committee.
  So we know what that situation is, and it does not make any 
difference whether it has to be first or second. The point is that one 
cannot spend the money unless one has the authorization. It is as 
simple as that.
  And it will show, as the chairman pointed out on page 38 and 39 of 
the bill, it states exactly in there that this is subject to 
authorization.
  Now, as to Steubenville, I have to say, I have a great respect for my 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] and all, but the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] in this instance simply does not 
know what he is talking about. He states that, and he is quoting the 
GSA, says that downtown Steubenville currently has an office vacancy 
rate of approximately 18 percent or 36,000 square feet. True. I do not 
argue that. It is true. But that is when we were looking for a federal 
building, a federal office building.
  This is a courthouse now. This is for courtrooms. This is not to 
bring in the Social Security office, the IRS, the FBI and the rest of 
them. This is for something that is needed. So I think that the 
gentleman is wrong on that point.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Chief Judge of the Southern 
District of Ohio. I will not read the whole thing, but I will just go 
through and say a couple of things that he had mentioned.
  Mr. Chairman, he said,

       Judicial officers who travel to Steubenville must depend on 
     the courtesy of the Common Pleas Court of Jefferson County to 
     provide state court facilities * * *, an arrangement that has 
     obvious disadvantages for the judicial officers and federal 
     litigants. Federal court judicial officers should not * * * 
     be dependent on state officials for the conduct of federal 
     court business.

  ``The Southern District of Ohio includes forty-eight counties'' with 
5 million people in them. ``Lawsuits must be filed in Columbus,'' in 
which people must travel 150 to 200 miles away, and it makes it very 
inconvenient for litigants, for lawyers to have to make this trip.
  The judge says it is his belief that ``litigants who otherwise would 
prefer to have their cases determined in the federal court, file in a 
local court if jurisdiction is concurrent in order to avoid the 
hardships and increased costs of filing in Columbus.''
  ``By statute,'' now listen to this, ``by statute, Steubenville has 
been designated a seat of this Court, 28 U.S.C. Section 115(b), but, at 
the present time, there is no federal building'' in Steubenville. As a 
matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, there is not one Federal building in my 
whole congressional district, outside of a post office.
  ``Until such time as a suitable facility is provided, the citizens 
who reside in this area of Ohio will continue to be deprived of 
convenient access. . . .''
  The judge says he believes ``that a suitable federal building in 
Steubenville should be established for this purpose.'' This is the 
Chief Judge of the Southern District. And he says, ``this does not 
require the building of an elaborate, costly structure of the style 
frequently associated with United States courthouses,'' so we are not 
looking for one of these granite-type big column courthouses. We want 
something practical.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Applegate] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Applegate was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. APPLEGATE. Mr. Chairman, this is what the judge says. He says 
that he believes what is required is ``a Federal building of modest 
proportions that would be sufficient to accommodate courtroom chambers 
for a District Judge, chambers for a Magistrate Judge, chambers for a 
Bankruptcy Judge, and chambers for an Administrative Law Judge,'' with 
an office for the clerk and the United States Attorney.
  It would be nice if we could be included as part of the Southern 
District, but the way it is, we are not.
  I could go on, Mr. Chairman, and talk about some other of the 
arguments that the Chief Judge has stated. However, his point is very 
cogent. He is very accurate. He knows what the needs are.
  What we are looking for, Mr. Chairman, is a reevaluation by the 
General Services Administration, a new 11(b) for a courthouse and not a 
Federal building.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. APPLEGATE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman had mentioned the fact that 
the Hon. John D. Holschuh had written a letter, and I was not going to 
bring this up, but inasmuch as the gentleman has, I think it is only 
fair.
  I have a letter from, I think, the Chief Judge, James L. Graham, 
where, and I will just read it, he said:

       Representative Douglas Applegate recently requested that 
     our Chief Judge, the Honorable John D. Holschuh, send him a 
     letter supporting H.R. 2562, which directs the GSA to design 
     and acquire a site for a Federal building to be constructed 
     in Steubenville. When Judge Holschuh circulated his proposed 
     letter among judges here in Columbus, I and others took 
     exception to the need for a Federal building in Steubenville, 
     and even stronger objection to the creation of additional 
     judgeship positions for a district judge, a magistrate judge, 
     and a bankruptcy judge to be located in Steubenville.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Applegate] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Fawell and by unanimous consent, Mr. Applegate was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FAWELL. I continue:

       Judge Holschuh proceeded to send the letter, but enclosed 
     it with a covering letter which indicated that it represented 
     his personal views only.
       I frankly doubt that anyone will ever see the covering 
     letter, and Judge Holschuh's letter may be presented as 
     representing the views of this court, since he is Chief 
     Judge. In my opinion, the construction of a courthouse in 
     Steubenville and the creation of additional judgeships there 
     would be a monumental waste of the taxpayers' money.
       Enclosed you will find copies of the letters other members 
     of this court sent Chief Judge Holschuh expressing their 
     reservations or outright disagreement with Representative 
     Applegate's bill. Judge Rubin's letter is in particular very 
     much to the point.

  The only thing I would want to add to that, Mr. Chairman, is that in 
all three of these projects, as well as the two other projects which 
would be in the second amendment, it is very, very clear that there 
never has been an authorization, never, and never has there been a 
prospectus issued by GSA.
  Mr. APPLEGATE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If the gentleman would, give us time and we will have that to you. 
Let me just say this. Maybe that is why Judge Reuben is not the Chief 
Judge, I do not know.
  Let me say this, that Judge Holschuh has recommended additional 
judgeship positions for a district judge, additional ones, because the 
workload is getting too large for Columbus, and they need the offices 
in other areas, so it is only one judge's word, perhaps, against the 
other.
  The fact of the matter is we need the courthouse in Steubenville.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter by Judge Holschuh:


                                          U.S, District Court,

                                  Columbus, OH, December 20, 1993.
     Hon. Douglas Applegate.
     610 Ohio Valley Towers, Steubenville, OH
       Dear Congressman Applegate: It has come to my attention 
     that during the last session of Congress you introduced H.R. 
     2562 to direct the Administrator of General Services 
     Administration to design, and acquire a site for, a federal 
     building to be constructed in Steubenville, Ohio.
       As you are aware, since 1987 when the former Post Office 
     and United States Courthouse was sold by the Postal Service 
     to a private party, there has been no federal court facility 
     located in the eastern part of this state. Judicial officers 
     who travel to Steubenville must depend on the courtesy of the 
     Common Pleas Court of Jefferson County to provide state court 
     facilities for their use, an arrangement that has obvious 
     disadvantages for the judicial officers and federal 
     litigants. Federal court judicial officers should not, in my 
     opinion, be dependent on state officials for the conduct of 
     federal court business.
       The Southern District of Ohio includes forty-eight counties 
     having a population of approximately 5,000,000 people, and a 
     large part of the district geographically and a substantial 
     portion of its population are contained in the eastern and 
     southeastern counties. The citizens of Ohio who reside in 
     this part of the state undoubtedly face major obstacles in 
     seeking access to the federal court. Lawsuits must be filed 
     in Columbus, a distance of approximately 150 miles from 
     Steubenville. Thereafter, counsel and litigants must make the 
     round trip of approximately 300 miles for preliminary 
     pretrial conferences, status conferences, discovery hearings, 
     settlement conferences, and final pretrial conferences and 
     trial. Attending trial in Columbus, or attending any other 
     hearing which extends more than one day, requires staying 
     overnight in Columbus, away from the homes of the attorneys 
     and litigants and away from the law offices of the attorneys. 
     Aside from the inconveniences involved, the costs of 
     litigation under these circumstances is greatly increased. 
     In short, the citizens who reside in the eastern and 
     southeastern part of this state must endure considerable 
     hardship and greater expenses to utilize the federal court 
     than that required of other citizens who have ready access 
     to the court system at Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton.
       It is my belief that, as a result, litigants who otherwise 
     would prefer to have their cases determined in the federal 
     court, file in a local state court if jurisdiction is 
     concurrent in order to avoid the hardships and increased 
     costs of filing in Columbus. A federal court facility in 
     Steubenville would eliminate those hardships and costs for 
     the great number of citizens who live in the eastern and 
     southeastern part of our state and, in my opinion, would 
     result in a greater utilization of the federal court by those 
     citizens.
       By statute, Steubenville has been designated a seat of this 
     Court, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 115(b), but, at the present time, there 
     is no federal building in which judicial officers of this 
     district can conduct proceedings at Steubenville. Until such 
     time as a suitable facility is provided, the citizens who 
     reside in this area of Ohio will continue to be deprived of 
     convenient access to the federal judicial system. I believe, 
     therefore, that a suitable federal building in Steubenville 
     should be established for this purpose. In my view, this does 
     not require the building of an elaborate, costly structure of 
     the style frequently associated with United States 
     courthouses. Instead, I believe that what is required is a 
     federal building of modest proportions that would be 
     sufficient to accommodate a courtroom and chambers for a 
     District Judge, chambers for a Magistrate Judge, chambers for 
     a Bankruptcy Judge and chambers for an Administrative Law 
     Judge, Satellite offices for the Clerk and United States 
     Attorney should also be included. There should also be space 
     sufficient to house those federal agencies in Steubenville 
     which are currently using leased property in the city. A 
     federal building of this nature would be adequate, in my 
     view, for the needs of the community it would serve.
       I also believe that if there is a federal courthouse 
     constructed at Steubenville, serious consideration should be 
     given to the authorization of additional judgeship positions 
     for a District Judge, a Magistrate Judge and a Bankruptcy 
     Judge to be located at Steubenville. The Judges at Columbus 
     are extremely busy in an effort to cope with their own 
     present dockets. For the year ended June 30, 1993, weighted 
     filings per district judgeship in this district were 388. 
     This is barely under the standard of 400 weighted filings per 
     judgeship established by the Judicial Conference Subcommittee 
     on Judicial Statistics as the threshold indicator that 
     additional judgeships may be needed for the Court. In 
     responding to the questionnaire for the 1984 Biennial 
     Survey of Judgeship Needs, I considered requesting an 
     additional judgeship at Steubenville, but I felt that the 
     statistics and the lack of any court facilities at that 
     location would foreclose consideration of such a request. 
     If, however, adequate court facilities are established at 
     Steubenville, I would anticipate an increase of the 
     court's business at that location which would justify an 
     additional district court judgeship at that location. The 
     same justification would support an additional magistrate 
     judge and bankruptcy judge to be located at Steubenville. 
     If the Steubenville docket should not require the full 
     time services of these judges at that location, their work 
     assignments can be adjusted so that some portion of their 
     time would be spent in Columbus in order to assist the 
     Columbus judges in disposing of the business of the Court 
     at that location. The additional judgeships would benefit 
     the entire Eastern Division of the Southern District of 
     Ohio, but especially would be of benefit to the citizens 
     who live in the eastern and southeastern sections of our 
     state and who truly need convenient and inexpensive access 
     to the federal court system.
       With highest regards and best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John D. Holschuh.
  Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee which considered this 
bill and reported this bill out for the consideration of the House, I 
want to rise in strong opposition to the Fawell amendment, and state to 
my colleagues that we have considered some 50 different courthouse 
projects in this bill. We are singling out three for some reason, just 
because they have not been authorized officially by the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation.
  However, as members of the Subcommittee on Treasury-Postal Service-
General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, we have 
consulted with the authorizing committee, and we have determined that 
in our view these projects ought to go forward.
  None of these projects are in my district. I want to repeat that one 
more time: None of these projects are in the district that I represent.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about the Albany 
site. They had needed a courthouse in that area for many years. The 
city of Albany even donated land upon which a courthouse could be 
built. Six million dollars has already been appropriated for this 
courthouse, and the project cannot go forward until the other $6 
million is appropriated by this body.
  Mr. Chairman, the case for the Albany courthouse has already been 
made by our good friends who represent that area, the gentlemen from 
Georgia, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Rowland, but I want to add there is a dire 
need there, and this project should not be singled out. We talk about 
$22 million.
  Let me say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] if he wants to 
save money for the taxpayers, why does he not take out this $53 million 
that we are throwing away to the Chicago Federal Center? That is pork. 
If the gentleman is looking for pork, why does he not eliminate that 
$53 million in the gentleman's own home State?
  There is a certain irony here that everyone wants to be a pork buster 
in somebody else's State, in somebody else's area. I say, Mr. Chairman, 
if the gentleman is really serious about this, let us save $53 million 
and eliminate the Chicago Federal Center. That is $30 million more than 
the gentleman has proposed. Of course, the gentleman is not going to do 
that, because, again, this goes back to the irony of it. Pork is 
something in somebody else's State for somebody else's area.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining amount of my time to 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, we are getting to the end of this debate. I 
think everybody understands what the debate is about. I think some good 
points have been made.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, am opposed to the Fawell amendment, and 
reiterate once again, everybody understands that not a nickel can be 
spent on any of these courthouses until such time as the authorizors 
make a determination that the project should go forward and approve a 
prospectus.
  That is the bottom line. I say that is the bottom line because 
historically, the offense has been that the appropriators would put in 
projects, be protected by the rule, pass them into law, and the 
authorizing committees would never see them. The authorizers did not 
think that was appropriate. We have, over the last two years, agreed 
with that, and these three projects must pass muster with the 
authorizing committees before more money is spent on acquisition of 
land, construction, or design.

                              {time}  2040

  The only thing that money can be spent on is to provide the 
prospectus to the committee.
  I urge the House, the Committee on the Whole, to reject the Fawell 
amendment.
  I want to tell Members in all honesty, there are other projects in 
this bill that have not been included in this amendment that come from 
other areas and other Members projects on that side of the aisle that 
are not totally authorized. They are good projects and they ought to 
move forward. These projects in particular, however, have not been 
authorized in the Senate. The law says both but these projects have not 
been authorized in the Senate. I am not sure what the Senators will 
think in conference of the other projects.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DARDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. If there are other unauthorized projects, I do not know 
of them, but I certainly would like to.
  Mr. HOYER. We are going to speak to the gentleman's amendment. I want 
to limit myself to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for the opportunity 
to speak on his amendment and for all the hard work the gentleman has 
done in the fight against pork barrel spending. As cochairman of the 
Porkbuster Coalition, he and his staff are to be commended for all of 
their hours of hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress is worse than the kid who buys a candy bar 
with money that mom gave him for a loaf of bread. Some Members of 
Congress still have never learned to follow directions and they know we 
cannot punish them because all points of order have been waived against 
this bill. We can, however, take their money away.
  Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee points 
out that the bill, as it is written, would require authorization before 
we have any funds expended that are appropriated here. But we all know 
how this works. Once we get the train going down the track, we get it 
through the House of Representatives, it is taken up in conference with 
the Senate, those requirements are dropped out, and before we know it, 
we are on the way.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations has taken it upon 
themselves to tell how best the money should be spent. This is not 
their role and they have not been granted the authority to do this. 
Unfortunately, the rules that the House has implemented to avoid this 
scenario are conveniently being ignored. In addition, not only were 
these courthouses not approved for appropriations, they were not 
requested by anyone who has the authority to make a request. The Public 
Buildings Act of 1959 gave the power to request funding for these 
projects to the General Services Administration and the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation. Neither of these authorizing bodies 
have asked for the courthouses. Yet somehow $15.8 million found its way 
without direction from those who are supposed to be involved in this 
process. It is little wonder why these authorizing committees have not 
acted when we consider the case of the Ohio courthouse.
  We have letters not only from the senior chief judge but we also have 
letters from every other judge that serves in that district in Ohio, 
and every one of them expresses reservation about that courthouse:
  Judge Carl Rubin, Judge George Smith, Judge Arthur Spiegel who says, 
``The above is by way of saying that if the Government wants to spend 
some money, they could refurbish the Federal courtroom and chambers in 
Steubenville rather than spending a fortune building a new courthouse 
which is probably unnecessary.''
  The same with Judge Sandra Beckwith. The list goes on.
  I urge every Member who has heard from his constituents to stop pork 
barrel spending to vote for the Fawell amendment. These three projects 
are the very definition of pork barrel spending. The President did not 
ask for them, the authorizing agency did not ask for them, the 
authorizing committee did not ask for them. A vote for the Fawell 
amendment will be a vote for responsibility and integrity.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just want, before the other gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] speaks on this, to say to the gentleman, the 
gentleman indicated, ``We all know how the game is played.'' I do not 
believe this is a game.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I did not call it a game. I said, ``how 
the process works.''
  Mr. HOYER. ``We all know how the process works.''
  I want to tell the gentleman as seriously as I can, that I have 
discussed this language with the Chairman of the Senate Committee. This 
language requiring prior authorization and a prospectus approval will 
be in the conference report that comes back to this House. This 
Chairman is not playing games. When I tell the gentleman this is going 
to be subject to authorization, as I have told the gentleman from 
Corpus Christi, as I have told the gentleman from Steubenville, as I 
have told the gentleman from Albany, this project will not go forward 
unless the House Committee passes a prospectus.
  I want the gentleman to be assured that this language will not be 
dropped in conference. We are not playing games, we are not gaming the 
process, we are saying that the authorization and the appropriation 
will go together.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that the appropriation is 
coming here, but it is coming subject to authorization, so that the 
appropriations cannot and will not go forward absent the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation action.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his 
determination in that regard.
  I would ask the chairman why it is we cannot simply wait on the 
action of the authorizing committees if there is such controversy 
regarding these courthouses.
  Mr. HOYER. The determination of the committee, as the gentleman from 
Georgia has indicated, is that we felt that these were projects that 
had merit. We have, therefore, included them in this bill because it 
will accelerate their construction time if, in fact, at some point in 
time in the future the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
acts. We thought that appropriate and it did not in any way undermine 
our policies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodlatte was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we adopt the Fawell 
amendment, and follow the process that is here. I respect the judgment 
of the committee, but I think the judgment of the GSA, the judgment of 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the judgment of the 
administration and the judgment of those of us who are concerned about 
unauthorized projects be recognized and that this amendment be carried.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate and I have listened to a 
lot of misnomer here tonight.
  The last I heard, the Office of Management and Budget was an 
executive branch agency. they have no constitutional right to tell 
Congress where the courthouses shall be and where the judges will sit. 
Let me say that again, because we are not listening in this debate, 
ladies and gentlemen.
  Mr. Chairman, when Members on that side of the aisle came to me, I 
took their cause as if they were a Democrat and I have been completely 
fair. I want to say this. Four year ago I raised 71 points of order on 
this bill, and it had one of the greatest chairmen in our history, 
Chairman Roybal, because everybody legislated in it but they would not 
allow a Traficant IRS provision. They were going to strike that. It 
came in the size of an encyclopedia and left the size of a comic book 
when it went to the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I am for these projects. The Congress of the United 
States shall determine not only where the courts will be, but where the 
judges will sit. That is our constitutional empowerment and we have 
been transferring it to the White House in every code of our government 
budget from day one.
  Let us look at some facts. Corpus Christi, Albany, Providence, GSA 
had them in their request, they said they were needed. The Office of 
Management and Budget said, ``Keep them out of the budget.''
  Let me ask this to Members: What if the Office of Management and 
Budget does not like the vote that a Republican casts on a President's 
measure, and they leave your project out? Do you want fairness? You 
will get fairness and you have gotten fairness.
  Mr. Chairman, let us talk about Steubenville. Those judges in 
Columbus are worried they are going to be assigned to Steubenville. It 
is not their decision if one of them need be assigned. The people from 
Steubenville have to drive 200 miles to have a damn Social Security 
appeal hearing, maybe stay overnight. we have asked for a new 11(b) 
prospectus on a courthouse in Steubenville. Not one of these projects 
will be funded if our committee does not approve them, and that is the 
technical legal language.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say one other thing here. We have gotten off 
base. Two years ago, I cut courthouse projects 10 percent across the 
board. Then I came to this House and some Member stood up with a great 
speech for another 2 percent cut. I supported the 2 percent cut, and I 
supported the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy's cut today, 
even though some would say, ``Well, hell, aren't you doing your job 
over there'' because we are cannibalizing everything and we are all 
going to go on with this, but here is what I am saying to Members.

                              {time}  2050

  Not one of these projects is funded by Chairman Hoyer. Chairman 
Hoyer, in consultation with the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and myself, 
deemed that they were appropriate, deemed that they maybe needed 
pending approval, and we concurred, and they have given us the 
courtesy.
  And do you know what? Do you know how much authorization really 
exists in these bills? And do you want to jump on Albany, Corpus 
Christi, and Steubenville, OH?
  If our committee does not approve these projects, they will not be 
approved.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let me say this is a man who raised 71 points 
of order. It may be a record.
  The appropriators used to write all the laws. We have come to the 
point where appropriators are concurring with authorizing committees, 
and we are developing that type of relationship.
  I did not raise a point of order. I did not need to. I think Chairman 
Hoyer has done a great job with this committee, and it is pretty tough 
to replace a Chairman Roybal.
  I am asking the Members to vote for our due power process here. We 
govern. The President executes and administers the people's law. We 
govern. We set policy. We are not beyond the boundaries of that process 
here tonight.
  So I am asking you to vote no on the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell], and I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] is 
one of the most distinguished Members we have. I commend him. But in 
this point, in this case here, I say to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Fawell], I believe you are wrong, and I am asking everybody who 
had gotten fairness with these Members now looking for that fairness to 
remember when you drove up.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] for that very ringing speech on behalf of his area and 
the things he believes in with his courthouse. I think that is very 
appropriate.
  I would point out he is absolutely historically correct. The change 
in the Committee on Rules began at the time that he made his 71 points 
of order against this bill 3 years ago, I think it was, and that is 
what started it. Ever since then we have been left in sort of a funny 
limbo up in the Committee on Rules, and we are no longer playing by the 
House rules. We are playing by whatever rules come along that suit a 
certain number of people in the majority that day.
  Now, that may be fine, but that is not fair to the other Members of 
this House.
  I think there are probably some in the majority who are a little 
surprised the minority is not more grateful for the open amendment 
process that we have had on this bill. We are grateful that all Members 
have the chance to offer cutting amendments, and there have been 
plenty. Given the restrictive tendency, particularly that we have seen 
in the past, we are making some progress in getting amendments out, and 
that is good.

  But this open amendment process is not a gift from the majority on 
the Committee on Rules. It is the standing operating procedures of this 
House under which spending bills are supposed to be considered. So it 
is not anything special.
  If we lived by our rules, we would be doing the normal order. In 
fact, the reason this bill went to the Committee on Rules in the first 
place is not because the appropriators wanted to shut out any 
amendments, and there were some that probably should have been shut 
out, but this bill went to the Committee on Rules because the 
appropriators wanted protection, protection for provisions in the bill 
that violate standing House rules, and they got protection from the 
majority side of the Committee on Rules.
  Among those violations are these unauthorized courthouses, projects 
worth $25 million or so that have not been authorized as priorities by 
this Congress or by the administration or even by the GSA, and I do not 
know what they are doing authorizing things either.
  Had the Committee on Rules not granted those courthouses special 
protection today, Members would have been able to strike them out of 
this bill automatically by raising a point of order as the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] did 3 years ago 71 times. But because of the 
protective action by the Committee on Rules, today's Members have to 
instead vote on whether or not these courthouses are going to be given 
special clearance. Here we are at 9 o'clock at night still debating 
these things. It is not automatic. The same privilege is not available 
as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] had 3 years ago.
  The burden is now on those seeking to uphold the rules of the House, 
not on those attempting to break them. That is wrong. It is a dangerous 
shift in responsibility when you consider the enormity of our budget 
crisis.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to support the Fawell amendment from 
the point of view of the minority of the Committee on Rules. We need to 
send a signal to the House that we do live within our own rules. That 
is why we have them. We need to send a signal that says we do not 
penalize those who do honor the rules, because every Member has got to 
realize that if we keep this up on the trend we are on now, they are 
not only going to have to get appropriations from the appropriators for 
their projects, they are going to have to get protection, and that has 
a bad sound to it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel that there is a requirement to answer the 
implication just left by the previous speaker.
  The gentleman talks about the actions taken by the Committee on Rules 
to protect projects which were unauthorized. I would point out that 
that is a convenience which is often provided by the Committee on Rules 
in order to facilitate a rational order of business.
  I just have to say that despite all of the pious posing I have heard 
on the floor over the past 9 hours from various Members, I find it 
quaint, indeed, but not at all surprising, that the only objections 
made to projects which were protected by the Committee on Rules in the 
way which the gentleman finds outrageous are to projects in the 
districts of Democrats. I find no such outrage expressed by the fact 
that those same rules protect a number of projects in the districts of 
Members on that side of the aisle. I see three on the page I am looking 
at right now.
  And yet I see no amendment coming from that side of the aisle to 
eliminate projects in Republican districts. One of those projects is in 
the district of one of the Republicans sitting on the floor now.
  Now, I would suggest that if the gentleman is going to express moral 
outrage, that he target it in a balanced way to targets on both sides 
of the aisle.
  This is the first time I have taken the floor on this bill. I had not 
intended to take it at all. The fact is that there are going to be 
literally hundreds of projects that come through this House in bills 
ranging from this bill to the defense appropriation bill, and if we are 
going to be officious and nit-picking about the stage in which some of 
those projects are, and if we are going to have selective amendments 
offered from that side of the aisle to eliminate only projects in 
Democratic districts, then I suggest to you that there are going to be 
a lot of amendments offered from this side of the aisle eliminating 
projects which are similarly not authorized on that side of the aisle.
  I do not think that is the way the game ought to be played. I think 
the committees have a right to make a judgment about whether or not a 
project is meritorious or not regardless of whether it is located in a 
Republican district or a Democratic district.
  No Congress has ever changed any President's budget by more than 3 
percent. That 3-percent difference is what makes a President and not a 
king. I make absolutely no apologies for the fact that the Congress on 
occasion exercises judgment and approves an occasional project which 
has not yet made it through the authorizing process, even though in the 
end most of them probably will.
  But I just note with great interest the partisan selectivity of the 
amendments before us on the floor tonight, and in the interests of 
avoiding partisan nastiness on bills to come, I would urge Members to 
recognize that if those targets are going to be exclusively on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, there are going to be a lot of targets on 
the Republican side of the aisle when the coming bills come to the 
House floor.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make only two short statements.
  First of all, I do not like to be threatened, and if the individual 
wants to threaten, we can handle that real good.
  It had not gotten nasty. At least, I had not understood the debate 
had gotten nasty until the last speaker spoke. If the gentleman wants 
to do something, he can just come right over here.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need to do that.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And the chairman does not need to threaten this side 
of the aisle, either, I agree. It had not gotten nasty. It had not 
gotten nasty, but I do not like to be threatened personally or have my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle--and I think the gentleman from 
Maryland does not do that. I think it was inappropriate.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, then why do we not keep the debate on the issue? We 
will all be better off.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And I agree.
  The only other statement I wanted to make is that Mr. Traficant is 
probably one of the most honest, bipartisan individuals that you have 
over there, and I appreciate that. I agree with the gentleman.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take a few seconds to respond. I want 
to assure the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
that I have no idea whose districts all of these projects are in, and I 
do not know whether they are Republicans or Democrats. The tenor of my 
remarks has nothing to do with partisanship. The tenor of my remarks 
has everything to do with the rules of the House and how they are 
managed by the majority and has a whole lot to do with the question of 
the fiscal crisis confronting this country. That is what my motives 
are. We have a lot of decisions to make. We do not have a good set of 
House rules.
  The distinguished chairman at this point has referred to us as nit-
picking, to be suggesting we should be following the rules. If that is 
the only regard that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
has for the rules of the House, that every time we are trying to waive 
them we are nit-picking, then why do we have a Rules Committee, Mr. 
Chairman?
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do hope we all can just cool down a bit. The gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] and I came into the Congress together, I think. I have 
watched this man as a fierce, independent person, blaze his way, set up 
new concepts, new ideas, because he is truly an independent thinker. I 
feel badly that we disagree in this one regard. I went to the Committee 
on Rules. I waited 2 or 3 hours to finally ask if I might have the 
right to raise a point of order against these 5 projects because they 
were not authorized. They were determined by a bipartisan group, by the 
way, not a partisan group, and if the chairman would put Republican 
projects in the list where no authorization is required, then I can 
assure you that as our staff labors over these appropriations in the 
little time that we have, we most certainly would include them. And I 
think the next amendment that is coming up, Congressman Machtley, for 
instance, will be taking a position against us. He happens to be a 
Republican against the Rhode Island project. But I simply want to say 
that when you are, as a member of the minority, especially, 
consistently denied the rules which theoretically are there, I would 
have had a right if the rules had been recognized, to simply stand up 
here and make a point of order and that would be the end of these 
projects for this year.
  Now, there are efforts being made, and understandably so, that there 
should be a prospectus that will be ultimately issued and, yes, Jim, 
you are going to have to deal with GSA, which is an executive branch. 
The law says GSA has got to be a part of the prospectus procedure, and 
reviewing where that courthouse is going to be, making a very in-depth 
analysis. Then when they bring that prospectus to OMB, with a favorable 
recommendation--it may not get the approval of OMB. In regard to Corpus 
Christi, OMB said, ``no, we don't think it should be funded.'' That is 
what OMB said. It is part of the legal process, it is part of what your 
committee has to work with, it is part of what we have to work with.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. CUNNINGHAM was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply say in response to the gentleman from Florida 
that what I find interesting is not the gentleman's nit-picking, but 
his selective nit-picking and his selective outrage. I repeat, if the 
gentleman is so pious and so concerned about the purity of the rules of 
the House, why did he not include in his amendment the three Republican 
projects I am looking at, all of which are designated not authorized, 
not authorized, not authorized?
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, all I can say is we have the staff of this Porkbusters 
group. They worked it over. They are bi-partisan. We did not find any 
other projects which had not been approved by the authorizing 
committee. There are five--we have four courthouses, we have the Walla 
Walla Corps of Engineers facility, but if the gentleman would show me 
any other project which has not been authorized by the Public Works 
Committee, I would be glad to take a look at them.
  Mr. OBEY. I am not impressed by the gentleman's selective piety.
  Mr. FAWELL. If there is anybody with selective piety, I know of no 
one who has more than the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has again expired.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point, the Rules Committee has 
been referred to. On the question of being in the minority, the 
gentleman may very well on that afternoon have lived through the 
testimony given by our colleague [Mr. Traficant] and myself. I would 
point out for the record that I am vice chair of the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction on this bill. Mr. Traficant and I were turned down on an 
amendment that we wanted to offer on this bill. I think that 
establishes the judicious nature of the decisionmaking process in the 
Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 271, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 244]

                               AYES--145

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Danner
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--271

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Ackerman
     Applegate
     Berman
     Cooper
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Glickman
     McDade
     Neal (NC)
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Saxton
     Sharp
     Tauzin
     Thomas (CA)
     Torres
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2126

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Cooper for, with Mr. Ackerman against.

  Messrs. GILMAN, EVERETT, PACKARD, FINGERHUT, and TAYLOR of 
Mississippi changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HOAGLAND changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. fawell

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell:
       Page 31, line 15, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before ``, 
     of which''.
       Page 34, line 16, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before ``, 
     which shall''.
       Page 36, strike line 25 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 2.
       Page 37, strike lines 9 through 11.
       Page 38, line 24, insert ``and'' after the 1st semicolon.
       Page 38, line 24, strike the last semicolon and all that 
     follows through ``Building'' on page 39, line 2.
       Page 40, line 22, insert ``(less $11,427,000)'' before 
     ``shall remain''.

  Mr. FAWELL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief. I do want to, 
however, clear up one point. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
made the statement that three projects being in districts of 
Republicans in Covington, Kentucky, London, Kentucky, and Greenville, 
Tennessee, were not authorized and yet included in the appropriation.
  This is not true. All, and we have just verified this, all were 
authorized in the House; all had approved prospectuses.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. Chairman, these three projects to which the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] referred, the latter being in Greenville, 
Tennessee, all had been authorized and gone through the process, fully 
approved. And the GSA had issued prospectuses. I am sorry that there 
was partisanship introduced in that aspect, because if it is any one 
thing that we have tried to do in the porkbuster group is to try to be 
fair about the projects that we select. I do not even ask staff of our 
different Members which Members of Congress might be affected. And 
oftentimes, those projects are in Illinois. Oftentimes, I have received 
a lot of criticism even from my fellow colleagues from Illinois. So 
enough of that.
  I am not going to go into the arguments. Members have heard all the 
arguments.
  I want to describe, at least I would like Members to know the two 
projects that are a part of this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman gets to those projects, 
I want to make the point, I happen to be for all three of the projects 
that the gentleman just mentioned. But under the law, they have to be 
authorized in both Houses. At an earlier time in the debate, I told the 
House that one of the problems here was that a lot of times the other 
House simply does not act. Under the law, to be fully authorized and 
follow the rules, they must be authorized in both Houses.
  The three projects that gentleman mentioned have not been authorized 
by the other House. It is this Member's opinion that is not because any 
one of those projects lacks merit. They ought to be approved. We 
included them in our bill. But technically, under the rules, they are 
not fully authorized.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I cannot control the Senate. But what we do 
is to look for what we can control and what violates the rules of this 
House. And that is what we try to do, that is what we look at. We 
certainly cannot control the other body.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
just want to tell the gentleman that under the law, the Chairman was 
correct.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully disagree.
  The first project deals with an office complex utilized by the Corps 
of Engineers in an office complex in Walla Walla, WA, the building 
project, although, listed under repairs and alternation under the 
federal building fund is for $2.8 million for demolition of the office 
complex on lands being returned to the city of Walla Walla. After many, 
many years of use by the Corps of Engineers under a long-term agreement 
that expressly states that upon the abandonment of the facilities they 
would revert to Walla Walla, and I quote, ``And the Federal Government 
shall not be required to provide any restoration whatsoever of any of 
the facilities conveyed.'' That is a $2.8 million project.
  The other project, which is in Providence, Rhode Island, is for $8.6 
million in reference to the repair and improvement of the federal 
courthouse.
  I will end my remarks, briefly, as I promised, by saying that both of 
these were never requested by the administration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Fawell was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. FAWELL. They were not requested by the administration. They were 
not requested or authorized by the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation. No prospectus by the GSA has ever been given as 
required by the Public Buildings Act, and they are in violation of the 
rules which state that an appropriation bill without authority violates 
our rules. And they also have legislating in the appropriation. Both of 
these have been waived. All of the arguments which Members heard pro 
and con before apply here.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is, I think, very honest when he says all 
the arguments that were made last time apply here. So that those 271 
Members who voted no on the previous amendment should feel comfortable 
voting no on this amendment.
  The reason is that not a nickel can be spent, as we said previously, 
without going to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and 
having the Committee on Public Works and Transportation approve both 
the Providence, RI, and the Walla Walla projects. We did that because 
the gentleman is correct. We want to follow the appropriate process. It 
will be an appropriation, but it cannot be spent until such time as, as 
the gentleman correctly observed, the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation authorizes that expense.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, if we were to follow what the gentleman has 
just said with every appropriation, all the appropriators would ever 
have to do is to say, no, there is no authorization. It is over budget, 
unrequested and, yes, there is legislating in the appropriation, but 
trust us. Sometime, somewhere, some way down that line you will find 
magically, through the hands of one or two Members, and I trust this 
gentleman, that some authorization will take place. Trust us. And that 
is part and parcel of why we are big spenders and are disappointing the 
people of this Nation time and time again when we do these kinds of 
things.
  The rules mean nothing. They mean nothing. And this is a good example 
of it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are too late. I 
understand that.
  The rules do mean something. The rules are being followed. The rules 
simply provide for waivers. The rules have been adopted by a majority 
of this House.
  I am tired of hearing the rules are not being followed. The rules are 
being followed, and the rules provide for waivers.
  Why? We could not fund Customs if we did not have a waiver. We could 
not fund the Mint, if we did not have a waiver in this bill. Why? 
Because no authorizing legislation has been enacted.
  We could sit there and say, the rules say that we should not fund 
Customs because there is no authorization and, therefore, the Customs 
agents would not be paid and, therefore, drug interdiction would stop. 
NAFTA would not be enforced because the rules were not being followed, 
because they have not been authorized.
  Yes, we have waived the rules, under the rules. We amend the 
Constitution of the United States under the rules of the Constitution 
of the United States.

                              {time}  2140

  I am tired, Mr. Chairman, of hearing that the rules are not being 
followed. What the gentleman do not like is that the rules provide for 
waivers. They then are reported to the floor, and 218 people, or at 
least a majority voting on the question, have to vote for them.
  We are following the rules here. The gentleman does not like the rule 
that has been adopted. He probably voted against it. I understand that. 
I respect the gentleman's disagreement with it, but we are following 
the rules.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], my 
friend and distinguished Member.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I would only add to the discussion that 
the issue around the debate, and what the amendment of the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] is over, that we add to an authorization the 
clause that we do not appropriate the money until it has been 
authorized, or the authorizing committee acts. However, being a member 
of the Appropriations Committee, because I had a project that we used 
these rules on, it was not authorized, and therefore the money was not 
appropriated, so the system we are using does work.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment, and I urge a no 
vote on the amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if my friend, the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is listening. I am so sorry to hear my 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, say that he is tired 
of hearing about these rules being waived. Let me tell the gentleman, 
my good friend, and he is my good friend, he is going to hear about it.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield so I can be precise, I said I 
was tired of hearing that the rules are not being followed.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the rules are not being followed, and I will say it over and over and 
over again, and I will try to keep my cool in saying it over and over 
and over again.
  The truth of the matter is that the rules around here are waived 
about 80 percent of the time. That means that the rules that the 
Democrats, with all due respect, because they are the majority, but the 
rules that they adopt on the first day of the beginning of the session 
every 2 years are nothing but a subterfuge. They do not intend to 
follow the rules. They intend to waive the rules, and they do it 75 
percent of the time.
  Mr. ARMEY. The Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would like to 
reclaim my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman another 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I have 5 minutes, and I would like to have 
part of it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will give the gentleman another 5 minutes beyond that.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to make 
the point, there is another bill coming up here.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], after his generous offer.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, who said regular order over there? Do they 
want to come down and discuss it? What is regular and what is irregular 
about it?
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that there is a rule coming up in a few 
minutes that is going to keep everybody here, except there will not be 
a vote here, because we were nice enough to put over the last 15 
minutes of the rule until tomorrow, so we do not have to keep the 
gentleman waiting. I see the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] there, 
and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Now we have the rules of the House, but in this rule that is coming 
up in a few minutes, we are going to mistreat just 1 Member of the 435 
Members of this body. We are going to mistreat the gentleman sitting 
here, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], because he is the only 
person that we do not waive the rules for in this transportation 
appropriation bill that is coming up in a few minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to waive the rule for the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], so he can have his parochial piece of legislation 
approved in the bill, but we are not going to do that for the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], because he happens to be a Republican.
  Therefore, I would say to the gentleman, Steny Hoyer, not to stand up 
here with all this drama and say he is tired of hearing that we are not 
obeying the rules. We are misusing the rules by waiving them time after 
time after time, 75 percent of the time.
  It is a subterfuge. The gentleman knows it, and every Member of this 
body knows it. All the special interest people, the good government 
groups, know it. They came and testified before our committee to reform 
this House. They all said so.
  The gentleman knows it, so he should not stand up here and be 
outraged. We are abusing the rules, and the gentleman knows it.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I think I can be very brief here. I have 
watched this debate for a long time, and I have for ten years now 
admired my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] and enjoyed 
working with him.
  Mr. Chairman, the protocols of our House admonish us not to question 
a Member's motives. Most of us are very diligent in observing that, 
almost all the time.
  In addition to the protocols of our House that govern our discourse, 
we would all agree that it is, Mr. Chairman, bad form, at least, to 
threaten in debate Members with reprisal on either a personal, a 
partisan, or a parochial basis.
  The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] would never have done 
that. Mr. Natcher would never have done that. Unhappily for this body, 
the new chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], has done that tonight. I think that is a tragic 
betrayal of the legacy of both the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Whitten] and Mr. Natcher.
  It is also unfortunate that should be done in direction to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], because for those of us who have 
had the privilege of working and working closely with the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] experience tells us that there can be no 
basis by which we can question either the thoroughness, the accuracy, 
or the objectivity of his work.
  The gentleman from Illinois has been patient here, has been thorough 
in his research, has been patient in the Committee on Rules, has 
suffered his disappointments in not getting leave of the waivers that 
protected his right to offer a point of order, and has waited 
throughout most of this day to offer in the most good faith, based on 
the greatest diligence of workmanship, his amendments. He neither 
deserves to have his motives challenged, to be threatened with 
reprisal, or to have anybody question the quality of his work.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] has 
been consumed.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me encourage the body to vote for honest 
hard work, good intentions, and sincere purpose. Vote yes on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just have to say that I think what Members need more 
than anything else to get through this debate tonight is simply a good 
fat sense of humor.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just heard the remarks from the economist from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], indicating that somehow I am not living up to the 
fine traditions of the Committee on Appropriations when I take the time 
to point out selective piety among the body.
  What I said was very simple. I noted that there were a number of 
unauthorized projects in this bill, projects in Democratic districts, 
projects in Republican districts. I noted the selective piety that led 
the author of the amendment to reach a high level of moral outrage 
concerning three projects in Democratic districts, and I simply asked 
why it was that that piety did not extend itself to unauthorized 
projects in Republican districts. I have yet to receive an answer.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman has had his time.
  Mr. FAWELL. I will give you the answer right now.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will ask for order until I have completed 
my statement. I will be happy to yield when I have completed my 
statement, but I have had to listen to the gentleman a long time, and 
he is going to listen to me for 2 minutes.
  Mr. FAWELL. Okay. Okay.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply then made the observation, to recite 
what happened on the previous amendment, I simply made the observation 
that I thought that projects ought to be reviewed by this committee, 
whether Republican or Democratic, on the basis of their merit.
  Then I went on to say: But if, however, we were going to get from the 
Minority side a review of projects which was focused only on one side 
of the aisle, then I thought that the Members on that side of the aisle 
had much, much more to lose than do Members on this side of the aisle, 
because, frankly, we have more votes than they do. I do not think those 
votes ought to be exercised in an abusive or unfair way, but I do think 
they should be exercised to enforce consistency.
  I would simply say, repeating what I said earlier, that I think the 
committees ought to feel free to review projects on their merit. This 
Congress has the right on occasion to make a judgment which differs 
from that of the executive branch. But in the end, if we see Members 
insisting on going after only Democratic projects, then all I suggested 
is that there are an awful lot of Republican projects in appropriation 
bills yet to come, and I think we have a right to take note of that 
when those bills come before the body.

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman was not here when I 
made my comments that the three projects to which the gentleman made 
reference, I have checked this with staff, are all authorized in the 
House, all approved by means of a prospectus issued by GSA in 
accordance with the Public Building Act. I mean this very sincerely, if 
the gentleman can show to me anywhere in there where there are projects 
which we have missed, I will be glad to take a look at them.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, I will simply say, the gentleman very 
carefully said the Republican projects that I referred to, the 
gentleman very carefully said were authorized ``in the House.'' But the 
objection on the gentleman's side of the aisle earlier was that somehow 
the Committee on Rules had violated normal processes, because they had 
not allowed the gentleman to make a point of order against unauthorized 
projects.
  My point is that if the gentleman is allowed to make a point of order 
against unauthorized projects, those three projects would have been 
just as vulnerable as those on the Democratic side of the aisle, and if 
the gentleman does not know that, he should.
  Mr. FAWELL. They are authorized, fully authorized.
  Mr. OBEY. No, they are not.
  Mr. FAWELL. Check with the committee.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just came to talk about a little place called Walla 
Walla. I kind of feel like the person that showed up at a white tie 
affair with brown shoes. Maybe we can get back here to what we were 
talking about.
  When I was in college, I used to announce at KUJ in Walla Walla, my 
first job in radio so I have an affection for the town. If Members want 
to consider a mental hazard, because we are all public speakers, one 
gets certain things in his mind, afraid of mispronouncing a word and he 
does try sitting for a half hour listening to the network knowing that 
all you have got to say in a half hour is ``This is KUJ in Walla 
Walla.'' One cannot say Walla Walla if he thinks about it for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have in this particular amendment is a project 
that, in fact, is subject to authorization, what we have been saying 
all evening long, nothing is going to happen, no dollars are going to 
be spent unless the Public Works Committee, unless the Committee on 
Public Works authorizes it.
  Mr. Chairman, what this is all about is the people in Walla Walla 
deeded this property to the Federal Government in 1949 for a buck. The 
terms of the contract state that the property will revert to the local 
community on abandonment by the Federal Government. Both parties in 
good faith intended that the facility would revert to the local 
community in a few years. No one anticipated that the Corps of 
Engineers who was the occupant was going to inhabit this temporary 
World War II era barracks for 40 years. The buildings were constructed 
in 1941 and 1942 and at that time they were intended to be used for a 
period of 15 to 20 years. Fifty-two years later, they are still 
standing. The buildings are asbestos-ridden, major maintenance has been 
deferred because of the temporary, the 52-year temporary nature of this 
arrangement, and the site does not even begin to approach contemporary 
code standards.
  In 1985 The GSA commissioned a professional fire safety engineer to 
do a report on the site when the following items showed up:
  Deteriorating electrical wiring, highly combustible wood paneling, 
highly combustible cane ceiling tile, no automatic sprinkler system in 
six buildings, no manual fire system, no emergency or exit lighting.
  In short, 50 years later this community is now saddled with a site 
that is structurally unsafe. The community that gave the property for a 
buck 45 years ago, the community is saddled with buildings that are 
structurally unsafe, environmentally hazardous, and on which stand a 
series of buildings whose useful life ended 20 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, what this appropriation subject to authorization would 
do is tear them down and give the property back to Walla Walla. Let us 
vote one for Walla Walla tonight. Vote no.
  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try and be brief as the previous gentleman who 
tried to express the facts in the case of Walla Walla. I would like to 
express the facts in the case of the Providence courthouse.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not in my district, but because we only have 
one Federal courthouse in the State of Rhode Island, it is in fact 
imperative that this body understand the facts on which this amendment 
is being based. I have the greatest respect for my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], but the courthouse 
in Rhode Island is in serious need of repair. In fact, yesterday during 
the rain, the computer room flooded and was unusable. If we are going 
to have a crime bill which is going to put billions of dollars to try 
and deal with crime in our Nation, we must have a facility which can 
administer justice.
  In this particular courthouse, which was built in 1908, this is not a 
new building, this is merely an appropriation to repair an existing 
structure. This building has 56,000 square feet of office space which 
house 107 Federal employees who are involved in trying to administer 
justice in Rhode Island. It is one of the busiest courthouses in the 
country. These renovation plans have been in the system for over 10 
years. For the last 4 years, GSA has been working on them.

  Mr. Chairman, the alternatives to not funding this renovation are, 
first, to build a new courthouse which would be almost four times as 
expensive as these renovations. The second alternative would be to 
vacate this courthouse and lease spaces which over a 30-year present 
value figure would again be four times the expense of renovating this 
courthouse.
  We have a situation where a jury which is trying to be empaneled, 
which would normally take 70 to 100 people, can only sit in one 
individual room 40 people, we have people in the corridors waiting to 
hear jury instructions. When our prisoners are brought into this 
courthouse, they must ride in public elevators and stand with the 
public because there are no facilities.
  Yes, there are times when I think we ought to look beyond rules which 
would limit our ability to deal with serious issues, and I would 
suggest this is one of those times. No one who is running a company 
would say that we should bind ourselves and not fix and protect our 
assets. No one who is a legislator would say we should become so 
involved that we do not take appropriate action when we see necessary 
repairs needed. Yes, if we are going to dispense justice in this 
country and we have, I believe, some of the finest jurists in the 
Nation in Rhode Island, we should give them the tools that they need to 
dispense that justice, and that is a facility that has a courtroom, a 
facility which could administer justice properly, and one which is in 
repair. We should not let this facility become deteriorated to the 
point of uselessness. We should, in fact, appropriate this money.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I join my 
colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island, and express the same 
concern.
  Mr. Chairman, the status of the authorization versus the 
appropriation has been well discussed by Chairman Hoyer and others. I 
want to reinforce some of the facts my colleague raised.
  This building was built in 1904. It has undergone no major structural 
renovations since the last part of the 1970's. It is one of the busiest 
courts in the country. It ranks 8 out of 94 courthouses in this country 
in terms of trials per judge. It is, and I confirmed this Monday 
morning by walking through the building, in dire need of serious 
structural repairs and other repairs. The walls are bespotted by 
watermarks as the rain creeps through the buildings. The bricks need to 
be repointed. The library on the top floor was recently subject to a 
flood when the roof leaked seriously. There is poor ventilation in the 
building. In the computer room that my colleague referred to, it is 
enclosed within an interior space without windows. They literally have 
to have an external air circulator brought into the floor to circulate 
the air so that people can work in the building.
  Mr. Chairman, we swore in a new Federal judge last Monday. Her 
courtroom is barely the size of a small garage. It has no windows. It 
has no jury box. They simply roll in chairs to seat the jury. Her jury 
room in which the jury debates the fate of citizens before the bar is a 
corridor. They put a chair between, right outside the ladies' room and 
the men's room in the hall and they lock off two doors and post guards 
so the jury can deliberate. If those are the standards and the 
atmosphere for appropriate rendering of justice, I think not.

                              {time}  2200

  I urge that this amendment be rejected. These repairs are desperately 
needed. We should go forward and reject this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 136, 
noes 276, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 245]

                               AYES--136

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Danner
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--276

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Berman
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Cooper
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Glickman
     McCloskey
     McDade
     Moran
     Neal (NC)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickle
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Saxton
     Sharp
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Torres
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Whitten
     Williams

                              {time}  2219

  Mr. DORNAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2220

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

                         Federal Buildings Fund


                 LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF REVENUE

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for new 
     construction in Public Law 103-123, the Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, $4,900,000 are rescinded for the 
     following projects in the following amounts:
       Iowa:
       Burlington, Federal Parking Facility, $2,400,000
       Indiana:
       Hammond, U.S. Courthouse, $2,500,000.
       Of the funds made available under this heading for new 
     construction in Public Law 102-393, the Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993, $24,295,000 are rescinded for the 
     following projects in the following amounts:
       District of Columbia:
       United States Secret Service, Headquarters, $13,958,000
       White House Remote Delivery and Vehicle Maintenance 
     Facilities, $4,918,000
       Federal Bureau of Investigation, Field Office, $4,419,000
       Florida:
       Hollywood, Federal Building, $1,000,000.
       Of the funds made available under this heading for new 
     construction in Public Law 101-509, the Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1991, $30,100,000 are rescinded for the 
     following project in the following amount:
       Maryland:
       Prince George's County, Internal Revenue Service, 
     Headquarters, $30,100,000.
       Of the funds made available under this heading for new 
     construction in Public Law 100-440, the Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1989, $4,400,000 is rescinded for the 
     following project in the following amount:
       Florida:
       Lakeland, Federal Building, $4,400,000.
       Of the funds made available under this heading for repairs 
     and alterations in Public Law 103-123, the Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994, $4,715,000 are rescinded 
     for the following projects in the following amounts:
       Arizona:
       Lukeville, Commercial Lot Expansion, $1,219,000
       San Luis, Primary lane expansion and administrative office 
     space, $3,496,000.
       Of the funds made available under this heading for repairs 
     and alterations in Public Law 101-509, the Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991, $7,707,000 are rescinded 
     for the following projects in the following amounts:
       New Mexico:
       Santa Teresa, New Border Station, $6,000,000
       Texas:
       Del Rio, Border Station, $1,707,000.
       Of the funds made available under this heading for repairs 
     and alterations in Public Law 101-136, the Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, $2,088,000 are rescinded 
     for the following project in the following amount:
       New Mexico:
       Santa Teresa, New Border Station, $2,088,000.


                           operating expenses

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     necessary for asset management activities; utilization of 
     excess and disposal of surplus personal property; 
     transportation management activities; procurement and supply 
     management activities; Government-wide and internal 
     responsibilities relating to automated data management, 
     telecommunications, information resources management, and 
     related activities; the Information Security Oversight Office 
     established pursuant to Executive Order No. 12356; the 
     utilization survey, deed compliance inspection, appraisal, 
     environmental and cultural analysis, and land use planning 
     functions pertaining to excess and surplus real property; 
     agency-wide policy direction; Board of Contract Appeals; 
     accounting, records management, and other support services 
     incident to adjudication of Indian Tribal Claims by the 
     United States Court of Federal Claims; services as authorized 
     by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and not to exceed $5,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $123,020,000: 
     Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this 
     account, $172,000 are permanently canceled.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $33,090,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for 
     payment for information and detection of fraud against the 
     Government, including payment for recovery of stolen 
     Government property: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,500 shall be available for awards to employees of other 
     Federal agencies and private citizens in recognition of 
     efforts and initiatives resulting in enhanced Office of 
     Inspector General effectiveness.

           Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents

       For carrying out the provisions of the Act of August 25, 
     1958, as amended (3 U.S.C. 102 note), and Public Law 95-138; 
     $2,215,000: Provided, That the Administrator of General 
     Services shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of such 
     Acts.


 expenses of transportation audit contracts and contract administration

       Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year 
     1995 are reduced by $30,000.


                          general supply fund

       Of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $1,009,000 are permanently canceled.


  information resources management service information technology fund

       Of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $609,000 are permanently canceled.


                          working capital fund

       Amounts received for administrative support services 
     provided under this head shall be credited to and merged with 
     the Fund, to remain available until expended, for operating 
     costs and capital outlays of the Fund and for the necessary 
     expenses of administrative support services including 
     accounting, budget, personnel, legal support and other 
     related services; and the maintenance and operation of 
     printing and reproduction facilities in support of the 
     functions of the General Services Administration, other 
     Federal agencies, and other entities; and other such 
     administrative and management services that the Administrator 
     of GSA deems appropriate and advantageous (subject to prior 
     notice to the Office of Management and Budget): Provided, 
     That entities for which such services are performed shall be 
     charged at rates which will return in full the cost of 
     operations.

          General Services Administration--General Provisions

       Section 1. The appropriate appropriation or fund available 
     to the General Services Administration shall be credited with 
     the cost of operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, 
     repair, and improvement, included as part of rentals received 
     from Government corporations pursuant to law (40 U.S.C. 129).
       Sec. 2. Funds available to the General Services 
     Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 3. Not to exceed 2 per centum of funds made available 
     in appropriations for operating expenses and salaries and 
     expenses, during the current fiscal year, may be transferred 
     between such appropriations for mandatory program 
     requirements. Any proposed transfers shall be approved in 
     advance by the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
     Senate.
       Sec. 4. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made available 
     for fiscal year 1995 for Federal Buildings Fund activities 
     may be transferred between such activities only to the extent 
     necessary to meet program requirements. Any proposed 
     transfers shall be approved in advance by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate.
       Sec. 5. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     General Services Administration during fiscal year 1995, 
     $8,959,000 are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration shall allocate the amount of budgetary 
     resources canceled among the agency's accounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       Sec. 6. Rent rates charged by the General Services 
     Administration for fiscal year 1995 shall reflect the 
     reductions contained in the President's budget amendment 
     dated March 16, 1994, Estimate No. 9, 103rd Congress, 2nd 
     Session.
       Sec. 7. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended in any way for the purpose of the sale, 
     excessing, surplusing, or disposal of lands in the vicinity 
     of Norfolk Lake, Arkansas, administered by the Corps of 
     Engineers, Department of the Army, without the specific 
     approval of the Congress.
       Sec. 8. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended in any way for the purpose of the sale, 
     excessing, surplusing, or disposal of lands in the vicinity 
     of Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas, administered by the Corps of 
     Engineers, Department of the Army, without the specific 
     approval of the Congress.
       Sec. 9. No funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to transmit a fiscal year 1996 request for United States 
     Courthouse construction that does not meet the standards for 
     construction as established by the General Services 
     Administration and the Office of Management and Budget.
       Sec. 10. The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration is directed to obligate the funds appropriated 
     in Public Law 103-123 for the purposes stated in section 804 
     of that Act.

                     Merit Systems Protection Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, and direct procurement of 
     survey printing, $24,549,000, together with not to exceed 
     $2,420,000 for administrative expenses to adjudicate 
     retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts determined by the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board.

              National Archives and Records Administration


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in connection with National Archives 
     and Records Administration and related activities, as 
     provided by law, and for expenses necessary for the review 
     and declassification of documents, and for the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $194,638,000: Provided, That the 
     Archivist of the United States is authorized to use any 
     excess funds available from the amount borrowed for 
     construction of the National Archives facility, for expenses 
     necessary to move into the facility: Provided further, That 
     of the budgetary resources available in fiscal year 1995 in 
     this account, $325,000 are permanently canceled: Provided 
     further, That amounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses in this account are reduced by 
     such amount: Provided further, That as used herein, 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2): Provided further, That of the offsetting collections 
     credited to this account, $441,000 are permanently canceled.


        national historical publications and records commission

       For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for 
     historical publications and records as authorized by 44 
     U.S.C. 2504, as amended, $7,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That $2,000,000 shall be a grant to the 
     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Library.


                      national archives trust fund

       Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year 
     1995 are reduced by $16,000.

                      Office of Government Ethics


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Government Ethics pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act 
     of 1978, as amended by Public Law 100-598, and the Ethics 
     Reform Act of 1989, Public Law 101-194, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia and elsewhere, hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, and not to exceed $1,500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $8,104,000.

                     Office of Personnel Management


                         Salaries and Expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Personnel Management pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, medical 
     examinations performed for veterans by private physicians on 
     a fee basis, rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere, hire of passenger motor vehicles, not 
     to exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, and advances for reimbursements to applicable funds 
     of the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order 
     10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended; $115,139,000, and in 
     addition $93,934,000 for administrative expenses, to be 
     transferred from the appropriate trust funds of the Office of 
     Personnel Management without regard to other statutes, 
     including direct procurement of health benefits printing, for 
     the retirement and insurance programs, of which $10,956,000 
     shall be transferred at such times as the Office of Personnel 
     Management deems appropriate, and shall remain available 
     until expended for the costs of automating the retirement 
     recordkeeping systems, together with remaining amounts 
     authorized in previous Acts for the recordkeeping systems: 
     Provided, That the provisions of this appropriation shall not 
     affect the authority to use applicable trust funds as 
     provided by section 8348(a)(1)(B) of title 5, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That, except as may be consistent 
     with 5 U.S.C. 8902a(f)(1) and (i), no payment may be made 
     from the Employees Health Benefits Fund to any physician, 
     hospital, or other provider of health care services or 
     supplies who is, at the time such services or supplies are 
     provided to an individual covered under chapter 89 of title 
     5, United States Code, excluded, pursuant to section 1128 or 
     1128A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7-1320a-
     7a), from participation in any program under title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.): Provided 
     further, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
     available for salaries and expenses of the Legal Examining 
     Unit of the Office of Personnel Management established 
     pursuant to Executive Order 9358 of July 1, 1943, or any 
     successor unit of like purpose: Provided further, That the 
     President's Commission on White House Fellows, established by 
     Executive Order 11183 of October 3, 1964, may, during the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, accept donations of 
     money, property, and personal services in connection with the 
     development of a publicity brochure to provide information 
     about the White House Fellows, except that no such donations 
     shall be accepted for travel or reimbursement of travel 
     expenses, or for the salaries of employees of such 
     Commission.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses


                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act, 
     as amended, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles; $4,009,000, and in 
     addition, not to exceed $6,156,000 for administrative 
     expenses to audit the Office of Personnel Management's 
     retirement and insurance programs, to be transferred from the 
     appropriate trust funds of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, as determined by the Inspector General: Provided, 
     That the Inspector General is authorized to rent conference 
     rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.


      government payment for annuitants, employees health benefits

       For payment of Government contributions with respect to 
     retired employees, as authorized by chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and the Retired Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Act (74 Stat. 849), as amended, $4,210,560,000 to 
     remain available until expended.


       government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance

       For payment of Government contributions with respect to 
     employees retiring after December 31, 1989, as required by 
     chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, $19,159,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


        payment to civil service retirement and disability fund

       For financing the unfunded liability of new and increased 
     annuity benefits becoming effective on or after October 20, 
     1969, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8348, and annuities under 
     special Acts to be credited to the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, 
     That annuities authorized by the Act of May 29, 1944, as 
     amended, and the Act of August 19, 1950, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 771-75), may hereafter be paid out of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund.


                             revolving fund

       Of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $649,000 are permanently canceled.

                     Office of Personnel Management


                           general provisions

       Section 1. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Office of Personnel Management during fiscal year 1995, 
     $1,256,000 are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled 
     among the agency's accounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses. Amounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses in each such 
     account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to such 
     account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).

                       Office of Special Counsel


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Special Counsel pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 
     of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
     454), and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (Public 
     Law 101-12), including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, payment of fees and expenses for witnesses, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles; $7,955,000.

                        United States Tax Court


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and 
     other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $33,650,000: 
     Provided, That travel expenses of the judges shall be paid 
     upon the written certificate of the judge.
       This title may be cited as the ``Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of title IV of the bill be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the remainder of title IV?


                     amendment offered by mr. hoyer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer: On page 50, after line 23, 
     insert the following:


           john f. kennedy assassination records review board

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the John F. Kennedy 
     Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, $2,418,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take much time on this. I think 
we have agreement. It is noncontroversial.
  Subsequent to our markup, Mr. Chairman, we were given the 
responsibility in the Committee on Appropriations for the John F. 
Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. As a result, we had not 
appropriated any funds for this. This amendment simply proposes $2.418 
million for the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. This is 
pursuant to getting these records out to the public, cataloging them.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this with the 
majority, and we have no objection to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                                This Act

       Section 501. No part of any appropriation made available in 
     this Act shall be used for the purchase or sale of real 
     estate or for the purpose of establishing new offices inside 
     or outside the District of Columbia: Provided, That this 
     limitation shall not apply to programs which have been 
     approved by the Congress and appropriations made therefor.
       Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 503. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 504. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for the procurement of, or for the 
     payment of, the salary of any person engaged in the 
     procurement of any hand or measuring tool(s) not produced in 
     the United States or its possessions except to the extent 
     that the Administrator of General Services or his designee 
     shall determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient 
     quantity of hand or measuring tools produced in the United 
     States or its possessions cannot be procured as and when 
     needed from sources in the United States and its possessions, 
     or except in accordance with procedures prescribed by section 
     6-104.4(b) of Armed Services Procurement Regulation dated 
     January 1, 1969, as such regulation existed on June 15, 1970: 
     Provided, That a factor of 75 per centum in lieu of 50 per 
     centum shall be used for evaluating foreign source end 
     products against a domestic source end product. This section 
     shall be applicable to all solicitations for bids opened 
     after its enactment.
       Sec. 505. None of the funds made available to the General 
     Services Administration pursuant to section 210(f) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
     shall be obligated or expended after the date of enactment of 
     this Act for the procurement by contract of any guard, 
     elevator operator, messenger or custodial services if any 
     permanent veterans preference employee of the General 
     Services Administration at said date, would be terminated as 
     a result of the procurement of such services, except that 
     such funds may be obligated or expended for the procurement 
     by contract of the covered services with sheltered workshops 
     employing the severely handicapped under Public Law 92-28. 
     Only if such workshops decline to contract for the provision 
     of the covered services may the General Services 
     Administration procure the services by competitive contract, 
     for a period not to exceed 5 years. At such time as such 
     competitive contract expires or is terminated for any reason, 
     the General Services Administration shall again offer to 
     contract for the services from a sheltered workshop prior to 
     offering such services for competitive procurement.
       Sec. 506. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary 
     of any Government employee where funding an activity or 
     paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a 
     decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that 
     would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930.
       Sec. 507. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available for the purpose of transferring control 
     over the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center located at 
     Glynco, Georgia, Tucson, Arizona, and Artesia, New Mexico, 
     out of the Treasury Department.
       Sec. 508. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within 
     the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 509. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of any 
     officer or employee of the United States Postal Service, 
     who--
       (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
     prohibit or prevent, any officer or employee of the United 
     States Postal Service from having any direct oral or written 
     communication or contact with any Member or committee of 
     Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the 
     employment of such officer or employee or pertaining to the 
     United States Postal Service in any way, irrespective of 
     whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of 
     such officer or employee or in response to the request or 
     inquiry of such Member or committee; or
       (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
     reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of 
     efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, 
     transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any 
     employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or 
     condition of employment of, any officer or employee of the 
     United States Postal Service, or attempts or threatens to 
     commit any of the foregoing actions with respect to such 
     officer or employee, by reason of any communication or 
     contact of such officer or employee with any Member or 
     committee of Congress as described in paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection.
       Sec. 510. Funds under this Act shall be available as 
     authorized by sections 4501-4506 of title 5, United States 
     Code, when the achievement involved is certified, or when an 
     award for such achievement is otherwise payable, in 
     accordance with such sections. Such funds may not be used for 
     any purpose with respect to which the preceding sentence 
     relates beyond fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of the Treasury by this or any 
     other Act shall be obligated or expended to contract out 
     positions in, or downgrade the position classifications of, 
     members of the United States Mint Police Force and the Bureau 
     of Engraving and Printing Police Force, or for studying the 
     feasibility of contracting out such positions.
       Sec. 512. The Office of Personnel Management may, during 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, accept donations 
     of supplies, services, land and equipment for the Federal 
     Executive Institute, the Federal Quality Institute, and 
     Management Development Centers to assist in enhancing the 
     quality of Federal management.
       Sec. 513. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for the procurement of, or for the 
     payment of, the salary of any person engaged in the 
     procurement of stainless steel flatware not produced in the 
     United States or its possessions, except to the extent that 
     the Administrator of General Services or his designee shall 
     determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity 
     of stainless steel flatware produced in the United States or 
     its possessions, cannot be procured as and when needed from 
     sources in the United States or its possessions or except in 
     accordance with procedures provided by section 6-104.4(b) of 
     Armed Services Procurement Regulations, dated January 1, 
     1969. This section shall be applicable to all solicitations 
     for bids issued after its enactment.
       Sec. 514. The United States Secret Service may, during the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, accept donations of 
     money to off-set costs incurred while protecting former 
     Presidents and spouses of former Presidents when the former 
     President or spouse travels for the purpose of making an 
     appearance or speech for a payment of money or any thing of 
     value.
       Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     ``Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents'' may be 
     used for partisan political activities.
       Sec. 516. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to withdraw the designation of the Virginia Inland 
     Port at Front Royal, Virginia, as a United States Customs 
     Service port of entry.
       Sec. 517. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1995 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act.
       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available to the Postal 
     Service by this Act shall be used to transfer mail processing 
     capabilities from the Las Cruces, New Mexico postal facility, 
     and that every effort will be made by the Postal Service to 
     recognize the rapid rate of population growth in Las Cruces 
     and to automate the Las Cruces, New Mexico postal facility in 
     order that mail processing can be expedited and handled in 
     Las Cruces.
       Sec. 519. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     reduce the rank or rate of pay of a career appointee in the 
     SES upon reassignment or transfer.
       Sec. 520. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to pay the salary for any person 
     filling a position, other than a temporary position, formerly 
     held by an employee who has left to enter the Armed Forces of 
     the United States and has satisfactorily completed his period 
     of active military or naval service and has within ninety 
     days after his release from such service or from 
     hospitalization continuing after discharge for a period of 
     not more than one year made application for restoration to 
     his former position and has been certified by the Office of 
     Personnel Management as still qualified to perform the duties 
     of his former position and has not been restored thereto.
       Sec. 521. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may, with respect to an individual employed by the Bureau of 
     the Public Debt in the Washington Metropolitan Region on 
     April 10, 1991, be used to separate, reduce the grade or pay 
     of, or carry out any other adverse personnel action against 
     such individual for declining to accept a directed 
     reassignment to a position outside such region, pursuant to a 
     transfer of any such Bureau's operations or functions to 
     Parkersburg, West Virginia.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 
     individual who, on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, declines an offer of another position in the Department 
     of the Treasury which is of at least equal pay and which is 
     within the Washington Metropolitan Region.
       Sec. 522. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide any non-public information such as mailing 
     or telephone lists to any person or any organization outside 
     of the Federal Government without the approval of the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 523. Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds 
     appropriated pursuant to this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the 
     assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 
     of the Act of March 3, 1993 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly 
     known as the ``Buy American Act'').
       Sec. 524. Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding 
     Notice.--(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--In the case of any equipment or products that may 
     be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
     provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that 
     entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the 
     assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 525. Prohibition of Contracts.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, such person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds provided 
     pursuant to this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in section 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 526. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     relocate any Federal agency, bureau, office or other entity 
     funded in this Act if the sole reason for the relocation is 
     that locality pay was increased.
       Sec. 527. (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 
     the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 
     amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
     heading:
       

    ``  99          Woven fabrics of synthetic filament               ''
                     yarn (provided for in subheading                  .
                     5407.42.00), certified at the time of              
                     entry by the importer to be intended               
                     for use in the manufacture of hot air              
                     balloons (of the type provided for in              
                     subheading 8801.90.00)................             

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the fifteenth (15th) 
     day after the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 528. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
     available at the end of fiscal year 1995 from appropriations 
     made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 1995 
     in this Act, shall remain available through September 30, 
     1996 for each such account for the purposes authorized: 
     Provided, That notice of the amounts available pursuant to 
     this section shall be given to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 2 percent of the funds so carried over may be used to 
     pay cash awards to employees, as authorized by law, and not 
     to exceed 3 percent of the funds so carried over may be used 
     for employee training programs.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that title V of the bill be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order to title V?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] 
has, I believe, points of order.


                            points of order

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to interpose a 
point of order on title I, page 4, lines 6 to 9.
  I spoke with the majority and minority earlier.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Matsui] that permission has already been secured. The gentleman 
may state his point of order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I and the ranking member are aware of the 
points of order to be raised by the gentleman from California. We would 
prefer that he did not make them, but he is going to make them, and he 
is correct.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against lines 6 
through 9 on page 4 of H.R. 4539 that require the Secretary of the 
Treasury to transfer $32,960,000 from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to 
the General Fund of the Treasury, on the grounds that this provision 
violates clause 2 of Rule Twenty-One of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.
  Under present law, the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, which is the 
successor to the Customs Forfeiture Fund, contains deposits of 
forfeiture proceeds under tariff and narcotics laws generated by the 
Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms, and the Secret Service to be used for specific 
law enforcement activities of those agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard. 
The bill would require a transfer of certain of these funds to the 
Treasury General Fund notwithstanding existing law, which does not 
authorize such a transfer.
  This provision constitutes legislation, which is within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, on an appropriations 
bill in violation of clause 2, Rule Twenty-One. I urge that this point 
of order be sustained.
  Mr. HOYER. We concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Studds). The point of order is conceded and 
sustained.
  The section is stricken.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 527 
of H.R. 4539 on the grounds that it violates paragraph (b), clause 5 of 
Rule Twenty-One of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
  Section 527 amends the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to create a new tariff classification changing the rate of duty 
on imports of woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn intended for use 
in the manufacture of hot air balloons.
  Paragraph (b), clause 5 of Rule Twenty-One makes tax or tariff 
measures in any bill or resolution reported by any committee not having 
jurisdiction to report tax and tariff measures subject to a point of 
order.
  The proposed tariff reclassification is clearly a tariff measure that 
would have a direct impact on customs revenues. Such a measure is 
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  For these reasons, section 527 clearly violates the rule against 
tariff measures on bills not reported by the committee of jurisdiction. 
I urge that this point of order be sustained.
  Mr. HOYER. We concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Studds). The point of order is conceded and 
sustained.
  The section is stricken.
  Are there amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              TITLE VI--GOVERNMENTWIDE GENERAL PROVISIONS

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

       Section  601. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act 
     may be used to pay travel to the United States for the 
     immediate family of employees serving abroad in cases of 
     death or life threatening illness of said employee.
       Sec. 602. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 1995 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession, 
     or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the 
     Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of 
     such department, agency, or instrumentality.
       Sec. 603. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1345, any agency, 
     department or instrumentality of the United States which 
     provides or proposes to provide child care services for 
     Federal employees may reimburse any Federal employee or any 
     person employed to provide such services for travel, 
     transportation, and subsistence expenses incurred for 
     training classes, conferences or other meetings in connection 
     with the provision of such services: Provided, That any per 
     diem allowance made pursuant to this section shall not exceed 
     the rate specified in regulations prescribed pursuant to 
     section 5707 of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 604. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the 
     maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in 
     accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60 
     Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle 
     (exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and 
     undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100 
     except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100: 
     Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed 
     $3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000 
     for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the 
     limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more 
     than five percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased 
     for demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and 
     Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act 
     of 1976: Provided further, That the limits set forth in this 
     section may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean 
     alternative fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 
     101-549 over the cost of comparable conventionally fueled 
     vehicles.
       Sec. 605. Appropriations of the executive departments and 
     independent establishments for the current fiscal year 
     available for expenses of travel or for the expenses of the 
     activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters 
     allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 5922-24.
       Sec. 606. Unless otherwise specified during the current 
     fiscal year no part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
     officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
     (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is 
     owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of 
     duty is in the continental United States unless such person 
     (1) is a citizen of the United States, (2) is a person in the 
     service of the United States on the date of enactment of this 
     Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a 
     declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
     States prior to such date and is actually residing in the 
     United States, (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the 
     United States, (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South 
     Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the 
     Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence, or (5) South Vietnamese, Cambodian, and 
     Laotian refugees paroled in the United States after January 
     1, 1975, or (6) nationals of the People's Republic of China 
     that qualify for adjustment of status pursuant to the Chinese 
     Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for the 
     purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such 
     person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the 
     requirements of this section with respect to his or her 
     status have been complied with: Provided further, That any 
     person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, 
     and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, or both: Provided 
     further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, 
     and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing 
     law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer 
     or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall 
     be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This 
     section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, the 
     Republic of the Philippines or to nationals of those 
     countries allied with the United States in the current 
     defense effort, or to international broadcasters employed by 
     the United States Information Agency, or to temporary 
     employment of translators, or to temporary employment in the 
     field service (not to exceed sixty days) as a result of 
     emergencies.
       Sec. 607. Appropriations available to any department or 
     agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses, 
     including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be 
     available for payment to the General Services Administration 
     for charges for space and services and those expenses of 
     renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which 
     constitute public improvements performed in accordance with 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public 
     Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other 
     applicable law.
       Sec. 608. In addition to funds provided in this or any 
     other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and 
     use funds resulting from the sale of materials recovered 
     through recycling or waste prevention programs. Such funds 
     shall be available until expended for the following purposes:
       (1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention and 
     recycling programs as described in Executive Order 12873 
     (October 20, 1993), including any such programs adopted prior 
     to the effective date of the Executive Order.
       (2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs, 
     including but not limited to, the development and 
     implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution 
     prevention programs.
       The Administrator of General Services or his designee is 
     authorized to transfer funds received into the Federal 
     Buildings Fund pursuant to section 11 of GSA--General 
     Provisions, Public Law 102-141, October 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 
     856, 40 U.S.C., sec. 490(f) (7) and (8), or sec. 490g, prior 
     to the effective date of this legislation, to other Federal 
     agencies for use by those agencies for the purposes set forth 
     in those statutes. Such funds shall be available until 
     expended and shall be in addition to any amounts appropriated 
     for such purposes.
       Sec. 609. Funds made available by this or any other Act for 
     administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the 
     corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31, 
     United States Code, shall be available, in addition to 
     objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for 
     rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all 
     the provisions of which shall be applicable to the 
     expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the 
     Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the 
     event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are 
     subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the 
     limitations on administrative expenses shall be 
     correspondingly reduced.
       Sec. 610. No part of any appropriation for the current 
     fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid 
     to any person for the filling of any position for which he or 
     she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to 
     approve the nomination of said person.
       Sec. 611. Any department or agency to which the 
     Administrator of General Services has delegated the authority 
     to operate, maintain or repair any building or facility 
     pursuant to section 205(d) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, shall retain 
     that portion of the GSA rental payment available for 
     operation, maintenance or repair of the building or facility, 
     as determined by the Administrator, and expend such funds 
     directly for the operation, maintenance or repair of the 
     building or facility. Any funds retained under this section 
     shall remain available until expended for such purposes.
       Sec. 612. Pursuant to section 1415 of the Act of July 15, 
     1952 (66 Stat. 662), foreign credits (including currencies) 
     owed to or owned by the United States may be used by Federal 
     agencies for any purpose for which appropriations are made 
     for the current fiscal year (including the carrying out of 
     Acts requiring or authorizing the use of such credits), only 
     when reimbursement therefor is made to the Treasury from 
     applicable appropriations of the agency concerned: Provided, 
     That such credits received as exchanged allowances or 
     proceeds of sales of personal property may be used in whole 
     or part payment for acquisition of similar items, to the 
     extent and in the manner authorized by law, without 
     reimbursement to the Treasury.
       Sec. 613. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of 
     boards, commissions, councils, committees, or similar groups 
     (whether or not they are interagency entities) which do not 
     have a prior and specific statutory approval to receive 
     financial support from more than one agency or 
     instrumentality.
       Sec. 614. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the ``Postal Service Fund'' (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be 
     available for employment of guards for all buildings and 
     areas owned or occupied by the Postal Service and under the 
     charge and control of the Postal Service, and such guards 
     shall have, with respect to such property, the powers of 
     special policemen provided by the first section of the Act of 
     June 1, 1948, as amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), and, 
     as to property owned or occupied by the Postal Service, the 
     Postmaster General may take the same actions as the 
     Administrator of General Services may take under the 
     provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a, 318b), attaching 
     thereto penal consequences under the authority and within the 
     limits provided in section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).
       Sec. 615. None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act shall be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce any regulation which has been 
     disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly 
     adopted in accordance with the applicable law of the United 
     States.
       Sec. 616. No part of any appropriation contained in, or 
     funds made available by, this or any other Act, shall be 
     available for any agency to pay to the Administrator of the 
     General Services Administration a higher rate per square foot 
     for rental of space and services (established pursuant to 
     section 210(j) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949, as amended) than the rate per square 
     foot established for the space and services by the General 
     Services Administration for the fiscal year for which 
     appropriations were granted.
       Sec. 617. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of 
     any of the funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending on 
     September 30, 1995, by this or any other Act, may be used to 
     pay any prevailing rate employee described in section 
     5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code--
       (1) during the period from the date of expiration of the 
     limitation imposed by section 615 of the Treasury, Postal 
     Service and General Government Appropriations Act, 1994, 
     until the normal effective date of the applicable wage survey 
     adjustment that is to take effect in fiscal year 1995, in an 
     amount that exceeds the rate payable for the applicable grade 
     and step of the applicable wage schedule in accordance with 
     such section 615; and
       (2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal 
     year 1995, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage 
     survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by 
     more than the sum of--
       (A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year 
     1995 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
       (B) the difference between the overall average percentage 
     of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in 
     fiscal year 1995 under section 5304 of such title (whether by 
     adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage 
     of such payments which was effective in fiscal year 1994 
     under such section.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no 
     employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid 
     during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a 
     rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under 
     subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such 
     employee.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to 
     an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid 
     from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 1994, shall 
     be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of 
     premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be 
     changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 1994, 
     except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel 
     Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
       (e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for 
     service performed after September 30, 1994.
       (f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law 
     (including section 8431 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     any rule or regulation that provides premium pay, retirement, 
     life insurance, or any other employee benefit) that requires 
     any deduction or contribution, or that imposes any 
     requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of salary or 
     basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable after the 
     application of this section shall be treated as the rate of 
     salary or basic pay.
       (g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit 
     or require the payment to any employee covered by this 
     section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable 
     were this section not in effect.
       (h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for 
     exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the 
     Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to 
     ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
       Sec. 618. During the period in which the head of any 
     department or agency, or any other officer or civilian 
     employee of the Government appointed by the President of the 
     United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or 
     expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the 
     office of such department head, agency head, officer or 
     employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for 
     any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or 
     redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate. For the purposes of 
     this section the word ``office'' shall include the entire 
     suite of offices assigned to the individual, as well as any 
     other space used primarily by the individual or the use of 
     which is directly controlled by the individual.
       Sec. 619. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 
     112 and 113 of title 3, United States Code, each Executive 
     agency detailing any personnel shall submit a report on an 
     annual basis in each fiscal year to the Senate and House 
     Committees on Appropriations on all employees or members of 
     the armed services detailed to Executive agencies, listing 
     the grade, position, and offices of each person detailed and 
     the agency to which each such person is detailed.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed 
     to or from--
       (1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
       (2) the National Security Agency;
       (3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
       (4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the 
     collection of specialized national foreign intelligence 
     through reconnaissance programs;
       (5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the 
     Department of State;
       (6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     and the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of 
     Justice, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of 
     Transportation, and the Department of Energy performing 
     intelligence functions; and
       (7) the Director of Central Intelligence.
       (c) The exemptions in part (b) of this section are not 
     intended to apply to information on the use of personnel 
     detailed to or from the intelligence agencies which is 
     currently being supplied to the Senate and House Intelligence 
     and Appropriations Committees by the executive branch through 
     budget justification materials and other reports.
       (d) For the purposes of this section, the term ``Executive 
     agency'' has the same meaning as defined under section 105 of 
     title 5, United States Code (except that the provisions of 
     section 104(2) of title 5, United States Code, shall not 
     apply), and includes the White House Office, the Executive 
     Residence, and any office, council, or organizational unit of 
     the Executive Office of the President.
       Sec. 620. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act 
     for fiscal year 1995 may be used to implement or enforce the 
     agreements in Standard Forms 312 and 4355 of the Government 
     or any other nondisclosure policy, form or agreement if such 
     policy, form or agreement does not contain the following 
     provisions:
       ``These restrictions are consistent with and do not 
     supersede conflict with or otherwise alter the employee 
     obligations, rights or liabilities created by Executive Order 
     12356; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code (governing 
     disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as amended by the Military Whistleblower 
     Protection Act (governing disclosure to Congress by members 
     of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United 
     States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Act 
     (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or 
     public health or safety threats); the Intelligence Identities 
     Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing 
     disclosures that could expose confidential Government 
     agents), and the statutes which protect against disclosure 
     that may compromise the national security, including sections 
     641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of title 18, United States Code, 
     and section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 
     U.S.C. section 783(b)). The definitions, requirements, 
     obligations, rights, sanctions and liabilities created by 
     said Executive Order and listed statutes are incorporated 
     into this Agreement and are controlling.''
       Sec. 621. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     executive branch agency shall purchase, construct, and/or 
     lease any additional facilities, except within or contiguous 
     to existing locations, to be used for the purpose of 
     conducting Federal law enforcement training without the 
     advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 622. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be expended by any Federal agency to procure 
     any product or service that is subject to the provisions of 
     Public Law 89-306 and that will be available under the 
     procurement by the Administrator of General Services known as 
     ``FTS2000'' unless--
       (1) such product or service is procured by the 
     Administrator of General Services as part of the procurement 
     known as ``FTS2000''; or
       (2) that agency establishes to the satisfaction of the 
     Administrator of General Services that--
       (A) the agency's requirements for such procurement are 
     unique and cannot be satisfied by property and service 
     procured by the Administrator of General Services as part of 
     the procurement known as ``FTS2000''; and
       (B) the agency procurement, pursuant to such delegation, 
     would be cost-effective and would not adversely affect the 
     cost-effectiveness of the FTS2000 procurement.
       (b) After July 31, 1995, subsection (a) shall apply only if 
     the Administrator of General Services has reported that the 
     FTS2000 procurement is producing prices that allow the 
     Government to satisfy its requirements for such procurement 
     in the most cost-effective manner.
       Sec. 623. (a) No amount of any grant made by a Federal 
     agency shall be used to finance the acquisition of goods or 
     services (including construction services) unless the 
     recipient of the grant agrees, as a condition for the receipt 
     of such grant, to--
       (1) specify in any announcement of the awarding of the 
     contract for the procurement of the goods and services 
     involved (including construction services) the amount of 
     Federal funds that will be used to finance the acquisition; 
     and
       (2) express the amount announced pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     as a percentage of the total costs of the planned 
     acquisition.
       (b) The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to a 
     procurement for goods or services (including construction 
     services) that has an aggregate value of less than $500,000.
       Sec. 624. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, funds made available for fiscal year 1995 by 
     this or any other Act shall be available for the interagency 
     funding of national security and emergency preparedness 
     telecommunications initiatives which benefit multiple Federal 
     departments, agencies, or entities, as provided by Executive 
     Order Numbered 12472 (April 3, 1984).
       Sec. 625. Notwithstanding any provisions of this or any 
     other Act, during fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, any 
     department, division, bureau, or office may use funds 
     appropriated by this or any other Act to install telephone 
     lines, and necessary equipment, and to pay monthly charges, 
     in any private residence or private apartment of an employee 
     who has been authorized to work at home in accordance with 
     guidelines issued by the Office of Personnel Management: 
     Provided, That the head of the department, division, bureau, 
     or office certifies that adequate safeguards against private 
     misuse exist, and that the service is necessary for direct 
     support of the agency's mission.
       Sec. 626. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal 
     department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries 
     or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a 
     confidential or policy-determining character excepted from 
     the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5, 
     United States Code, without a certification to the Office of 
     Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C 
     appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely 
     or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White 
     House.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed 
     to or from--
       (1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
       (2) the National Security Agency;
       (3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
       (4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the 
     collection of specialized national foreign intelligence 
     through reconnaissance programs;
       (5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the 
     Department of State;
       (6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     and the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of 
     Justice, the Department of Transportation, the Department of 
     the Treasury, and the Department of Energy performing 
     intelligence functions; and
       (7) the Director of Central Intelligence.
       Sec. 627. None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be used to relocate the Department of Justice 
     Immigration Judges from offices located in Phoenix, Arizona 
     to new quarters in Florence, Arizona without the prior 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 628. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 1995 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency or instrumentality 
     has in place, and will continue to administer in good faith, 
     a written policy designed to ensure that all of its 
     workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual harassment 
     and that all of its workplaces are not in violation of title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       Sec. 629. (a) Beginning in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, 
     for each Federal agency, except the Department of Defense, an 
     amount equal to 50 percent of--
       (1) the amount of each utility rebate received by the 
     agency for energy efficiency and water conservation measures, 
     which the agency has implemented; and
       (2) the amount of the agency's share of the measured energy 
     savings resulting from energy savings performance contracts

     may be retained and credited to accounts that fund energy and 
     water conservation activities at the agency's facilities, and 
     shall remain available until expended for additional specific 
     energy efficiency or water conservation projects or 
     activities, including improvements and retrofits, facility 
     surveys, additional or improved utility metering, and 
     employee training and awareness programs, as authorized by 
     section 152(f) of the Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486).
       (b) The remaining 50 percent of each rebate, and the amount 
     of the agency's share of savings from energy savings 
     performance contracts shall be transferred to the General 
     Fund of the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year in which 
     received.
       Sec. 630. (a)(1) Subchapter II of chapter 63 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 6327. Absence in connection with serving as a bone-
       marrow or organ donor

       ``(a) An employee in or under an Executive agency is 
     entitled to leave without loss of or reduction in pay, leave 
     to which otherwise entitled, credit for time or service, or 
     performance or efficiency rating, for the time necessary to 
     permit such employee to serve as a bone-marrow or organ 
     donor.
       ``(b) Not to exceed 7 days of leave may be used under this 
     section by an employee in a calendar year.
       ``(c) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe 
     regulations for the administration of this section.''.
       (2)(A) Section 6129 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``6327,'' after ``6326,''.
       (B) The table of sections for chapter 63 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 6326 the following:

``6327. Absence in connection with serving as a bone-marrow or organ 
              donor.''.

       (b)(1) Section 6307 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
       (B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Sick leave provided by this section may be used for 
     purposes relating to the adoption of a child.''; and
       (C) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A)) by inserting ``or for purposes relating to the adoption 
     of a child,'' after ``ailment,''.
       (2) Section 6129 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``6307 (a) and (c),'' and inserting ``6307 (a) 
     and (d),''.
       (3)(A) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe 
     regulations under which any employee who used or uses annual 
     leave for an adoption-related purpose, after September 30, 
     1991, and before the date as of which sick leave first 
     becomes available for such purpose as a result of the 
     enactment of this subsection may, upon appropriate written 
     application, elect to have such employee's leave accounts 
     adjusted to reflect the amount of annual leave and sick 
     leave, respectively, which would remain had sick leave been 
     used instead of all or any portion of the annual leave 
     actually used, as designated by the employee.
       (B) An application under this paragraph may not be approved 
     unless it is submitted--
       (i) within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act or such later date as the Office may prescribe;
       (ii) in such form and manner as the Office shall require; 
     and
       (iii) by an individual who is an employee as of the time of 
     application.
       (C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term 
     ``employee'' has the meaning given such term by section 
     6301(2) of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 631. (a)(1) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for 
     the statutory pay systems that takes effect in fiscal year 
     1995 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall 
     be an increase of 2 percent.
       (2) For purposes of each provision of law amended by 
     section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 
     5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect 
     in fiscal year 1995 in the rates of basic pay for the 
     statutory pay systems.
       (3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``statutory 
     pay system'' shall have the meaning given such term by 
     section 5302(1) of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) For purposes of any locality-based comparability 
     payments taking effect in fiscal year 1995 under subchapter I 
     of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code (whether by 
     adjustment or otherwise)--
       (1) section 5304(a)(3)(B) of such title shall be deemed to 
     be amended by striking ``\3/10\'' and inserting ``\1/4\''; 
     and
       (2) section 5304a of such title shall be deemed to be 
     without force or effect.
       Sec. 632. Section 5(f) of the Federal Workforce 
     Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Applicability of backfill prevention provisions to 
     agencies otherwise exempted from fte reduction.--
       ``(A) In general.--If any agency is otherwise exempted by 
     any law from the limitations on full-time equivalent 
     positions or the restrictions on hiring established by this 
     section--
       ``(i) paragraph (1) shall apply to vacancies created in 
     such agency; and
       ``(ii) the reductions required pursuant to clause (i) shall 
     be made in the number of funded employee positions in such 
     agency.
       ``(B) Waiver authority.--In the case of a particular 
     position in an agency, subparagraph (A) may be waived upon a 
     determination by the head of the agency that the performance 
     of a critical agency mission requires the waiver.
       ``(C) Relation to other law.--No law may be construed as 
     suspending or modifying this paragraph unless such law 
     specifically amends this paragraph.''.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that title VI of the bill through line 7 on page 92 be considered as 
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the rule, I make a 
point of order against section 629 of the bill, beginning on page 87, 
line 3, through page 88, line 2, on the grounds that this section 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill in violation of rule 
XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House.
  HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] is 
correct, and we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Studds). The point of order is conceded and 
sustained.
  The language is stricken.
  Are there further points of order?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, but I want to alert the 
Members of the House to an outrageous practice by the Resolution Trust 
Corporation which I had hoped to address in an amendment before this 
body, but points of order were not waived.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 3,000,000 Federal employees, and these 
3,000,000 Federal employees are paid at one pay scale, and the 3,000 
employees of the Resolution Trust Corporation are paid 10 percent more.
  Now that may be justified, but in addition to being paid 10 percent 
more for doing the same work, Mr. Chairman, this body has also given 
that agency the right to set their own geographical cost-of-living pay 
increases, and, Mr. Chairman and Members of this House, they have 
tremendously abused their discretion, and let me give my colleagues one 
example.
  An employee of the Resolution Trust Corporation working in 
Washington, making a salary of $30,000, receives an additional 10 
percent above employees of other Federal agencies, and then they 
receive an 18-percent cost-of-living adjustment, 18 percent, making 
their salary $38,400. How about an employee of the Agriculture 
Department? How about an employee of the Energy Department? They make 
$30,000, but they do not get the 10-percent bonus, and they only get a 
4-percent cost-of-living increase. So, where we pay all other Federal 
employees $31,200, Mr. Chairman, we pay these employees $38,400. That 
is a difference per employee of $7,200.
  In San Francisco an employee of the Resolution Trust Corporation gets 
the 10-percent bonus, and then that agency gives them a 31-percent 
cost-of-living increase where all other Federal employees working in 
San Francisco get an 8-percent cost-of-living adjustment. Now, Mr. 
Chairman and Members of this House, what is the cost-of-living 
adjustment that is needed in San Francisco? Is it the 31 percent that 
RTC employees get, or is it the 8 percent that all other government 
workers get?
  Should we continue to pay 3,000 employees of this government a 10-
percent bonus and, in addition to that, pay them a cost-of-living 
adjustment that is four times what we pay other Federal employees?

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. Chairman, this is an insult to the 3 million Federal employees. 
There is no equity here. There is no fairness here. This is an abuse 
and an outrage.
  Finally, I would say this to you, to tell you what we are talking 
about in money terms. I have a son who is working this summer between 
his junior and senior years of school. He is paying $40 each week in 
Federal income tax. It would take his salary and the salary of 19 other 
teenagers making that same salary to compensate for RTC employee's 
extra compensation that we pay them over what we pay for the same work 
at other Federal agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, I close simply by saying this chosen few at the RTC, 
this privileged few among our Federal employees, this is an abuse that 
I hope we end in fairness to the other 3 million Federal employees, and 
in fairness to the taxpayers who are paying millions of dollars each 
year in grossly exaggerated cost of living adjustments and bonuses.
  Last year this body, and I commend it, ended the abusive practices of 
large bonuses over at the RTC, after years of abusing that. The time is 
now for us to put the hammer down on more abuse at this runaway agency.


                     amendment offered by mr. hoyer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer: Page 92, after line 7, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 633. (a) In General.--Hereafter, the employment of any 
     individual within the Executive Office of the President shall 
     be placed in leave without pay status if the individual--
       (1) has not, within 30 days of commencing such employment 
     or by October 31, 1994 (whichever occurs later), submitted a 
     completed questionnaire for sensitive positions (SF-86); or
       (2) has not, within 6 months of commencing such employment 
     or by October 31, 1994 (whichever occurs later), had his or 
     her background investigation, if completed, forwarded by the 
     counsel to the President to the United States Secret Service 
     for issuance of the appropriate White House pass.
       (b) Exemption.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
     individual specifically exempted from such subsection by the 
     President or his designee.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is agreed upon. This is 
language that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I have agreed 
upon. The gentleman has expressed great concerns about security 
provisions at the White House. I have discussed this with the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] 
and I believe we have agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, at the end of the proceedings I am going to offer a 
limitation amendment which is at the desk. But, very briefly, to 
explain it, much of the debate today I think has been about oversight. 
We have been here 12 hours and a few minutes now, so maybe this is a 
new record of some kind.
  During the previous 12 years of Republican administrations, there 
were some 36 oversight hearings held by the Congress, including 6 by a 
GOP controlled Senate. Again, I think much of the debate today has been 
over the oversight issue. Other than the amendment we just accepted on 
behalf of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the bill contains 
virtually no language on many of the White House concerns that have 
surfaced.
  During the past 18 months, we really have had a pretty poor record. 
The only hearing I am aware of is the one we held in our subcommittee, 
and, again, I wanted to thank Chairman Hoyer for his cooperation in 
that respect.
  I think we must do better. We are responsible for dishing out 
taxpayers' dollars. The American people expect accountability. So it is 
important that we are able to show that accountability in oversight.
  At this point, I am urging Members to defeat the motion to rise so we 
can address some of these issues.
  Also, in closing, again I would like to thank the chairman for his 
cooperation through this, and the good work of the staff, and maybe 
this is a new record in the book. I am not sure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final two lines of the bill.
  The clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury, Postal Service and 
     General Government Appropriations Act, 1995.''

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise and report 
the bill with amendments back to the House with sundry amendments, with 
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to, and that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 175, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                               AYES--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--175

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Berman
     Blackwell
     Collins (IL)
     Cooper
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Glickman
     McDade
     Moran
     Neal (NC)
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Saxton
     Sharp
     Swift
     Torres
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2251

  Messrs. HEFLEY, BLILEY, and BLUTE, and Ms. SNOWE changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CARR of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise and report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2254

  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gephardt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Studds, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4539) 
making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States 
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 447, he reported 
the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


           motion to recommit offered by mr. myers of indiana

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Myers of Indiana moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4539, 
     to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     examine funding levels for accounts included under Title III 
     of the bill in light of current White House policy regarding 
     the use of White House legal counsel on matters not related 
     to the performance of official duties and promptly report it 
     back to the House with such recommendations as may be 
     necessary to ensure that all applicable executive orders, 
     directives, regulations and laws regarding the use of White 
     House legal counsel are complied with.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this motion is straightforward. It 
sends the bill back to the Committee with instructions to report it 
back to the House after examining key White House operations on: The 
use of White House legal counsel on matters not related to the 
performance of official duties.
  The vote on this motion is a vote on this House's willingness to 
provide effective oversight of federal programs and agencies and, 
specifically, oversight of the operations of the Executive Office of 
the President.
  This not a partisan issue. The fact that this motion targets White 
House operations has nothing to do with politics. But it has everything 
to do with applying the same operational standards to the White House 
that are applied to other federal agencies. It has to do with good 
government.
  The bill before us today does a remarkable job of addressing the 
potential operational inefficiencies and inadequacies of programs and 
agencies within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Treasury, 
Postal Service and General Government.
  A quick look through the report accompanying this bill confirms this:
  On page 6, the Committee noted that it would not tolerate wasteful 
spending on unnecessary travel government wide.
  On page 35, the Committee noted its concern over the ability of IRS 
to increase revenue collections based on past performance.
  On page 35, the Committee noted it has frequently expressed its 
concerns over Tax Systems Modernization (and in fact cut the program by 
$517 million).
  On page 40, the Committee noted its concern over certain Postal 
Service regulations.
  On page 49, the Committee noted its concern that a certain agency 
failed to return transcripts of hearings in a timely and appropriate 
manner.
  On page 55, the Committee is concerned that an agency doesn't apply 
stringent performance management criteria to its operations.
  The list goes on.
  The point is this: this committee has gone through programs within 
its jurisdiction and noted its concerns over operational 
inefficiencies, as appropriate. The only exception is the Executive 
Office of the President. On this, the Committee is silent.
  Why? Some are claiming that a review of White House operations has 
not been done before. That simply isn't the case. On July 1, 1992, this 
body debated an amendment to restore funding for the Vice President's 
Council on Competitiveness, which had been terminated by the full 
Appropriations Committee. The objections over the Council on 
Competitiveness were strenuous and strong as voiced during debate on 
this floor and the amendment failed.

  The Council refused to cooperate with congressional committees 
exercising their constitutional oversight responsibilities.
  The Council's executive director may have violated the Federal 
conflict of interest statute.
  The Council operated in secrecy and wouldn't turn over its records to 
congressional committees.
  Again, the Committee and this body believed that there were serious 
operational inefficiencies and conflicts of interests associated with 
the Council on Competitiveness and took the bold step of outright 
terminating the Council. Some thought this was an extreme measure. The 
Republicans defended it, saying that the President had the right to 
organize his office and cabinet any way he chooses. But, the bottom 
line was that there were perceived problems and this committee and the 
House took action to terminate the Council.
  If we could address White House operations in 1992, why can we not 
address White House operations in 1994? What has changed?
  I urge my colleagues to return this bill to committee and insist that 
the committee do what is necessary to ensure that the White House 
operates in a way that is in compliance with the expectations of good 
government and the expectations of the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
opposed to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. HOYER. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized in opposition to 
the motion.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit. This is an open rule, Mr. Speaker. We have considered every 
amendment that has been offered. We have extensively reviewed this 
bill.
  I do not think there is any doubt but we have looked at this very, 
very closely.
  I want to say with respect to the legal counsel, Mr. Speaker, I will 
tell the Members that we are assured that no funds are being expended 
for any private use of the counsel. We do not believe this is 
necessary. I ask Members to vote against the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276, 
noes 139, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               AYES--276

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--139

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCurdy
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Berman
     Blackwell
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Cooper
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Glickman
     McDade
     Moran
     Neal (NC)
     Reynolds
     Saxton
     Sharp
     Thomas (CA)
     Torres
     Washington
     Whitten
     Wilson

                              {time}  2313

  Mr. KASICH and Mr. REGULA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________