[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6168-H6199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 169 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. 1854.

                              {time}  1119


                     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. 
1854) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Linder 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to present the 
legislative branch appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1996. The 
bill H.R. 1854 and the report, House Report Number 104-141, were 
reported by the Committee on Appropriations on Thursday, June 15.
  Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the members of the subcommittee 
who have shared in crafting this bill. I am particularly grateful to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking minority member 
of the committee and former chairman of this committee for many years. 
He has been my mentor on the committee and has been an extremely great 
person to work with.
  In addition, we have the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], who has 
served as the ranking minority member for years on this committee, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Miller], and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
  On the minority side, in addition to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio], we have the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. They have all helped craft this 
bill and have been very helpful in and cooperative in bringing about 
what I consider a very good piece of legislation.
  We also have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the 
chairman of the full committee, who has sat in on our meetings and sits 
on the subcommittee, as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], the ranking minority member of the full committee.
  The bill covers appropriations for the operations of the House, the 
joint committees, our support agencies, the CBO, the Congressional 
Research Service, General Accounting Office, the Architect of the 
Capitol, the Library of Congress, and the Government Printing Office. 
Funds for the Senate will be added by the other body when the bill is 
taken up in the Senate.
  The bill summary is as follows:
  It includes $1.7 billion in budget authority. It reduces from this 
current year's budget $154.9 million. It also reduces by $333 million 
under the requests received in the President's budget. It is $26.6 
million under the discretionary 602(b) allocation and, again, the 
Senate items are excluded from this bill.
  The bill makes significant reductions and changes in our operations. 
We have calculated that if the entire Federal budget were reduced in 
proportion to [[Page H 6169]] the reduction in the legislative budget 
before us today, the deficit would go down by $133 billion in 1 year. 
That is three-fifths of the way toward a balanced budget in 1 year, if 
the rest of the Government followed our lead.
  We have cut 2,350 FTE's, that is full-time equivalent employees, from 
the rolls of this branch of Government. There are several privatization 
initiatives that we have included. The report directs the Architect of 
the Capitol to obtain proposals to contract out custodial care and 
buildings maintenance. The flag raising function, the taxpayer 
subsidized perk, has not been funded, which will allow the Capitol 
Historical Society to take over that operation. Again, it will no 
longer be a tax-supported operation.
  That is $320,000 a year subsidy to provide the flags. They will still 
be available but under the direction of the Historical Society.
  The bill eliminates the beauty shop and the barber shop's revolving 
funds. It paves the way to contract operations for these services, and 
it has already been approved by the Committee on House Oversight.
  The GAO has been directed to outsource administrative work, and the 
GAO also will be funded to outsource more of their audit and program 
analysis.
  There are several eliminations of programs and other activities in 
this bill. The Office of Technology Assessment will be eliminated. The 
Joint Committee on Printing will be eliminated. Constituent copies of 
the Congressional Record and the United States Code subscriptions for 
Members will be eliminated. One House parking lot is to be turned back 
to the District of Columbia.
  One warehouse is to be eliminated, and a congressional board is to be 
eliminated.
  You will find key reductions in the bill. All agencies have been 
asked to absorb the COLA's for this year out of this year's level 
spending. In other words, we are asking every agency to absorb the 
COLA's and still live within the level of spending from the 1996 budget 
year. All agencies are held to this year's level funding or below, with 
the exception of the Library of Congress.
  The savings made possible by significant reforms of several House 
operations approved by the Committee on House Oversight have been 
reflected in this bill. The GAO is downsized by 15 percent on the way 
to a 25-percent cut over the next 2-year period. CBO has been asked to 
absorb unfunded mandate workload, an additional workload, but out of 
current level funding.
  There are several cutbacks in congressional printing. For example, a 
reduction in the number of printed hearings and the bound annual 
Congressional Records, which have been placed on CD ROM's. In addition, 
more electronic format will be substituted for the far more expensive 
print-on-paper documents. And then also to be reduced, the Joint 
Economic Committee is being downsized by 25 percent. We will also be 
streamlining some of the agencies. The House postal operations are 
being turned over to the U.S. Postal Service. Members' allowances are 
being funded in a single appropriation. That is the three allowances, 
the clerk hire, the official expense, and the mailing allowances are 
all being combined into one allowance, and the Committee on House 
Oversight in future months will actually give us flexibility to combine 
those funds into a single allowance.
  All committee funding has been combined under a single heading in the 
bill. The bill reassigns security resources to the Sergeant at Arms. 
Also the bill combines the Capitol guide service and the special 
service offices, again, a combining of offices and operations in the 
Government.
  The Botanic Garden is being transferred to the National Arboretum. 
The GAO claims and judgments work is transferred to the executive 
branch. We are keeping the pressure on agencies to standardize their 
accounting systems. This is a long-term savings measure. And then there 
is language in the bill which requires the publishing agencies, 
including the Congress, to pay the cost of paper-based documents being 
sent by the Superintendent of Documents to the Federal depository 
libraries.
  We are simply asking the agencies to pay their own printing costs 
rather than having this committee do it.
  Finally, we have included some innovative programs. We have funded a 
project called Office 2000, which will take the House into the age of 
the cyber Congress, modernizing our offices with electronic equipment. 
We have also funded the National Digital Library in the Library of 
Congress which aims at making the collections of the Library of 
Congress accessible to electronic storage and distribution systems, 
making that information available throughout the country and perhaps 
throughout the world.
  We have initiated a study to determine if the Digital Library can be 
applied to the Federal documents collections under the control of the 
Superintendent of Documents.
  And finally, a major emphasis throughout the bill has been placed on 
moving the legislative branch into electronic documents storage and 
information sharing. We want to take advantage of the on-line 
distribution of congressional information as the Congress enters the 
cyber age.
  There are a number of housekeeping provisions in the bill. Many of 
these are carried from year to year to facilitate the operations of the 
House and other agencies. Some are new, and I have mentioned most of 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe this bill is a significant step in the way 
of not only balancing the budget but of showing the American people 
that we can downsize, that we can right size our budget, but also that 
we can modernize the Congress and make it more effective, more 
efficient, and we are asking our agencies to do more with less.
  We will use great talent that exists in the private sector to 
privatize many of the things that heretofore Government has been doing. 
We simply want to stop doing what we can do without.
  I urge Members to support this bill. It is a very good piece of work. 
It does set us on a glide path toward a zero deficit. We have set the 
pattern, and I want to thank my committee members for the cooperation 
we received.
  At this point, I would like to include my prepared remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to present H.R. 1854, the legislative 
branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 to the House.
  The bill and report, House Report No. 104-141, were filed on 
Thursday, June 15, 1995.
  I do not intend to go into every detail. The report and the bill have 
been available, and I know that many Members and staff have gone over 
it very thoroughly.
  Before I begin, I want to thank each member of the Legislative 
Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  First of all, we have Vic Fazio, the gentleman from California, our 
ranking minority member. Vic Fazio has been a Member of Congress since 
1979, and since 1981 served as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Legislative until this Congress. I believe--and I hope he agrees--we 
have worked together in bringing this bill to the floor.
  In addition to Mr. Fazio, the other members of the subcommittee: Mr. 
Livingston of Louisiana, also chairman of the full Committee on 
Appropriations; Mr. Young of Florida; Mr. Taylor of North Carolina; Mr. 
Miller of Florida; Mr. Wicker of Mississippi; Mr. Thornton of Arkansas; 
and Mr. Dixon of California.
  Mr. Obey, the ranking minority member of the full committee, is an 
ex-officio member of the subcommittee.
  I should point out that we work very closely with the Committee on 
House Oversight, and I also want to express my appreciation to the 
members and leadership of that committee, primarily the chairman, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking minority member of that committee.


                          content of the bill

  This is the annual appropriation for the operations of the 
legislative branch of the Federal Government.
  This is an important occasion in a symbolic sense. With this bill, I 
believe we begin to show the way to a balanced budget. We have applied 
our own resources--the legislative branch agencies and the funds to 
operate the House of Representatives--what we must apply to the entire 
Federal bureaucracy--restraint, downsizing, and streamlining--with some 
innovations thrown in.
  It is true that we are a small part of the total budget picture. This 
bill only constitutes twelve one-hundredths of 1 percent--0.12 
percent--about one-tenth of 1 percent of the entire budget.
  Our activities include the House of Representatives and the Senate--
and our support agencies such as the Architect of the Capitol, the 
Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service. [[Page H 
6170]] 
  There is also the agency that ferrets out waste, fraud, and abuse, 
and conducts financial audits of Government programs--the General 
Accounting Office.
  We also include the Government Printing Office, and Library of 
Congress.
  Several other programs are also included: the Copyright Office; Books 
for the Blind and Physically Handicapped; the National Library Service; 
and the Depository Library Program.
                          summary of the bill

  Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House totals $1.73 billion--
$1,727,351,000--in budget authority for fiscal year 1996.
  This figure does not include Senate items that will be added when the 
bill goes over to the other body.


                     compared with last year's bill

  Last year, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1995, 
appropriated $1.88 billion--$1,882,221,600--for the activities covered 
in H.R. 1854. This bill cuts spending $155 million--$154,870,600--an 
8.2 percent reduction. We expect that the other body will be adding to 
the reduction.
  We expect a final bill going down to the President which cuts $200 
million. If the total Federal budget were reduced the same way, over 
$130 billion would be saved in fiscal year 1996.


                   comparison with 602(b) allocation

  Under section 602(b) of the Budget Act, our committee allocated 
$2.262 billion for the legislative bill. The bill before us contains 
$1.727 billion in discretionary budget authority. That means we are 
$535 million--$535,569,000--under the target--a large amount because 
Senate operations are not included in the bill before us.
  With the amounts we have reserved for the Senate, we are $27 million 
below the 602(b) target.
  We did a similar analysis of our outlay target. Our calculation is 
that the bill is about $78.5 million--$78,477,000--under the 602(b) 
outlay ceiling.


                        legislative rightsizing

  This bill is the first step in reaching the right size, and shape, of 
the legislative branch. The full-time equivalent work force is reduced 
by 2,350--8.6 percent below fiscal year 1995.
  We have restructured several activities and programs not in direct 
support of legislative work. The Botanic Garden is transferred to the 
National Arboretum; the Office of Technology Assessment is eliminated; 
the costs of distributing Federal documents to depository libraries are 
shifted to the publishing entity; and work appropriate to the executive 
branch is shifted there from the General Accounting Office, while GAO 
audit work not essential to its primary mission in support of Congress 
is outsourced.
  We have also eliminated a vast amount of print-on-paper congressional 
printing. Several incentives have been placed in the bill for all 
agencies to convert to electronic format--a substantial cost and space 
saver.
  Other activities in the bill are held at or below last year's level 
with one exception--an exception that leads me to another theme of this 
bill.


                         the ``cyber'' congress

  Earlier this year, the Speaker characterized the 104th Congress as 
the ``cyber'' Congress. This bill reinforces that sense.
  The single increase in this bill, $1.5 million, is in support of the 
National Digital Library project at the Library of Congress.
  Another important policy shift in this bill charges the costs of 
paper and microfiche documents and their distribution to the agency 
producing the documents. If the document is electronic and is 
requisitioned from or through GPO, the Superintendent of Documents 
office will bear the cost.
  Beyond placing the cost in the appropriate place, this bill makes 
electronic information attractive; and it is compatible with the 
reinventing Government proposals and current executive branch 
information management policies.
                        major items in the bill

  The bill provides $671.6 million for the House and is based on the 
reorganized operations of the House established early in the 104th 
Congress. The reduction of 833 FTE's reflects the one-third cut in 
committee staff and initiatives of the Committee on House Oversight to 
reduce the administrative support offices. The bill does allow a small 
COLA for legislative agency staff, based on current law and the House 
budget resolution. The bill provides funding for Office 2000, a project 
to bring the House into a ``cyber'' Congress status.
  There are no funds provided to purchase Historical Society calendars 
or subscriptions to the U.S. Code; Members can purchase calendars 
through their official allowance and can access the Code online.
  Also, we have not funded one warehouse used by the House, and one 
parking lot. We have eliminated the Flag Office--we believe the Capitol 
Historical Society can take that over and eliminate the subsidy of 
taxpayer funds.


                              joint items

  We have allowed $85.8 million for joint items, including the Capitol 
Police, the joint committees of the House and Senate, the guide 
service, and the attending physician.
  The Capitol Police civilian strength is increased by 18--by 
transferring 5 security apparatus design staff and funds from the 
Architect, and by adding 13 security aide positions with a comparative 
decrease in gallery door attendant staff under the Sergeant at Arms.
  One joint committee receives reduced funds--a 25-percent reduction 
for JEC. The Joint Committee on Printing has not been funded, those 
functions will be carried out by the House and Senate authorizing 
committees--while the Joint Committee on Taxation remains level funded.


                        architect of the capitol

  We have allowed $124.7 million overall, including the Botanic Garden 
and Library buildings and grounds maintenance, for the Architect of the 
Capitol. This level reflects a 5-percent reduction in FTE's and the 
elimination of the Flag Office. Provision is made for the Architect to 
undertake the transfer of the Botanic Garden to the National Arboretum. 
The first installment of the renovation of the Conservatory is funded, 
fulfilling a commitment of Congress, but it is limited to the original 
estimate of $21 million.
  The AOC's parking attendants are transferred to the House Sergeant at 
Arms, who will bring that activity within the security function.


                             study agencies

  Funds are not provided for the Office of Technology Assessment. Study 
of science policy questions can be carried out by staff within CRS or 
GAO, or contracts for specific analyses can be bid out to scientific 
organizations with appropriate expertise.
  The Congressional Budget Office is level funded. We believe, that by 
shifting resources from program analysis and support overhead, this 
allowance will be sufficient for the new priorities established by the 
unfunded mandates legislation, since CBO is already experienced in 
analyzing costs at the State and local level.
  The Congressional Research Service is level funded.


                   library of congress (non-crs part)

  For the Library of Congress, $324.7 million is allowed and there is 
authority to spend another $138.1 million in receipts. In addition to 
the National Digital Library initiative, for which the bill provides $3 
million, relocation expenses to the remote storage project has been 
funded, as has the Global Legal Information Network, and the Copyright 
Office Electronic Registration, Recordation, and Deposit System and 
responsibilities under the GATT agreement. The Braille centralization 
project will proceed through savings.


                       government printing office

  A number of unnecessary congressional printing costs are eliminated. 
The shift of costs for distributing documents to depository libraries 
includes Congress paying its fair share in the congressional printing 
and binding account.


                       general accounting office

  The allowance of $392.9 million reflects a 15-percent cut, the first 
year of a 2-year 25-percent cut. By reordering priorities and staff, 
through outsourcing appropriate work, and through transferring to the 
executive branch activity appropriate to the executive, GAO is reduced 
and refocused.
                 general and administrative provisions

  In addition to several housekeeping provisions in title I, sections 
101 and 102 provides for deposit in the Treasury as miscellaneous 
receipts those monies collected for delivery of contractor-submitted 
mail in the House postal system and for rebates from the Government 
Travel Card Program.
  Revolving accounts for the legislative service organizations are 
dissolved in section 106, while section 107 ends the revolving accounts 
for the House beauty and barber shops, the House recording studio, and 
the House restaurant.
  Section 112 merges the Special Services Office with the Capitol Guide 
Service and eliminates the separate board for the Special Services 
Office.
  In title II, there are several housekeeping provisions. In addition 
to these, section 208 limits CRS involvement in support of 
Interparliamentary development to incidental purposes, allowing for 
close-out of current work.
  Section 209 brings into the Library's budgeting process the gift and 
trust fund obligations in excess of $100,000.
  Section 210 provides that components of the Government responsible 
for issuing documents shall bear the cost of distributing them to the 
depository library system--unless electronic documents are produced or 
procured through GPO.
  Section 211 transfers the claims and settlements functions of the 
General Accounting Office to the executive branch.

[[Page H 6171]]

  In addition to the general provisions routinely carried in this bill, 
section 306 transfers the parking attendant staff to the Sergeant at 
Arms. Section 307 prohibits the use of funds appropriated in the bill 
to move Members' offices. Section 308 transfers the security apparatus 
design staff and funds of the Architect to the Capitol Police. Section 
309 assigns the Board of the Office of Compliance the responsibility 
for submitting a report required under the Congressional Accountability 
Act of 1995. Section 310 authorizes the military police at Fort Meade 
to make arrests on property owned by the legislative branch within that 
military installation. Section 311 transfers the Botanic Garden to the 
National Arboretum and provides for the Architect to complete the 
renovation of the Conservatory.

                                summary

  BA compared to: 1995 operating level: $154.9 million (8.2 percent) 
reduction; 1996 request: $332.8 million (16.2 percent) reduction; 
602(b): $26.6 million reduction under our 602(b)'s--Senate excluded.
  Outlays compared to: 1995 operating level: $158.6 million (8.5 
percent) reduction; 1996 request: $295.9 million (16.1 percent) 
reduction; 602(b): $78.5 million (4.4 percent) reduction under pro rata 
share--Senate excluded.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill makes major reductions, clarifies the duties 
of the legislative branch, and makes a down payment on balancing the 
budget. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is one statement of Chairman Packard's that I'll 
take issue with. It is that this year starts the process of cuts in our 
own backyard.
  Cuts process started many years ago.
  Using 1979 as a benchmark:
  Executive branch funding has increased by 30 percent during that 
time; judicial branch funding has doubled.
  Legislative branch funding has decreased. How much?
  CRS has issued a recent report comparing legislative appropriations 
in terms of constant dollars:
  From fiscal year 1972 to fiscal year 1995, legislative budgets rose 
21.2 percent overall.
  However, after the legislative expansion of the early 1970's, 
including the formation of CBO, from fiscal year 1978 to fiscal year 
1995, legislative budgets have been reduced 2.2 percent.
  Budget authority has decreased in fiscal year 1993, fiscal year 1994, 
fiscal year 1995--a total decrease of 5.5 percent in total legislative 
BA and a decrease of 5.7 percent in direct congressional operations 
contained in title I.
  These reductions stem primarily from a general decline in House and 
Senate committee funding, policy changes enacted since 1991 
significantly reducing mail costs, and several other factors, but they 
represent significant deductions.
  In this bill, we have an 8.6-percent reduction in FTE's, primarily 
due to the cuts in committee staff and support organizations.
  This comes on the heels of a 7.5-percent reduction in FTE's that 
occurred between fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1995.
  Over a 4-year period, legislative branch entities covered in this 
bill will have downsized personnel by over 15 percent.
  So, I welcome the new majority's continuing efforts to spend our 
resources wisely and let the taxpayers know that this is a lean and 
cost-effective Congress.
  There are some good initiatives in this bill:
  Scrutinizing the number of copies of congressional publications we 
need, for example, copies of the Congressional Record, copies of 
committee reports, eliminating the free U.S. Code or Annotated Code 
provided to freshmen. MC's can still get the code from their official 
expenses account.
  Creating incentives to convert to electronic formats and to convert 
to electronic document distributions where it is feasible.
  Funding for the National Digital Library project at the Library of 
Congress.
  Many of the reductions in this bill are really a consequence of cost-
shifting.
  Shifting the Botanic Garden to the Department of Agriculture.
  Cutting in half the appropriations for the Superintendent of 
Documents and Federal Depository Libraries and asking agencies to 
assume these costs.
  Changes that will dramatically affect the operation of Members' 
personal offices from day to day--the committee estimates that the 
average office will have to absorb $12,000 in additional costs due to 
cuts in the Clerk's and CAO's budget coupled with changes approved by 
the Committee on House Oversight to eliminate our in-house printing 
facilities, close the folding room, and increase the costs of the 
recording studio and the photography office.
  These shifts have been somewhat offset by an increase in Members 
accounts.
  However, there is an amendment to decrease these funds, and even with 
the proposed increase in Members accounts, there is no provision for a 
COLA for our staffs.
  I'm also particularly concerned about the effect of these cuts on the 
important House support organizations we depend upon.
  GAO is embarking on a 2-year reduction of 25 percent--15 percent of 
which is included in this bill. Since 1992, that's a 35-percent cut.
  Congressional Research Service is being asked to absorb their pay cut 
costs with only a $1,000 increase.
  CBO's budget is being held level at a time we have given them 
significant additional responsibilities with unfunded mandates--glad 
that an amendment will give us the chance to add additional resources.
  Perhaps the least defensible elimination in this bill is the Office 
of Technology Assessment.
  The Speaker talks of the cyber-Congress but the first chance the 
Republican majority gets, it proposes eliminating the one agency that 
helps us sort out the fact from fiction over increasingly technical and 
complex policy questions.
  OTA studies have saved us billions by performing independent analyses 
concerning high technology issues like synthetic fuels, computers at 
the Social Security Administration, technologies to counter terrorism 
in our airlines, and medical prevention technologies in Medicare.
  Important to retain an independent analytical function as Congress 
takes up important but technical policy questions regarding risk 
assessment and telecommunications.
  We need a counter to the executive--shouldn't have to depend on 
agency self-analysis.
  OTA has always functioned with a unique bipartisan House-Senate board 
that directs their research mission; they use more than 5,000 outside-
the-beltway specialists each year to assist in their studies and review 
their work.
  We're closing them down with no thought to preserving their mission 
or even providing close-down funds to complete the studies they have 
underway.
  Certainly, OTA should not be immune to the cuts we are imposing on 
other support agencies. Simply placing it in a Federal building, such 
as House Annex 2, would immediately save $2 million a year--10 percent 
of their annual budget--in lease costs.
  I'm glad we have two amendments to consider ways to restore OTA--the 
Fazio amendment and the Houghton amendment.
  I would prefer to simply restore OTA, and my amendment reflects 
that--our bill is $26 million under our 602b allocation so there is 
certainly plenty of room for OTA.
  Mr. Houghton is also offering a very thoughtful amendment that 
permits us to abolish the agency yet retain its mission and the core of 
its personnel while getting it out of leased space and into a Federal 
building--maybe Annex II, maybe the Adams Building.
  Also concerned about a provision having to do with the Joint Tax 
Committee, and I am prepared to offer a corrective amendment.
  Under current law, the Joint Committee on Taxation is required to 
review all proposed tax refunds in excess of $1 million before the 
refund can be paid by the IRS to the affected taxpayer.
  In 9 percent of cases, the Joint Committee staff finds an error or 
issue.
  In 1994, for example, joint tax reviews resulted in $16 million in 
reduced refunds, $64 million in reduced minimum 
[[Page H 6172]] tax net operating loss carry-forwards, and $255 million 
in reduced minimum tax foreign tax credit carry-forwards.
  In the first 5 months of 1995, Joint Tax reviews have resulted in $5 
million in reduced tax refunds.
  Joint Tax and CBO estimate that eliminating this review of large tax 
refunds will reduce Federal budget receipts by at least $50 million 
over the 1996-2000 period.
  Our colleague, Bill Archer, in testimony before our subcommittee, 
said:

       . . . I think it is very, very important that whatever arm 
     does this investigation be accountable to us so that we can 
     make whatever changes need to be made.
       . . . constitutionally, the founders of this country were 
     very, very concerned about the power to tax, and that it be 
     closely held within not just the Senate, but within the House 
     of Representatives, and we all know that the Senate cannot 
     initiate any tax legislation. And so the Congress felt many, 
     many years ago, long before I ever came here, that it was 
     very, very important that the Congress keep as much of that 
     power as was reasonably justified. . . . But doing my own 
     return, I must tell you that there are big problems. But the 
     fact that the review has found that there was $16 million 
     that was unjustified, more than justifies the cost of the 
     committee review.

  Classic example of a solution trying to find a problem.
  No evidence that anything is wrong--serves as an important 
legislative check on this process.
  So, the minority has a number of problems with this bill--some of 
them can be addressed with the amendments we will consider.
  Beginning of a long process, including Senate consideration and 
conference committee.
  Look forward to working with Chairman Packard in the weeks ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me respond briefly to the gentleman. I certainly 
will stipulate that the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is 
correct. The downsizing of the legislative branch of Government started 
long before this year and before I became chairman. The report reflects 
that. I wanted to make that apology to his efforts as chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee, 
it is a pleasure to stand here and support this appropriation bill. 
This is the beginning of the downsizing of Government. It is great that 
we are starting with ourselves. That is the second appropriation bill, 
and it is important to show to the American people and to the other 
agencies of the Federal Government that we are starting with ourselves.
  We are actually cutting $154.9 million from last year's budget. This 
is not slowing the growth in spending, as we are in so many other very 
important programs. This is an actual cut from last year's spending, 
not a cut from the baseline, but a cut from the 1995 spending. When we 
add the cuts that the Senate will probably come forward with, we are 
talking about $200 million savings on approximately a $2 billion 
budget. Therefore, we are moving in the right direction, and we are 
sending the right message.
  Mr. Chairman, we are accomplishing this by basically privatizing, 
streamlining, and computerizing the legislative branch operations. In 
the privatization, Mr. Chairman, we are just taking functions that are 
important that we provide. For example, the calendars that the 
historical society provides, they are going to continue to be 
available. We are just going to be charged for them on our individual 
budgets. If we can afford it, fine. If not, they will be bought through 
the historical society and made available that way.
  The same way with the flag operation. It costs over $300,000 just to 
raise and lower the flags, not counting the costs of the franking, 
where it takes basically two letters to go through the process of 
arranging for the flags, the cost of sending the flag itself, and the 
cost of the labor of everybody in all 40 offices preparing all the flag 
purchases.
  The flags are going to continue to be available. They will continue 
to fly over the Capitol. It is just that the person buying the flag 
will pay the cost, the actual cost of flying that flag. This can be 
true of a number of other issues we are going to have within the 
Federal Government, as here in the Congress.
  We are eliminating a number of programs. The United States Code, as 
we go to computerization, why do we need to buy these expensive sets of 
books? If Members want to buy them, they can put it in their budget. If 
not, they can just charge it. What is exciting is the fact we are 
computerizing so many things in the Government now, especially in our 
offices, so we can be reached by E-mail by our constituents.
  We are providing money to digitalize a lot of the Library of 
Congress, and we are looking into digitalizing the congressional 
information to make it available to more people all over the United 
States without the bulk of the paperwork that now is so costly. I am 
proud to be able to support this bill, and urge my colleagues to 
support this appropriation bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is not just 
because it takes away much of our oversight, particularly in areas in 
science and technical matters, where I find that I rely a great deal on 
OTA analyses. The Office of Technology Assessment has done a great job 
over the years in supplying us with the information we need to make 
difficult decisions. The review that is made by the Joint Tax Committee 
staff of audits, they have uncovered hundreds of thousands of dollars 
of money that people were trying to avoid paying, that legally they 
were responsible for.
  I do not rise so much in opposition to the fact that we are not going 
to be providing the information that we have traditionally provided to 
our constituents, whether it be through depository libraries or the 
General Accounting Office's capacity to print the kind of information 
our constituents need; all those things I oppose, but what troubles me 
the most about this bill is what it does to the unsung heroes in this 
institution, people who have devoted their lives in a professional 
manner to making this the very special place it is, people that take 
such great pride in their work.
  Since the two speakers before me mentioned the Flag Office, to 
emphasize what we are doing in terms of saving money in the Flag 
Office, let me focus on that, the fact that we will say to these people 
that ``We no longer need your services, we have found a way to 
privatize;'' to say to somebody like Chris Benza, who has worked in the 
Flag Office for 35 years, in a windowless office in the bowels of the 
Capitol, surrounded by piles of flags, doing her job, and as her 
colleagues, just a few people down there do their job day in and day 
out for 435 Members and 100 Senators who expect immediate service.
  When I wanted to provide flags to Captain O'Grady's family, on the 
day that Captain O'Grady returned to the United States, after his 
family had assumed that he was lost, dead in Bosnia, that was an 
important occasion. The people in this Flag Office went in to work over 
the weekend to prepare the flags flown over the Capitol on June 8, the 
day of Captain O'Grady's rescue, to ensure that they were ready for 
presentation for the O'Grady family.
  While we concentrate on the cost of doing that, which is a few 
dollars, really, they do not bill us anything more for working on the 
weekends or late at night, we think nothing of the value of a service 
like that, of people like that.
  If you were to go into a PX on a military base, you would pay twice 
as much money as we charge our constituents for these flags that are 
flown over the Capitol. Those flags have not flown over the Capitol. 
All we would have to do is to add $2 to the cost of each of these 
flags. We would bill our constituents. That would actually enable us to 
generate a profit. However, that would not be privatization, would it?
                              {time}  1145

  Mr. PACKARD. We have tried to be very sensitive as we have dealt with 
employees, and certainly the Flag Office is one. In our discussions 
with Clarence Brown, a former Member of [[Page H 6173]] Congress who is 
Director of the Capitol Historical Society, we discussed the employees 
of the Flag Office. He cannot, of course, give us assurance that they 
would be pulled into his organization and continued service but he 
certainly will give every effort to do so. We are sensitive to the 
gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. MORAN. I appreciate what my friend, the chairman says, but the 
point is that these employees have no assurance and the assumption is 
that they will lose their jobs. After 35 years of dedicated service to 
us and all the people that have preceded us, this is how we say thanks 
for a job well done: ``Sorry, you're no longer needed. You're 
expendable. It's more important to us to privatize this office with new 
people,'' in a way that we cannot assure that he service will be 
provided as efficiently as it is to our constituents.
  I see no reason why this was necessary to be done, and in fact why we 
could not have accepted an alternative that would have generated money 
and still provided this service at less cost than they could get 
anyplace else, and still reward public servants who deserve to be 
rewarded.
  Tht is one of the very strong reasons I oppose this bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of this particular piece of 
legislation, notwithstanding the fact that it does involve a degree of 
change. As a matter of fact, life involves a degree of change.
  My concern is the direction of the change. Change will occur. It is 
whether the change is understood and directed and for the better, or 
whether the change controls you and it is not for the better.
  I happen to believe that the combined efforts of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
and the hard-working members of that subcommittee have offered us 
change which is on the whole for the better. I congratulate them for 
their work product. I do need to point out, I guess in part because of 
a degree of pride, that of the $155 million reduction, $40 million plus 
of it is on the basis of the committee changes that originated in the 
Committee on House Oversight.
  I want to underscore the comment of both of the gentlemen from 
California that this is a work in progress. It certainly started before 
the 104th Congress. It also cannot be denied that it has been rapidly 
accelerated in the 104th Congress and that we are in fact making 
changes that are long, long overdue.
  There are a number of amendments that will be offered shortly and 
there will be a very brief time in which to discuss these amendments. I 
would like to take some time now to kind of do a preview of those 
amendments I have a particular interest in, and will indicate my 
support or opposition and the reason why. If I do not discuss a 
particular amendment, it is because I basically do not feel that my 
input would be useful to the Members in arriving at their particular 
decision as to whether to support or oppose that particular amendment.
  At this time, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], if he would engage me in a 
colloquy in a subject matter which is focused on by amendment No. 4, 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. If his amendment 
is offered on the Joint Committee on Taxation language removal, I would 
support that amendment.
  I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy to clarify a 
provision in the bill, it if remains in the bill, that states that no 
funds of the Joint Committee on Taxation can be used to determine 
specific refunds or credits under sections 6405 and 8023.
  As the chairman knows, in the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS is 
required to report to the Joint Committee on Taxation any proposed 
refunds, credits or tentative adjustments of certain Federal taxes in 
excess of $1 million. As the chairman is also aware, the Joint 
Committee on Taxation does not receive a copy of the tax return but 
rather reviews the adjustments and determinations made by the IRS in 
connection with the tax return, and that under the Internal Revenue 
Code only the IRS may either adjust the amount to be refunded or make 
the refund as proposed.
  Mr. PACKARD. If the gentleman will yield, yes, that is correct.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the provision in the bill 
neither prevents the Joint Committee from reviewing proposed refunds or 
credits in excess of $1 million as is required by Internal Revenue Code 
section 6405 nor does it limit the Joint Committee's ability to secure 
data from the IRS under section 8023.
  Is the sole purpose of the provision in the bill to make it crystal 
clear that the Joint Committee does not have the power to actually 
decide the amount of refund or credits in a taxpayer's Federal tax 
return?
  Mr. PACKARD. That is the sole purpose and the only purpose of the 
provision.
  Mr. THOMAS. I think the chairman for that clarification.
  Mr. Chairman, I would in the brief time I have indicate to my 
colleagues that I also will oppose amendment No. 1 or 2, which is the 
reduction in the Members' allowances, not that I am opposed to 
reductions in Members' allowances. I have encouraged, supported, and in 
fact brought about more than a one-third reduction in the franking 
account. I will continue to monitor and urge us to make adjustments as 
appropriate in the Members' accounts, just as we have in the committee 
accounts.
  My concerns with amendments 1 and 2 are, frankly, the timing. As I 
said, the changes in the House are a work in progress. We are going to 
make adjustments, a portion of them created financially in this bill by 
consolidating the three funds available to Members into one. We will do 
that through the committee in the next calendar year. We are assigning 
a number of specific increases to Members' allowances which ordinarily 
would have been paid for by the general funds of the House.
  My concern is that as we make these adjustments on costs that were 
borne by the House on the whole, moving $10,000 to $15,000 to the 
Members' individual accounts, that this is not the right time to make 
the adjustment, perhaps compounding the problem of budgeting for some 
Members. That adjustment should be made after we actually combine 
accounts and we absorb the individual costs that will be placed upon 
the Members through H.R. 1854.
  It is not that I am opposed to the concept of further reductions, it 
is frankly timing, and the timing is wrong. I would ask my colleagues 
to oppose amendments 1 and 2.
  Conversely, I would indicate that I would vote in favor of amendment 
No. 3 by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] which would extend 
the cutoff period for unsolicited mass mailings from 60 days to 90 days 
before an election.
  Finally, I would strongly oppose amendment No. 8 by the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton]. All this does is keep alive hard copy transfer 
at a time when we are trying to create electronic transfers. In no way 
should we provide funds, regardless of where they come from, to 
maintain the old way of doing business. If amendment No. 8 by the 
gentleman from Utah passes, it will only delay and make more expensive 
the transition into the new electronic world. I would urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing amendment No. 8.
  As I indicated at the beginning, I think this is an excellent work 
product. It is a very difficult thing to do, that is, change, 
especially when it involves personnel and dollar amounts. Change is new 
and unfamiliar. On the whole, I believe H.R. 1854 is as good as could 
be expected and perhaps even better in making this institution more 
accountable to our shareholders, the American people. I applaud both of 
the gentlemen from California on their work product.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Office of Technology Assessment.
  Since its inception in 1972, OTA has served as the scientific arm of 
Congress. In the effort to spend the dollars more wisely, it seems to 
me that OTA [[Page H 6174]] is more critical today than ever before. 
OTA helps Congress determine what projects should be undertaken, 
streamlined and made more effective.
  It is often said that knowledge is power. Having the right 
information, the right knowledge, will allow us to better be able to 
make the right decisions. In this case, OTA provides us with the 
knowledge, gives us the power.
  Opponents of OTA say that because OTA's reports take too long to 
prepare and are too detailed, they are out of sync with the legislative 
flow or speed with which Congress now operates. To the opponents of 
OTA, I ask you, what do you want? Do you want it fast, or do you want 
it right? When did speed become the hallmark of quality legislation?
  If we lose OTA, we effectively eliminate the lens by which Congress 
assesses the quality of its technology-based assessments.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district in Rhode Island, the fourth most elderly 
district in the Nation, OTA has been critical in advancing preventative 
medicines and cures that have helped reduce the cost of Medicare, which 
has helped save our taxpayers dollars. It saved over $368 million in a 
Social Security Administration computer system. It has helped us move 
to find out which technologies are more effective, and in my State that 
has a lot to do with the military. We have the Naval Undersea Warfare 
Center, and OTA has done reports on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the OTA gives us the information that we need, 
and in this environment we need the right information. I would ask my 
colleagues to support the Houghton amendment and others that help 
maintain the function of OTA.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio]. This is not a new idea. Others have expressed this. I think 
they have done a wonderful job over the years. I think particularly the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has been sensitive to the 
overall issues we are dealing with today.
  I just want to make one plea, and I want to follow up and thank the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for what he has said.
  Budgeting is not an across-the-board process. It is never done well 
that way. We have never done it that way. Therefore, it is a selective, 
it is not a meat cleaver approach, it is a surgical approach.
  One of the things I worry about here is that the committee bill zeros 
out the Office of Technology Assessment. Why do I worry about it? It is 
not a political issue, It is not something which affects many of us 
back in our districts, but long-term it affects this country.
  We should not go blind into the 21st century thinking about a whole 
variety of things, not understanding science. There are only 3 
scientists in this body. Most people do not consider the scientific 
implications here. They are critically important.
  I have been involved as a businessman, before I came here, in 
cutting, cutting, cutting all my life. That is the nature of what 
business does. Never once did we cut the research, because it not only 
affects the cost but particularly it affects the revenues.
  If we are going to go into this next century and our major war will 
be economic rather than military, we must know what our legislative 
body can do and what other people are going to do in the world around 
us. Therefore, I plead either to support the Fazio amendment or my 
particular amendment in terms of preserving an element of scientific 
understanding without which I think we are going to be in terrible 
trouble.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this bill as is. What really 
annoys me about it is the attitude that the other side of the aisle 
seems to have, that government is bad and somehow we all ought to 
apologize for what we do here; that we need to engage in self-
flagellation all the time to eliminate things because we are supposedly 
living high off the hog here. The fact of the matter is that 99 percent 
of the Members that I know on both sides of the aisle work very, very 
hard here and use the resources that we are given.

                              {time}  1200

  If we do not begin to have respect for ourselves or respect for this 
institution, frankly no one is going to have respect for us at all. And 
for good cause.
  Yes, let us cut waste. Let us cut the things that do not work. But 
let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. Eliminating OTA? 
Give me a break. That is one of the things that has worked. It is one 
of the things that has been good.
  We have 581,000 people in my district. New York has 581,000 people in 
all the districts. We need to communicate with our constituents. I do 
not see why eliminating the folding room or cutting printing helps 
anybody. I do not see where it makes government more efficient, just so 
we can go back to our constituents and say look at what we have done, 
we have cut all of these wonderful things.
  Let us cut where it makes sense, but not just to cut to throw the 
baby out with the bath water. The flag program, my constituents like 
that program and if we are subsidizing it at $300,000 a year, let us 
just raise the price of the flags. Why do we have to eliminate it or 
transfer it to another agency?
  Transferring or shifting things to other departments is a phony 
savings. It is a phony cost savings. We are not saving money; we are 
just shifting the costs and claiming that we are saving money.
  Privatization, I do not think privatization as an end in itself is 
something that is so terrific. If it makes sense, let us do it. But if 
there are functions here that we do in terms of legislative offices 
like printing and like folding, to me it makes sense to do it in-house.
  And firing employees, well, let us fire where we need to fire. But 
just to throw people out on the street and pretend that we are doing 
all of these great things, I do not see it at all.
  This rule blocks most of the amendments filed at the Committee on 
Rules, including the gift-ban amendment, amendments to abolish two 
joint committees, and the lockbox amendment.
  The bill eliminates funding for the Office of Technology Assessment 
for the first time since 1972. The bill prohibits the Joint Committee 
on Taxation from reviewing tax refunds of a million dollars or more to 
determine if they are in compliance with tax laws.
  Give me a break. Let us cut where cutting is necessary, but let us 
not do this thing with a meat cleaver and pretend that we are somehow 
doing wonderful things for the American people.
  I make no excuses for government. I think government is necessary to 
help people. I do not want to eliminate it. Downsize it, yes. But 
downsize it where it is important, not just so we can go home and say 
how wonderful we are.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to 
applaud the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the 
ranking member, for doing a fantastic job in an extremely difficult 
situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to one issue during the brief time that 
I have here today, and that is the issue of the elimination of the 
Office of Technology Assessment.
  As a senior member of the Committee on Science and as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on 
National Security, it is extremely important that we not take this 
short-sighted approach to eliminate what amounts to approximately a $22 
million item in our legislative branch appropriations bill.
  The Office of Technology Assessment touches the acts of this Congress 
in ways that none of us really are aware of or understand. In the area 
of defense, the subcommittee that I chair [[Page H 6175]] oversees 
approximately $35 billion of expenditures. That is more than five 
Cabinet-level agencies.
  Much of the research that we do is dependent upon the long-term work 
that has been done by the Office of Technology Assessment. Just last 
week we marked up the 1996 authorization bill for the military and we 
plussed up the national missile defense accounts and theater missile 
defense accounts by $800 million.
  Much of the documentation and the arguments to justify that plus-up 
came from reports and studies done by the Office of Technology 
Assessment; their study on missile proliferation around the world, 
their work on the development of arms and the need for arms control and 
the needs of defending the American people. All of that factual 
investigative work that took in some cases months and years was done by 
OTA.
  It would be extremely short-sighted for us to eliminate this agency. 
And, in fact, we and the taxpayers would be the losers in the end. And 
there is no other agency that can do that work.
  I know there are going to be amendments offered by our colleagues. 
And I would say to our colleagues here, support those amendments, 
whether it is by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] or by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], who I am here to help today.
  Even if you are not satisfied with where the money will come from, we 
can send a message to the conference committee that we want OTA to be 
saved. It is important for this Congress and it is important to the 
issues that we deal with.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to what this bill does to 
the Government Printing Office. It virtually begins the dismantlement 
of that office with a 50-percent cut from 1995. No thought is given to 
access by the public, which will now have to go through the individual 
agencies instead of to a single service to get documents. I fear for 
the public. Government is hard enough to find your way through.
  This massive cut assumes that the agencies are going to pay. Of 
course, we are cutting the agencies too, so we are simply moving the 
cost. GPO, ironically, is the leading agency in contracting out. Yet 
the underlying assumption of this bill is that what we ought to do with 
this agency is contract out.
  They contract out 75 percent of their work. We ought to send the 
other agencies to the GPO to find out how they do it. We need a 
referee, however, when we are talking printing and printing technology, 
to decide what should be contracted out and what should not.
  I cannot imagine each individual agency going through the process of 
deciding that. And particularly, I cannot imagine that given what a 
recent GAO report has found; that agencies contract out work that can 
be done more cost efficiently in-house, more cheaply in-house.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a bill, cosponsored by the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella], that would require executive agencies to make 
a specific determination, before contracting out occurs, that it is 
going to indeed cost less. Nothing, of course, requires that to happen 
within this body.
  We need, with this body, procurement with some controls on it from a 
central, knowledgeable source. For most of our history that source has 
been the GPO.
  Finally, let me say the Government Printing Office is one of the few 
manufacturing facilities still left in the District of Columbia. It is 
the largest minority employer in the manufacturing facility. Congress 
has ultimate responsibility for the District of Columbia, which is on 
its financial knees. This is not the time to cripple one of its major 
employers.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1854. We hear from our 
colleagues that.
  Government is bad, and none of us have made that statement here as 
Republicans. We are not saying that Government is bad, but we are 
trying to evaluate the need for the expansiveness of this Government.
  No father likes to tell his children that we cannot go on vacation 
this year. No parent wants to tell their child they cannot go to 
college because we cannot afford it.
  But in Government we seem to print money and make excuses that 
everything is essential. Everything that we do in this body is 
essential. The American businessman has to make decisions that are 
critical to the salvation of his or her company, and they make those 
decisions based on the need for productivity.
  I want to particularly single out something that this committee has 
done regarding the code books that I have discussed on this floor in 
past sessions. And I want to thank you for including language in the 
bill prohibiting Members' personal subscriptions to the United States 
Code book to be paid for by the Clerk's budget.
  Many may recall I brought this issue to light earlier this year 
following a salesman's visit to my office peddling the $2,500 set of 
gold-embossed books as being free. But as anybody who has spent any 
time in Washington knows, there is no such thing as free in Congress.
  As I have advocated, this bill states that for Members who require an 
office copy, the code can be purchased from the Members' official 
expense allowance. Alternatively, the code is available in the House 
library, at the Library of Congress, on line, and on CD-ROM.
  By eliminating this entitlement to newly elected Members of Congress, 
we can bring some accountability to this system and eliminate some of 
the waste and abuse associated with the current system. No longer will 
newly elected Members be able to simply sign away 2,500 hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars, but they will be accountable for this purchase in 
their office accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his attention to this 
issue and bring closure to the issue of free sets of the United States 
Code to Members of Congress. But, I want to urge both sides to 
participate in meaningful debate of making certain that what government 
is doing today is what is important for the taxpayers, not for those 
that reside in Congress.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out, as I said earlier, there is 
still $26 million under the 602(b) figure that has been allocated to 
this subcommittee, and I would hope that we could at some point, 
perhaps in conference, use those additional funds to augment CBO.
  I would like to reiterate that I do not think we need to help that 
beleaguered agency by cutting back on the Folk Life Center. I 
understand the Library of Congress has been contacting Members 
concerned about the Houghton amendment which would take some funds from 
the only agency in this bill that has had an increase to perpetuate the 
existence of a scaled-down OTA under the aegis of the Library.
  Certainly, if the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Houghton] were adopted or if mine were to be adopted, I would hope that 
we could compensate the Library at a higher level in order to make up 
for any costs that might be incurred by them as we divert funds to 
another agency in this bill.
  These things can be worked out, and I do not believe the Library need 
worry that they are coming under attack here today. In fact, I would 
hope that they would understand the importance of keeping OTA alive.
  But I wanted to mention another piece of legislation which has 
already been referred to in a colloquy between the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] and the chairman, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard], and that is the language that refers to the Joint 
Committee on Taxation.
  Currently, the Joint Committee is required to review all proposed tax 
refunds in excess of $1 million before the refund can be paid by the 
IRS to the affected taxpayer. Ninety-two percent of these returns are 
corporate returns. There are very, very few individual returns in this 
category.
  When we heard from our colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], who is the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
this [[Page H 6176]] year the chairman of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, in testimony before our legislative-branch subcommittee, he 
said, I think it is very, very important that whatever arm does this 
investigation be a accountable to us, meaning the legislative branch, 
so that we can make whatever changes need to be made.
  There is no question that the Internal Revenue Service sees no need 
for this amendment. They are satisfied that the relationship that we 
currently have between these two branches of Government is working 
well.
  It is important to understand that this committee has historically 
saved the taxpayers of this country a great deal of money. In fact in 
1994, they saved in the neighborhood of $270 million. That is far in 
excess of the amount we are cutting from the legislative branch in this 
bill today.
  In 1 year, by simply doing a more accurate job of auditing the 
returns, mostly of corporate taxpayers, they have saved the taxpayers 
far more than we are saving them today in all of the legislative branch 
reductions that are included in this bill.
  In 9 percent of the cases the joint committee staff finds an error or 
an issue. These are the cases where filings are over $1 million.
  Let me break down for you how we got to that figure, the total 
savings that they made in 1994. In reviewing the various returns, they 
found savings of $16 million in reduced refunds, $64 million in reduced 
minimum tax operating loss carry-forwards, and $255 million in reduced 
minimum tax foreign tax credit carry-forwards.
  In the first 5 months of 1995, joint tax reviews have resulted in $5 
million in reduced tax refunds. The Joint Tax and CBO together estimate 
that eliminating this review of large tax refunds would reduce Federal 
budget receipts by at least $50 million over the 1996 to 2000 year 
period, in that 4-year period. So I think the argument that we need to 
be involved in this area is simply lacking. In my view we have a 
solution trying to find a problem.
  I do think that we should not in any way interfere with the 
relationship between the Congress and the executive, between Treasury 
and IRS, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the two tax writing 
committees in the Senate and the House. There is no evidence that 
anything is wrong. I think this serves as an important legislative 
check. It is the kind of oversight that we need to be doing.
  So, I am hopeful that my amendment will be adopted and that we create 
no confusion about what our intent is in this area. I think we should 
support the decision that has been made I believe by the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means and in effect take no action on any 
language that may have been made in order by the Committee on Rules 
that would affect the prerogatives of that committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to respond briefly to the comments of the gentleman 
from California, we simply do not eliminate the opportunity for the 
Joint Committee on Taxation to review the reports from the Internal 
Revenue Service on tax returns of those that are requesting a refund of 
$1 million or more.

                              {time}  1215

  We simply are saying, in bill language, none of these funds shall be 
used to determine specific refunds. That is the job of IRS.
  If IRS is not doing that job, then we need to have better oversight 
and work with them to accomplish that goal. It does not preclude the 
Joint Committee on Taxation to review these returns. They can continue 
to do that as they have done in the past.
  I thought the colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] made that very clear, and thus, in my judgment, it makes the 
amendment that the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is referring 
to unnecessary, because exactly what he is asking for is what we have 
agreed is the case in the colloquy but also in bill language.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I just wanted to read into the Record a 
brief paragraph that I received from Margaret Milner Richardson, who is 
the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. She says,

       I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that refund reviews 
     performed by the Joint Committee on Taxation serve a 
     legislative purpose and are not merely duplicative of 
     executive branch functions. These refund reviews are one form 
     of legislative oversight for the Internal Revenue Service but 
     are also an invaluable resource of information useful to a 
     better understanding of areas ripe for legislative change.

  I believe she's saying there seems to be no confusion about the two 
roles of the executive and the legislative branch and really believes 
there is no particular purpose for this language.
  Mr. PACKARD. Reclaiming my time, I can put my signature at the bottom 
of her letter because I agree, we do not infringe upon the ability of 
the Joint Committee on Taxation to continue to do refund reviews of 
those tax returns. We simply do not want the Joint Committee on 
Taxation to do the auditing, to determine the return that goes to the 
taxpayer. That is all we are doing.
  And so again I think we really are together on it, and maybe we are 
struggling over the language itself. But nevertheless I think our 
objective is simply to prevent the Joint Committee on Taxation from 
doing the returns. Let IRS do that. Let the review be done as they have 
been doing in the past by the committee.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. If the gentleman would yield further, is 
there a problem that the gentleman is going after? Is there some 
substance where the joint committee was alleged to have done the audit 
which technically could only be performed by IRS? I mean, I did not 
hear in the testimony in the subcommittee or have not been presented 
with any cause for us to take action. I have not been made aware there 
was a problem by either entity, either IRS or the Joint Committee. I 
wondered if the gentleman could cite for me what the reason is for 
offering the language.
  Mr. PACKARD. We did not wish to have anything in current law that 
would give the Joint Committee on Taxation the feeling that they had a 
prerogative to determine the tax return.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have gone back and looked at the votes 
that I have cast in previous years for the legislative appropriations 
bill. My votes have always been ``no.'' This is the first time, in 
fact, that I expect to vote ``yes.''
  The reason is this: In each of those years, spending under this 
subcommittee has gone up. This year it is different; spending goes 
down. In fact, spending goes down about 8 percent. I think that is a 
pretty good figure, particularly as we look at years and years ahead of 
us of multi-$100-billion deficits.
  In fact, if we had an 8-percent cut in each of the appropriation 
bills, we would save the taxpayers about $130 billion just in fiscal 
year 1996. That is not bad. In fact, that is exactly the direction that 
we need to be headed.
  Mr. Chairman, in this year of massive budget cuts, it is only fair 
that this subcommittee, the legislative branch, takes its fair share of 
cuts, and I applaud the committee for doing this.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1854.
  This bill's treatment of employees, the lowest paid employees, in the 
folding room, the recording studio, and the photographic studio, is an 
outrage. Just as this House's employees were to come under private 
sector laws, 270 of them will be let go in the most capricious way.
  For the rest of the country, we have a Job Training Partnership Act, 
JTPA, as it is known, and that law has a specific title, title III, for 
dislocated workers. This is a program that assists in communities, 
States and local governments, and private sector employees who lose 
their jobs. Many businesses have their own training and placement 
programs in addition to those run by the government, and in the case of 
some industries, such as aerospace, there are additional JTPA programs 
designed to meet the specific job training needs of the dislocated 
population.
  Yet this bill makes no serious attempt to assist our own employees 
who [[Page H 6177]] are slated for termination. Let me be clear about 
who we are talking about. Folding room employees, for example, are 
among the lowest paid workers in the House. Many of them have 15 and 20 
years of service. They have never been promoted to anything. After all 
of these years, many of them have never received a salary increase, 
maybe one salary increase, and this under both Republicans and 
Democrats.
  We are talking about people who have endured the most difficult 
working conditions of any House employees. If you have ever been down 
in the folding room, you know what I mean. I think it has been a health 
hazard. I think not only have they been working in unsafe conditions, I 
think there have been problems of discrimination, on and on and on, and 
I really think they should pursue a lawsuit.
  Let us defeat this bill and do it right. We need to do something 
about our employees.
  I was attempting to describe a situation that we should all be 
embarrassed about. We have low-entry-level employees working in these 
various places, and the folding room is a prime example of where they 
have been working for years, many of them 20-25 years, that have 
received no upper mobility opportunities, very little in pay increases, 
working in unsafe conditions, and we are literally kicking them out. 
And do not tell me that the measly amount of money that was put in in 
the Committee on Appropriations is designed to do anything real.
  These people need an opportunity to be retrained. They need job 
training. If we can do it for the private sector and others, if we have 
money in the Federal Government, why are we treating our own employees 
this way?
  I am sorry that I and others who care so much about this issue have 
not had an opportunity, because we do not serve on the Committee on 
Appropriations, but you are about to do the same thing, I understand, 
with our elevator operators and with others. They deserve better than 
the way that they are being treated.
  I believe that this business to rush to privatization, to give out 
contracts, I am told, that do not even go up to bid without making any 
requirements that these people be hired by the people that we are 
giving these contracts to is absolutely unconscionable.
  I would urge this body to show that it cares about the least of 
these, to show that we are not just concerned about ourselves and our 
generous salaries and our perks, whatever they may be, but that we care 
about little people.
  Do you know that many of these people may never work again? Many of 
them have little children. It is tough out there, with no job training. 
We can do better than this.
  Let us send this bill back. Let us do it right. This is enough for 
Democrats and Republicans alike to come together on. It is not too much 
to ask.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude the remarks on this side by 
saying, and I will try to be brief, I want to work with my chairman, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], in opposition to one 
amendment which was just mentioned by the gentlewoman from California. 
My understanding is that the CAO is looking at this question of the 
need for elevator operators.
  It is a longstanding amendment which we have seen on many occasions. 
I certainly hope the two of us can ask our colleagues together to 
withhold on support of the Christensen amendment, and I also want to go 
on record in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] which is flawed in its concept.
  In the days when we had Democratic Speakers, we used to hear about 
Speakers' slush funds. In fact, no such slush fund is available or 
could be drawn down upon. In fact, this bill for the first time, under 
the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will let 
each Member know just how much they have spent of what is authorized 
and available to them, so that Members can help gauge their spending 
and, therefore, leave money in the Treasury that otherwise might have 
been drawn down.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] 
is well-intentioned, but flawed in concept. I look forward to joining 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] in opposition to both of 
those amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that the Legislation 
Branch Subcommittee is not against the Federal Government. We honestly 
believe that Government has a very important function for the American 
people. We simply believe that the American people are not satisfied 
that Government is functioning in a most efficient and effective way.
  This bill, we think, goes a long ways toward fulfilling that desire 
in the American people. It does cut back on the legislative branch of 
Government. There is not question that it does, and it has not been an 
easy process of trying to determine where those cuts ought to be made, 
but we have tried to be sensitive to the employees of the Government. 
We have tried to be sensitive to the needs of the Members of Congress 
and their ability to communicate with their constituents.
  We think we have done a good job.
  The amendment process we will now enter into will help us refine that 
even further.
  I urge the Members of the House to vote for the legislative branch 
bill.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1854 is a historic 
achievement. For the first time, Members of Congress are finally 
putting their money where their mouths are.
  I'd like to commend Chairman Ron Packard for reporting out of his 
subcommittee a bill that is consistent with the reforms Members have 
promised their constituents they supported, but have never been willing 
to act upon. Year after year, we've heard Members tell their 
constituents that they agree this institution needs reform. Yet year 
after year, opportunities for reform have been wasted and we've seen no 
genuine effort to review legislative branch expenditures in terms of 
the best interests of the taxpayer. This Congress is different. This 
bill cuts funding by $155 million over the fiscal year 1995 level.
  As a member of House Oversight, the committee that authorizes 
programs funded through Mr. Packard's subcommittee, I am pleased to see 
the appropriation for the operation of the House of Representatives 
reflects the same intent of House Oversight, such that:
  Committee staff funding is cut by one-third.
  Many functions of the House provided more cheaply by the private 
sector will be privatized.
  Offices and functions not critical to the ability of Members to serve 
their constituents will be abolished.
  It's crystal clear that Republicans are running this show 
differently, and are willing to challenge the status quo if it means 
savings to the taxpayer and a more efficiently run Congress. The 
Republican-led Congress is not afraid to absorb cuts where we'll feel 
the cuts most--our own House, the House of Representatives.
  I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, because it says to the 
American people that while Congress is making the difficult policy 
decisions necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress is starting 
with itself. We are willing to reduce our budget and cut back on 
noncritical functions. Not only is it symbolically important that we be 
willing to set the example for fiscal conservatism in today's economic 
climate, it is further proof that we are keeping our promises to the 
American people.
  Thank you, and I yield back any time that remains.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 1854 
and is pleased that this measure includes a reduction of $56 million 
for the General Accounting Office [GAO] below the fiscal year 1995 
funding level.
  Mr. Chairman, during the first days of the 104th Congress, this 
Member wrote to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the 
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, as well as the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
to express this Member's strong support for reduced funding levels for 
GAO. This Member is pleased with the action taken in H.R. 1854 which 
confers with this Member's request for reducing funding for GAO.
  For some time, this Member supported a reduction in funding for GAO. 
In fact, during consideration of the fiscal year 1995 legislative 
branch appropriations bill, this Member offered an amendment to cut 
funding for GAO by 5 percent below the fiscal year 1994 level. 
Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a close vote.
  The $393 million fiscal year 1996 funding level for GAO included in 
H.R. 1854 represents a decrease of $56 million below the fiscal year 
1995 level. During last year's deliberation of the legislative branch 
appropriations [[Page H 6178]] bill, the House approved a funding level 
of $439.5 billion, an increase of $9.4 million. In addition, the 
conference report then included $449 million for GAO, $10 million more 
than the House bill. This Member commends his colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee for reversing this outrageous trend in funding 
for GAO.
  This Member strongly believes that GAO is an agency where growth has 
been out of control, and that it is an agency which has not been 
responsive to individual Members, especially to the requests of 
Republican Members during our long tenure in the minority. This Member 
also believes that the quality of work produced by the GAO is 
increasingly shoddy. While the quality of the work varies dramatically, 
all products are given the same kind of credibility simply because they 
are GAO products. The level of resources provided to produce these 
products has been excessive and has grown disproportionately when 
compared with other congressional support agencies. In addition, GAO 
resources have also used for consultants, training and other 
unnecessary expenses. Concern has also been expressed that GAO is more 
interested in getting headlines than in supporting the Congress with 
the required information. This Member has also been concerned by the 
funds that have been spent to lavishly renovate GAO's offices. This
 renovated space includes plush conference and meeting rooms which seem 
excessive for the scope of work performed at GAO. The leadership and 
staff of the GAO ought to visit the staff here on Capitol Hill to 
understand something about crowded staff office conditions and about 
the absence of required conference rooms for meetings with 
constituents.

  Now let's examine the GAO workload. From 1985 to 1993, GAO 
investigations doubled from 457 per year to 915. In addition, GAO's 
budget jumped from $46.9 million in 1965 to our current spending level 
of $449 million, a nearly 1,000 percent increase in unadjusted dollars.
  While the number of full-time equivalent positions at GAO has been 
reduced additional cuts are still needed to account for the past growth 
at this agency, which this Member will outline. In 1980, funding for 
GAO staff cost $204 million. By 1985 that had grown to $299 million. In 
1988 it was $330 million, and in 1989, $346 million. The average 
increase between 1980 and 1990 was 8 percent per year. Then, in 1991, 
GAO was increased by 14 percent, to a total of $409 million. In 1992, 
GAO received another 8 percent increase to $443 million.
  According to a Democratic Study Group [DSG] Special Report issued on 
May 24, 1994, January 1994 personnel totals for GAO were 4,597. This 
level was nearly as large as the staffing level of 4,617 for the entire 
Library of Congress--the largest library in the world--which also 
includes the staff of the Congressional Research Service.
  According to this same study, in 1994, GAO's staffing level was 
nearly 2\1/2\ times as large as the 1,849 House committee staff 
members, during the 103d Congress, and more than one-half as large as 
the 7,340 individuals employed by Members of the House. The DSG study 
also compared funding levels for the legislative branch from 1979 to 
1994, in inflation-adjusted dollars. According to the DSG, the General 
Accounting Office received one of the largest increases in funding for 
the entire legislative branch at an inflation-adjusted 13.5 percent 
during this time period.
  Funding for other areas of the legislative branch have actually 
declined since 1979, according to this study. For example, the Library 
of Congress received a 17.6-percent reduction, CBO was reduced by 3.8 
percent, and Members' staff was reduced by 6.4 percent in inflation-
adjusted dollars since 1979.
  Again, this Member would like to thank the Appropriations Committee 
for their good judgment in facing the long-term reality of GAO and 
reducing funding for that agency. This Member urges his colleagues to 
support this funding level included in H.R. 1854.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill 
before us, and I urge my colleagues to take a hard look at its 
contents, as well as its long-term effects, prior to voting.
  One of the primary reasons for my opposition is the heartless, and 
indeed cruel, manner in which this bill treats the current employees of 
the House folding room, the House printers, and the various other 
programs that are being privatized, downsized, and eliminated. This 
bill tells them that while we have used, and many of us have 
appreciated, their services since coming to Congress, we are now 
casting them off, with really very little concern for their futures or 
their families.
  While I can appreciate the move to save the taxpayers' money--and I 
agree, wholeheartedly, that we need to begin to reduce the deficit by 
reviewing spending on ourselves--I have concerns that this is a short-
term fix that in the long run may not produce any fiscal savings.
  As long as Members send out districtwide constituent communications, 
such as newsletters, we will need the services currently provided by 
the folding room. While I recognize that the House Oversight Committee 
has estimated that closing the folding room will save money, I am 
skeptical, to say the least, that the amount estimated will ever be 
realized. Representatives of Washington-area companies that provide 
mail processing services have said that they can ``* * * undercut the 
upper end of the estimate of the folding room costs.''
  Would it not make sense, then, to also look at how we can keep the 
folding room costs down to the lower end of the current estimates, and 
perhaps save the taxpayers money by keeping the job in-house? To my 
knowledge no such study, on how to improve the current operations, has 
been performed.
  Finally, I am also curious as to why we are rushing into this matter. 
As many of us know, the Congressional Accountability Act, which would 
provide the employees of the folding room with the rights which are 
afforded to people in the private sector who are facing layoffs, will 
not be in place until the end of this year. It is my understanding that 
many of the folding room employees will not even be able to apply for 
retraining under the JTPA for Dislocated Workers program. This is a 
shame.
  In short, I have concerns that this legislation is wreaking havoc 
with people's lives for the sake of a quick, and perhaps ultimately 
expensive, political hit. I hope that the Members will take the time to 
review their actions before voting. The actions of this House have 
already ruined the reputations of many fine people. Passage of this 
bill may, very well, ruin their lives.
  I urge my colleagues to review the costs of this bill in light of the 
questionable savings.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I particularly appreciate the 
opportunity to speak before the House today as this is a critical time 
for OTA. At a time when budget cuts are a priority, some have 
questioned whether Congress needs a support agency whose primary 
mission is to assess technology and its implications for society. I 
hope you will answer that question with an emphatic yes because I 
believe today we need OTA more than ever before.
  I have been involved with OTA from the very beginning and have 
watched its development from my vantage point on the OTA Board since 
1975. Congress established OTA because there was a great need to have 
our own independent and objective source of information on complicated 
scientific and technological issues.
  I am convinced that this need is stronger than ever because science 
and technology permeate so many of the issues that we consider, such as 
space, energy, environment, and health.
  When OTA was created, no one knew exactly how it was going to work. 
There were times during the early years when we were not quite sure it 
would work at all. I think few of us would have predicted what a vital 
role OTA would play in the legislative processes over the years, and 
how valuable its work would be to so many different committees and to 
Members from both sides of the aisle.
  I recall in particular that back in 1988, concerns about aviation 
safety led Representatives Tom Lewis, then ranking Republican member of 
the Transportation, Aviation and Materials Subcommittee of the House 
Science, Space and Technology Committee, to introduce legislation to 
strengthen FAA research efforts. OTA had prepared a report, ``Safe 
Skies for Tomorrow,'' that addressed many of the research issues in the 
legislation.
  The study found that the FAA was not adequately addressing human 
factors in its research program, even though these factors contributed 
to more than two-thirds of aviation accidents. OTA testified before and 
worked closely with the Science Committee. Important parts of the 
Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988 are based directly on OTA's work. 
In fact, Representatives Walker, Valentine, Lewis, and I noted in a 
letter requesting a subsequent OTA report that ``Safe Skies for 
Tomorrow [had] led to passage of Public Law 100-591.''
  In space technology, OTA has a history of studies extending over a 
decade. Some of these are extensive landmark studies of a broad sweep 
that produced several reports. The space transportation study of 1988-
1990 and the recently completed study of earth observation produced six 
studies each. These studies helped shape the debate on major elements 
of the U.S. space program, and also provided focused insights into 
specific program elements. Smaller space studies with a specific focus 
were also very useful in our deliberations.
  I could give you many more examples, but the point I want to make is 
that OTA contributed to legislation on science and technology issues 
for many years, and that it continues to do so here and now.
  Consider one of OTA's recent studies which reviews the Department of 
Energy's Fusion [[Page H 6179]] Energy Program and was released at a 
hearing of the House Science Committee earlier this month. That study 
highlighted critical strategic and budgetary shortcomings of the fusion 
programs that have gone largely unacknowledged despite hundreds of 
millions of dollars in annual spending. I fully expect that OTA's work 
will help lead to more rational fusion program decisions.
  In coming months, Congress will try to delineate the appropriate role 
of government and industry in science and technology. OTA can help us 
sort through the claims of parties interested in particular programs so 
that we can focus on the matters that are more important to the entire 
Nation.
  Also in the coming months, large science projects will come under 
scrutiny and have to face the realities of fiscal restraints. Many 
believe that international cooperation may provide a way to share the 
costs of such projects.
  OTA is now looking at the opportunities and challenges of such 
cooperation and will be able to help us understand what arrangements 
may or may not work in the future. As Congress and the administration 
move to revise national R&D strategies and reduce some R&D funding, OTA 
can give us realistic appraisals of options being considered.
  OTA can help us understand how to utilize research more cost 
effectively. In response to a bipartisan request from the Science 
Committee for example, OTA has been examining a problem that has been 
much in the news since the tragic Kobe earthquake: how to mitigate 
damages from such natural disasters. OTA's study will help us 
understand how we can use research and innovate technologies most 
effectively to reduce earthquake damage.
  I strongly believe OTA's work is going to be increasingly valuable in 
the months and years to come. OTA can continue to serve the needs of 
Congress in technology areas where the committees do not have in-depth 
expertise and do not wish to rely solely on the information provided to 
us by interested parties.
  OTA gets advice from outside the beltway. Their studies draw on a 
network of nearly 5,000 experts each year from industry, academia, and 
other institutions. These advisors ensure that OTA has access to the 
best technical advice available from all areas of enterprise. Their 
knowledge and expertise, in conjunction with the quality and experience 
of the OTA staff, create a model organization ideally suited to conduct 
the necessary analyses designed for the specific needs of Congress.
  OTA has perfected a process that brings in and distills all relevant 
points of view through panels, workshops, and broad review. Moreover, 
the OTA Board ensures that the studies are relevant to the priority 
needs of both parties, and that they are objective and well founded.
  It would take many years to recreate this unique institution. I urge 
you not to deprive Congress of this valuable resource at a time when we 
need it most.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous 
consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, the Government Printing Office--the GPO--is the Federal 
agency responsible for fulfilling the printing needs of the Federal 
Government and providing the American people with copies of Government 
documents. It is through legislative branch appropriations that the GPO 
receives its funding.
  I rise in support of both the funding allocation provided by the 
subcommittee to GPO and the allocation not provided to the Joint 
Committee on Printing, which has oversight over the agency.
  The provisions in this bill are consistent with comprehensive 
legislation I sponsored to reform title 44, the portion of the United 
States Code that governs Government printing.
  Both Mr. Packard and I are attempting to force agencies to budget for 
their printing needs the same way they budget for other activities. 
Both Mr. Packard and I are attempting to cut back on the amount of 
unnecessary and duplicative printing for Congress, while protecting the 
public's access to Government documents through the Depository Library 
Program. It is critically important that we maintain the historical 
record of the activities of our Government--a vital function of GPO's 
Superintendent of Documents. Without a complete and accurate record, we 
do a disservice to the generations of Americans who will come after 
us--all of whom have a right to Government information, documents, 
reports, and statistics. When agencies bypass the Superintendent of 
Documents, we very well may lose a piece of American history. This is 
what is referred to by depository librarians as the fugitive document 
problem.
  By creating incentives for Federal agencies to use the GPO for their 
printing, not only do we help eliminate the fugitive document problem, 
but we keep costs to the taxpayer to an absolute minimum since GPO's 
competitive procurement system can generally secure work for about half 
of what it costs agencies to print in-house. The bill before us today 
also asks the agencies, rather than the institution of Congress, to 
reimburse the cost of printing and distributing documents to the public 
through the Depository Library Program. Congress will still pay for the 
printing and distribution of its own documents, but for the first time, 
the costs of printing will be where they belong: In the budgets of the 
individual agencies.
  The bill has not provided funding for the Joint Committee on 
Printing, except to the extent that the JCP will exist through the rest 
of the fiscal year. This is among the first crucial steps toward 
reforming the way our Government purchases printing. It sends a message 
to our more reluctant colleagues that change is, indeed on the way.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend Chairman Packard for his 
leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill and 
would like to thank Chairman Packard and the members of his committee 
for the effort they put forth in order to bring this bill to the floor 
and for allowing me to speak on its behalf.
  I am, however, disappointed that the Rules Committee did not choose 
to make my own amendment in order.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would have stopped the automatic pay 
raises for Members of Congress until the Federal Government is once 
again running under a balanced budget. While passage of this bill will 
demonstrate to the American people that we are willing to reform our 
own house, until we make the necessary step to change the law regarding 
our own salaries, the people we represent will continue to see a 
Congress that cuts funding for the programs they care about while it 
continues to raise its own pay.
  We must return, Mr. Chairman, to the ideals set forth in the 27th 
amendment to our own Constitution which prohibits pay raises from going 
into effect until an election has passed. The American people recognize 
that if your salary went up, you got a raise. They also know that by 
trying to avoid direct votes on these raises, some Members are trying 
to hide them and to avoid the spirit of the 27th amendment if not the 
letter of the law. While we currently vote on our salaries, we have to 
vote not to raise them in a special bill. With my amendment we would no 
longer need to take special action to stop raises from going into 
effect. If the budget was not balanced, Members would get no such 
raise.
  We can still take the necessary step. Join me in supporting H.R. 1133 
which I have sponsored and which will put this freeze in place. Help us 
to restore the bonds of trust between our constituents and their 
reacted representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of Chairman Solomon and the Rules 
Committee as well as the work of Chairman Packard and the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and compliment them on their fine 
work. And I understand that congressional salaries are not a line item 
in this bill and that my amendment was therefore difficult to include. 
Yet without my amendment, it will prove difficult to restore the faith 
of the American people in their elected officials.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and 
hope that it will take us a step closer to reforming this great 
institution in which it has been my honor to serve.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of today's bill, H.R. 1854. As a member of the Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee, we have worked long and hard to bring real cuts to the 
legislative branch appropriations. Three years ago, as a new member of 
the subcommittee in a much different Congress, I proposed a plan which 
would have achieved a 25-percent cut in the money Congress spends on 
itself.
  Today's bill, with almost 10 percent is a significant move toward 
that goal. We eliminate the Office of Technology Assessment, we cut the 
General Accounting Office by 15 percent this year and 10 percent next 
year, and we have reduced committee staff by some 800 positions, and 
the entire legislative branch by some 2,400 positions. Imagine, this 
bill actually spends less money on fewer people than did last year's--
$154,000,000--a feat impossible before the 104th Congress.
  My proposal for a real and achievable 25-percent cut in the 
legislative branch budget can result in a total savings of over $2 
billion of taxpayers' money over the next 4 years.
  Major American corporations--from IBM to General Motors to Sears & 
Roebuck--have responded to changes in the marketplace by cutting 
expenses and becoming more efficient. So must the Federal Government, 
especially the Congress.
  Until this bill, Congress has acted as though the solution to any 
management difficulty is to merely increase taxes or spending. I 
advocate we make the same kind of tough decisions that private sector 
companies must make when they cannot increase revenue--to cut their 
spending. Under my plan and this bill, we begin that process in 
earnest.
  Because each individual Member can best determine for himself how to 
spend their office [[Page H 6180]] funds, we combined all three office 
accounts into a single, unified account; making the Member responsible 
for how he or she spends the taxpayer's money in representing those 
same taxpayers.
  My plan of 3 years ago proposed that we consolidate the activities of 
the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 
Joint Economic Committee, and House and Senate Budget Committee with a 
shared staff. Today's bill cuts the Joint Economic Committee by a third 
and makes it clear the joint committee will be zeroed out next year. 
And, we will make further progress in moving toward a consolidated 
staff structure.
  We still have a long way to go in the consolidation of Congress' 
legal staff. Congress and its support agencies currently employ 
literally hundreds of highly paid lawyers, many with duties and 
functions that are either duplicative or which are unrelated to the 
legislative duties of the Congress.
  We have, to name just a few, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Office 
of General Counsel, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, the Office 
of Legislative Counsel, the Library of Congress' American Law Division, 
and the hundreds of lawyers employed by dozens of congressional 
committees and subcommittees.
  To eliminate the waste and duplication of effort and staff caused by 
these offices, I propose consolidating all of these offices into one 
legal pool. We could get a lot of high-paid lawyers off the public 
payroll and save the taxpayers millions of dollars. At least $5 million 
would be saved from the legislative counsels, most of the $11 million 
cut in the Congressional Research Service could be achieved from this 
consolidation, and millions more would be saved from within the 
committee and subcommittee budgets.
  In addition to these consolidations, my plan eliminates a number of 
activities that we simply can no longer afford in this era of $300 
billion budget deficits. Under my plan, we would eliminate:
  All expenses related to former speakers--$201,000 in official 
expenses and $410,000 in salaries for a total 1-year savings and 
$611,000 and a savings of $2,444,000 over 4 years.
  The compilation of precedents of the House, saving $587,000.
  The office and research assistant provided to the former Librarian of 
Congress.
  I would also make the Office of the Attending Physician operate on a 
self-sustaining basis, based on the contributions of Members, for a 1-
year savings of $1,305,000 and $5.2 million over 4 years.
  Unbelievably, congressional travel is included in the legislative 
branch budget. I support developing a procedure to reduce foreign 
travel, and make this bill reflect the actual costs of congressional 
travel instead of hiding it elsewhere in the Federal budget.
  Today's bill is a very good start indeed at reforming this 
institution and gaining creditability with the American people. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Packard and the other members of the 
subcommittee to move further next year into the next phase of our 
streamlining of the legislative branch.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastert). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 1854 is as follows:
                               H.R. 1854

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for 
     other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
     $671,561,000,  as follows:

                        house leadership offices

       For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 
     $11,271,000, including: Office of the Speaker, $1,478,000, 
     including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker; 
     Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $1,470,000, including 
     $10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office 
     of the Minority Floor Leader, $1,480,000, including $10,000 
     for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the 
     Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, 
     $928,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the 
     Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the 
     Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $918,000, including $5,000 for 
     official expenses of the Minority Whip; Speaker's Office for 
     Legislative Floor Activities, $376,000; Republican Steering 
     Committee, $664,000; Republican Conference, $1,083,000; 
     Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, $1,181,000; 
     Democratic Caucus, $566,000; and nine minority employees, 
     $1,127,000.


                  MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES

   Including Members' Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and 
                             Official Mail

       For Members' representational allowances, including 
     Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, 
     $360,503,000.


                          committee employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special 
     and select, authorized by House resolutions, $78,629,000.

                      Committee on Appropriations

       For salaries and expenses of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, $16,945,000, including studies and 
     examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal 
     services for such committee, to be expended in accordance 
     with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for 
     services performed.

                    salaries, officers and employees

       For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as 
     authorized by law, $83,733,000, including: for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not to exceed 
     $1,000 for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $13,807,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of 
     Garages, and including not to exceed $750 for official 
     representation and reception expenses, $3,410,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Administrative Officer, $53,556,000, including salaries, 
     expenses and temporary personal services of House Information 
     Systems, $27,500,000, of which $16,000,000 is provided 
     herein: Provided, That House Information Systems is 
     authorized to receive reimbursement from Members of the House 
     of Representatives and other governmental entities for 
     services provided and such reimbursement shall be deposited 
     in the Treasury for credit to this account; for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Inspector General, $3,954,000; 
     for salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, 
     $858,000; Office of the Chaplain, $126,000; for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Parliamentarian, including the 
     Parliamentarian and $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, 
     $1,180,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Law Revision Counsel of the House, $1,700,000; for salaries 
     and expenses of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the 
     House, $4,524,000; and other authorized employees, $618,000.

                        allowances and expenses

       For allowances and expenses as authorized by House 
     resolution or law, $120,480,000, including: supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, 
     $1,213,000; official mail for committees, leadership offices, 
     and administrative offices of the House, $1,000,000; 
     reemployed annuitants reimbursements, $68,000; Government 
     contributions to employees' life insurance fund, retirement 
     funds, Social Security fund, Medicare fund, health benefits 
     fund, and worker's and unemployment compensation, 
     $117,541,000; and miscellaneous items including purchase, 
     exchange, maintenance, repair and operation of House motor 
     vehicles, interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to 
     heirs of deceased employees of the House, $658,000.

                           child care center

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives 
     Child Care Center, such amounts as are deposited in the 
     account established by section 312(d)(1) of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1992 (40 U.S.C. 184g(d)(1)), 
     subject to the level specified in the budget of the Center, 
     as submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives.


                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. Effective with respect to fiscal years beginning 
     with fiscal year 1995, in the case of mail from outside 
     sources presented to the Chief Administrative Officer of the 
     House of Representatives (other than mail through the Postal 
     Service and mail with postage otherwise paid) for internal 
     delivery 
     [[Page H 6181]] in the House of Representatives, the Chief 
     Administrative Officer is authorized to collect fees equal to 
     the applicable postage. Amounts received by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer as fees under the preceding sentence 
     shall be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       Sec. 102. Effective with respect to fiscal years beginning 
     with fiscal year 1995, amounts received by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives from 
     the Administrator of General Services for rebates under the 
     Government Travel Charge Card Program shall be deposited in 
     the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       Sec. 103. The provisions of section 223(b) of House 
     Resolution 6, One Hundred Fourth Congress, agreed to January 
     5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995, establishing the 
     Speaker's Office for Legislative Floor Activities; House 
     Resolution 7, One Hundred Fourth Congress, agreed to January 
     5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995, providing for the 
     designation of certain minority employees; House Resolution 
     9, One Hundred Fourth Congress, agreed to January 5 
     (legislative day, January 4), 1995, providing amounts for the 
     Republican Steering Committee and the Democratic Policy 
     Committee; House Resolution 10, One Hundred Fourth Congress, 
     agreed to January 5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995, 
     providing for the transfer of two employee positions; and 
     House Resolution 113, One Hundred Fourth Congress, agreed to 
     March 10, 1995, providing for the transfer of certain 
     employee positions shall each be the permanent law with 
     respect thereto.
       Sec. 104. (a) The five statutory positions specified in 
     subsection (b), subsection (c), and subsection (d) are 
     transferred from the House Republican Conference to the 
     Republican Steering Committee.
       (b) The first two of the five positions referred to in 
     subsection (a) are--
       (1) the position established for the chief deputy majority 
     whip by subsection (a) of the first section of House 
     Resolution 393, Ninety-fifth Congress, agreed to March 31, 
     1977, as enacted into permanent law by section 115 of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1978 (2 U.S.C. 74a-3); 
     and
       (2) the position established for the chief deputy majority 
     whip by section 102(a)(4) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1990;

     both of which positions were transferred to the majority 
     leader by House Resolution 10, One Hundred Fourth Congress, 
     agreed to January 5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995, as 
     enacted into permanent law by section 103 of this Act, and 
     both of which positions were further transferred to the House 
     Republican Conference by House Resolution 113, One Hundred 
     Fourth Congress, agreed to March 10, 1995, as enacted into 
     permanent law by section 103 of this Act.
       (c) The second two of the five positions referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the two positions established by section 
     103(a)(2) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1986.
       (d) The fifth of the five positions referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the position for the House Republican 
     Conference established by House Resolution 625, Eighty-ninth 
     Congress, agreed to October 22, 1965, as enacted into 
     permanent law by section 103 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriation Act, 1967.
       (e) The transfers under this section shall take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 105. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     or any rule, regulation, or other authority, travel for 
     studies and examinations under section 202(b) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 72a(b)) 
     shall be governed by applicable laws or regulations of the 
     House of Representatives or as promulgated from time to time 
     by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply to travel performed on 
     or after that date.
       Sec. 106. (a) Notwithstanding the paragraph under the 
     heading ``general provision'' in chapter XI of the Third 
     Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 102a) or any 
     other provision of law, effective on the date of the 
     enactment of this section, unexpended balances in accounts 
     described in subsection (b) are withdrawn, with unpaid 
     obligations to be liquidated in the manner provided in the 
     second sentence of that paragraph.
       (b) The accounts referred to in subsection (a) are the 
     House of Representatives legislative service organization 
     revolving accounts under section 311 of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 (2 U.S.C. 96a).
       Sec. 107. (a) Each fund and account specified in subsection 
     (b) shall be available only to the extent provided in 
     appropriation Acts.
       (b) The funds and accounts referred to in subsection (a) 
     are--
       (1) the revolving fund for the House Barber Shops, 
     established by the paragraph under the heading ``House Barber 
     Shops Revolving Fund'' in the matter relating to the House of 
     Representatives in chapter III of title I of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1975 (Public Law 93-554; 88 Stat. 1776);
       (2) the revolving fund for the House Beauty Shop, 
     established by the matter under the heading ``house beauty 
     shop'' in the matter relating to administrative provisions 
     for the House of Representatives in the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriation Act, 1970 (Public Law 91-145; 83 Stat. 347);
       (3) the special deposit account established for the House 
     of Representatives Restaurant by section 208 of the First 
     Supplemental Civil Functions Appropriation Act, 1941 (40 
     U.S.C. 174k note); and
       (4) the revolving fund established for the House Recording 
     Studio by section 105(g) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 123b(g)).
       (c) This section shall take effect on October 1, 1995, and 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal years beginning on or 
     after that date.
       Sec. 107A. For fiscal year 1996, subject to the direction 
     of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives, of the total amount deposited in the account 
     referred to in section 107(b)(3) of this Act from vending 
     operations of the House of Representatives Restaurant System, 
     the cost of goods sold shall be available to pay the cost of 
     inventory for such operations.
       Sec. 108. The House Employees Position Classification Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 291, et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 3(1), by striking out ``Doorkeeper, and the 
     Postmaster,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Chief 
     Administrative Officer, and the Inspector General'';
       (2) in the first sentence of section 4(b), by striking out 
     ``Doorkeeper, and the Postmaster,'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Chief Administrative Officer, and the Inspector 
     General'';
       (3) in section 5(b)(1), by striking out ``Doorkeeper, and 
     the Postmaster'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Chief 
     Administrative Officer, and the Inspector General''; and
       (4) in the first sentence of section 5(c), by striking out 
     ``Doorkeeper, and the Postmaster,'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Chief Administrative Officer, and the Inspector 
     General''.
       Sec. 109. (a) Upon the approval of the appropriate 
     employing authority, an employee of the House of 
     Representatives who is separated from employment, may be paid 
     a lump sum for the accrued annual leave of the employee. The 
     lump sum--
       (1) shall be paid in an amount not more than the lesser 
     of--
       (A) the amount of the monthly pay of the employee, as 
     determined by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House 
     of Representatives; or
       (B) the amount equal to the monthly pay of the employee, as 
     determined by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House 
     of Representatives, divided by 30, and multiplied by the 
     number of days of the accrued annual leave of the employee;
       (2) shall be paid--
       (A) for clerk hire employees, from the clerk hire allowance 
     of the Member;
       (B) for committee employees, from amounts appropriated for 
     committees; and
       (C) for other employees, from amounts appropriated to the 
     employing authority; and
       (3) shall be based on the rate of pay in effect with 
     respect to the employee on the last day of employment of the 
     employee.
       (b) The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority 
     to prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (c) As used in this section, the term ``employee of the 
     House of Representatives'' means an employee whose pay is 
     disbursed by the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the 
     Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, 
     as applicable, except that such term does not include a 
     uniformed or civilian support employee under the Capitol 
     Police Board.
       (d) Payments under this section may be made with respect to 
     separations from employment taking place after June 30, 1995.
       Sec. 110. (a)(1) Effective on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the allowances for office personnel and equipment 
     for certain Members of the House of Representatives, as 
     adjusted through the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, are further adjusted as specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) The further adjustments referred to in paragraph (1) 
     are as follows:
       (A) The allowance for the majority leader is increased by 
     $167,532.
       (B) The allowance for the majority whip is decreased by 
     $167,532.
       (b)(1) Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the House of Representatives allowances referred to in 
     paragraph (2), as adjusted through the day before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, are further adjusted, or are 
     established, as the case may be, as specified in paragraph 
     (2).
     [[Page H 6182]]   (2) The further adjustments and the 
     establishment referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
       (A) The allowance for the Republican Conference is 
     increased by $134,491.
       (B) The allowance for the Republican Steering Committee is 
     established at $66,995.
       (C) The allowance for the Democratic Steering and Policy 
     Committee is increased by $201,430.
       (D) The allowance for the Democratic Caucus is increased by 
     $56.

                              JOINT ITEMS

       For Joint Committees, as follows:


                        joint economic committee

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee, 
     $3,000,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

                      joint committee on printing


                          (transfer of funds)

       For duties formerly carried out by the Joint Committee on 
     Printing, $750,000, to be divided into equal amounts and 
     transferred to the Committee on House Oversight of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate. For the purpose of carrying out 
     the functions of the Joint Committee on Printing for the 
     remainder of the One Hundred Fourth Congress only, the rules 
     and structure of the committee will apply.

                      joint committee on taxation

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation, $6,019,000, to be disbursed by the Clerk of the 
     House: Provided, That none of these funds shall be used to 
     determine specific refunds or credits under section 6405 and 
     section 8023 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       For other joint items, as follows:

                   Office of the Attending Physician

       For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of 
     the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his 
     assistants, including (1) an allowance of $1,500 per month to 
     the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $500 per month 
     each to two medical officers while on duty in the Attending 
     Physician's office; (3) an allowance of $500 per month to one 
     assistant and $400 per month each to not to exceed nine 
     assistants on the basis heretofore provided for such 
     assistance; and (4) $852,000 for reimbursement to the 
     Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and 
     equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician, 
     which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable 
     appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries, 
     allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be 
     available for all the purposes thereof, $1,260,000, to be 
     disbursed by the Clerk of the House.

                          Capitol Police Board

                             Capitol Police

                                salaries

       For the Capitol Police Board for salaries, including 
     overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, clothing allowance 
     of not more than $600 each for members required to wear 
     civilian attire, and Government contributions to employees' 
     benefits funds, as authorized by law, of officers, members, 
     and employees of the Capitol Police, $70,132,000, of which 
     $34,213,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms of the House 
     of Representatives, to be disbursed by the Clerk of the 
     House, and $35,919,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms 
     and Doorkeeper of the Senate, to be disbursed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That, of the amounts 
     appropriated under this heading, such amounts as may be 
     necessary may be transferred between the Sergeant at Arms of 
     the House of Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and 
     Doorkeeper of the Senate, upon approval of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

                            general expenses

       For the Capitol Police Board for necessary expenses of the 
     Capitol Police, including motor vehicles, communications and 
     other equipment, uniforms, weapons, supplies, materials, 
     training, medical services, forensic services, stenographic 
     services, the employee assistance program, not more than 
     $2,000 for the awards program, postage, telephone service, 
     travel advances, relocation of instructor and liaison 
     personnel for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 
     and $85 per month for extra services performed for the 
     Capitol Police Board by an employee of the Sergeant at Arms 
     of the Senate or the House of Representatives designated by 
     the Chairman of the Board, $2,560,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the cost of basic 
     training for the Capitol Police at the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center for fiscal year 1996 shall be 
     paid by the Secretary of the Treasury from funds available to 
     the Department of the Treasury.


                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 111. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the 
     Capitol Police Board under the heading ``Capitol Police'' may 
     be transferred between the headings ``salaries'' and 
     ``general expenses'', upon approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.

           Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office

       For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service and 
     Special Services Office, $1,991,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That none of these funds 
     shall be used to employ more than forty individuals: Provided 
     further, That the Capitol Guide Board is authorized, during 
     emergencies, to employ not more than two additional 
     individuals for not more than one hundred twenty days each, 
     and not more than ten additional individuals for not more 
     than six months each, for the Capitol Guide Service.

                      Statements of Appropriations

       For the preparation, under the direction of the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, of the statements for the first session of 
     the One Hundred Fourth Congress, showing appropriations made, 
     indefinite appropriations, and contracts authorized, together 
     with a chronological history of the regular appropriations 
     bills as required by law, $30,000, to be paid to the persons 
     designated by the chairmen of such committees to supervise 
     the work.

                        Administrative Provision

        Sec. 112. (a) Section 441 of the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1970 (40 U.S.C. 851) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) In addition to any other function under this section, 
     the Capitol Guide Service shall provide special services to 
     Members of Congress, and to officers, employees, and guests 
     of Congress.''.
       (b) Section 310 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
     Act, 1990 (2 U.S.C. 130e) is repealed.
       (c) The amendment made by subsection (a) and the repeal 
     made by subsection (b) shall take effect on October 1, 1995.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public 
     Law 93-344), including not to exceed $2,500 to be expended on 
     the certification of the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses, $23,188,000: Provided, That none of these 
     funds shall be available for the purchase or hire of a 
     passenger motor vehicle: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for salaries or expenses 
     of any employee of the Congressional Budget Office in excess 
     of 219 fulltime equivalent positions: Provided further, That 
     any sale or lease of property, supplies, or services to the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall be deemed to be a sale or 
     lease of such property, supplies, or services to the Congress 
     subject to section 903 of Public Law 98-63: Provided further, 
     That the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     have the authority, within the limits of available 
     appropriations, to dispose of surplus or obsolete personal 
     property by inter-agency transfer, donation, or discarding.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 113. Section 8402(c) of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office may 
     exclude from the operation of this chapter an employee under 
     the Congressional Budget Office whose employment is temporary 
     or intermittent.''.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                 Office of the Architect of the Capitol

                                salaries

       For the Architect of the Capitol, the Assistant Architect 
     of the Capitol, and other personal services, at rates of pay 
     provided by law, $8,569,000.

                                 travel

       Appropriations under the control of the Architect of the 
     Capitol shall be available for expenses of travel on official 
     business not to exceed in the aggregate under all funds the 
     sum of $20,000.

                          Contingent Expenses

       To enable the Architect of the Capitol to make surveys and 
     studies, and to meet unforeseen expenses in connection with 
     activities under his care, $100,000.

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds

                           capitol buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol and electrical substations of the 
     Senate and House office buildings, under the jurisdiction of 
     the Architect of the Capitol, including furnishings and 
     office equipment; including not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, to be expended as the 
     Architect of the Capitol may approve; purchase or exchange, 
     maintenance and operation of a passenger motor vehicle; and 
     attendance, when specifically authorized by the Architect of 
     the Capitol, at meetings or conventions in connection with 
     subjects related to work under the Architect of the Capitol, 
     $22,832,000, of which $3,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

                            capitol grounds

       For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of 
     grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office 
     buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $5,143,000, of which 
     $25,000 shall remain available until expended.

                         house office buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the House office [[Page H 6183]] buildings, 
     $33,001,000, of which $5,261,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

                          capitol power plant

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, 
     power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water 
     and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds 
     about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air 
     conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of 
     such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and 
     Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water 
     for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, Union 
     Station complex, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building 
     and the Folger Shakespeare Library, expenses for which shall 
     be advanced or reimbursed upon request of the Architect of 
     the Capitol and amounts so received shall be deposited into 
     the Treasury to the credit of this appropriation, 
     $32,578,000: Provided, That not to exceed $4,000,000 of the 
     funds credited or to be reimbursed to this appropriation as 
     herein provided shall be available for obligation during 
     fiscal year 1996.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                     Congressional Research Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated 
     Constitution of the United States of America, $60,083,000: 
     Provided, That no part of this appropriation may be used to 
     pay any salary or expense in connection with any publication, 
     or preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of 
     Public General Bills), to be issued by the Library of 
     Congress unless such publication has obtained prior approval 
     of either the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the compensation of the Director of 
     the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 
     shall be at an annual rate which is equal to the annual rate 
     of basic pay for positions at level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding

       For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of Congressional information in any format; 
     printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol; 
     expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthly and session 
     index to the Congressional Record, as authorized by law (44 
     U.S.C. 902); printing and binding of Government publications 
     authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress; 
     and printing, binding, and distribution of Government 
     publications authorized by law to be distributed without 
     charge to the recipient, $88,281,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall not be available for paper copies of the 
     permanent edition of the Congressional Record for individual 
     Senators, Representatives, Resident Commissioners or 
     Delegates authorized under 44 U.S.C. 906: Provided further, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for the payment of 
     obligations incurred under the appropriations for similar 
     purposes for preceding fiscal years.
       This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Operations 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.

                        TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES

                             BOTANIC GARDEN

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings, 
     grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange, 
     maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
     the Library, $3,053,000.

                        Conservatory Renovation

       For renovation of the Conservatory of the Botanic Garden, 
     $7,000,000, to be available to the Architect of the Capitol 
     without fiscal year limitation: Provided, That the total 
     amount appropriated for such renovation for this fiscal year 
     and later fiscal years may not exceed $21,000,000.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 201. (a) Section 201 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (40 U.S.C. 216c note) is amended by 
     striking out ``$6,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$10,000,000''.
       (b) Section 307E(a)(1) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1989 (40 U.S.C. 216c(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking out ``plans'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``plants''.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress, not 
     otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance 
     of the Union Catalogs; custody and custodial care of the 
     Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and 
     repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the 
     custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the 
     American Folklife Center in the Library; preparation and 
     distribution of catalog cards and other publications of the 
     Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and 
     expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not 
     properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by 
     the Board, $211,664,000, of which not more than $7,869,000 
     shall be derived from collections credited to this 
     appropriation during fiscal year 1996 under the Act of June 
     28, 1902 (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150): 
     Provided, That the total amount available for obligation 
     shall be reduced by the amount by which collections are less 
     than the $7,869,000: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, $8,458,000 is to remain available until 
     expended for acquisition of books, periodicals, and 
     newspapers, and all other materials including subscriptions 
     for bibliographic services for the Library, including $40,000 
     to be available solely for the purchase, when specifically 
     approved by the Librarian, of special and unique materials 
     for additions to the collections.

                            Copyright Office

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, including 
     publication of the decisions of the United States courts 
     involving copyrights, $30,818,000, of which not more than 
     $16,840,000 shall be derived from collections credited to 
     this appropriation during fiscal year 1996 under 17 U.S.C. 
     708(c), and not more than $2,990,000 shall be derived from 
     collections during fiscal year 1996 under 17 U.S.C. 
     111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), and 1005: Provided, That the 
     total amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the 
     amount by which collections are less than $19,830,000: 
     Provided further, That up to $100,000 of the amount 
     appropriated is available for the maintenance of an 
     ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright Office 
     of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training 
     nationals of developing countries in intellectual property 
     laws and policies: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,250 may be expended on the certification of the Librarian 
     of Congress or his designee, in connection with official 
     representation and reception expenses for activities of the 
     International Copyright Institute.

             Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Act of March 3, 1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 
     U.S.C. 135a), $44,951,000, of which $11,694,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.

                       Furniture and Furnishings

       For necessary expenses for the purchase and repair of 
     furniture, furnishings, office and library equipment, 
     $4,882,000, of which $943,000 shall be available until 
     expended only for the purchase and supply of furniture, 
     shelving, furnishings, and related costs necessary for the 
     renovation and restoration of the Thomas Jefferson and John 
     Adams Library buildings.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 202. Appropriations in this Act available to the 
     Library of Congress shall be available, in an amount not to 
     exceed $194,290, of which $58,100 is for the Congressional 
     Research Service, when specifically authorized by the 
     Librarian, for attendance at meetings concerned with the 
     function or activity for which the appropriation is made.
       Sec. 203. (a) No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by the Library of Congress to administer any 
     flexible or compressed work schedule which--
       (1) applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the 
     grade or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15; and
       (2) grants such manager or supervisor the right to not be 
     at work for all or a portion of a workday because of time 
     worked by the manager or supervisor on another workday.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``manager or 
     supervisor'' means any management official or supervisor, as 
     such terms are defined in section 7103(a) (10) and (11) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 204. Appropriated funds received by the Library of 
     Congress from other Federal agencies to cover general and 
     administrative overhead costs generated by performing 
     reimbursable work for other agencies under the authority of 
     31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536 shall not be used to employ more than 
     65 employees and may be expended or obligated--
       (1) in the case of a reimbursement, only to such extent or 
     in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; or
       (2) in the case of an advance payment, only--
       (A) to pay for such general or administrative overhead 
     costs as are attributable to the work performed for such 
     agency; or
       (B) to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in 
     appropriations Acts, with respect to any purpose not 
     allowable under subparagraph (A).
       Sec. 205. Not to exceed $5,000 of any funds appropriated to 
     the Library of Congress may be expended, on the certification 
     of the Librarian of Congress, in connection with official 
     representation and reception expenses for the Library of 
     Congress incentive awards program.
       Sec. 206. Not to exceed $12,000 of funds appropriated to 
     the Library of Congress may be expended, on the certification 
     of the Librarian of Congress or his designee, in connection 
     with official representation and reception expenses for the 
     Overseas Field Offices.
       Sec. 207. Under the heading ``Library of Congress'' 
     obligational authority shall be available, in an amount not 
     to exceed $86,912,000 for reimbursable and revolving fund 
     activities, and $5,667,000 for non-expenditure transfer 
     activities in support of parliamentary development during the 
     current fiscal year. [[Page H 6184]] 
       Sec. 208. Notwithstanding this or any other Act, 
     obligational authority under the heading ``Library of 
     Congress'' for activities in support of parliamentary 
     development is prohibited, except for Russia, Ukraine, 
     Albania, Slovakia, and Romania, for other than incidental 
     purposes.
       Sec. 209. (a) Section 206 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (2 U.S.C. 132a-1) is amended by 
     striking out ``Effective'' and all that follows through 
     ``provided'', and inserting in lieu thereof ``Obligations for 
     reimbursable activities and revolving fund activities 
     performed by the Library of Congress and obligations 
     exceeding $100,000 for a fiscal year for any single gift fund 
     activity or trust fund activity performed by the Library of 
     Congress are limited to the amounts provided for such 
     purposes''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     on October 1, 1996, and shall apply with respect to fiscal 
     years beginning on or after that date.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Library Buildings and Grounds

                     structural and mechanical care

       For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and 
     structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library 
     buildings and grounds, $12,428,000, of which $3,710,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                 Office of Superintendent of Documents

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents 
     necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of 
     Government publications and their distribution to the public, 
     Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and 
     designated depository and international exchange libraries as 
     authorized by law, $16,312,000: Provided, That travel 
     expenses, including travel expenses of the Depository Library 
     Council to the Public Printer, shall not exceed $130,000: 
     Provided further, That funds, not to exceed $2,000,000, from 
     current year appropriations are authorized for producing and 
     disseminating Congressional Serial Sets and other related 
     Congressional/non-Congressional publications for 1994 and 
     1995 to depository and other designated libraries.


                        administrative provision

       Sec. 210. The last paragraph of section 1903 of title 44, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking out the last 
     sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``The 
     cost of production and distribution for publications 
     distributed to depository libraries--
       ``(1) in paper or microfiche formats, whether or not such 
     publications are requisitioned from or through the Government 
     Printing Office, shall be borne by the components of the 
     Government responsible for their issuance; and
       ``(2) in other than paper or microfiche formats--
       ``(A) if such publications are requisitioned from or 
     through the Government Printing Office, shall be charged to 
     appropriations provided to the Superintendent of Documents 
     for that purpose; and
       ``(B) if such publications are obtained elsewhere than from 
     the Government Printing Office, shall be borne by the 
     components of the Government responsible for their 
     issuance.''.

               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make 
     such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and 
     in accord with the law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs and 
     purposes set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year 
     for the Government Printing Office revolving fund: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $2,500 may be expended on the 
     certification of the Public Printer in connection with 
     official representation and reception expenses: Provided 
     further, That the revolving fund shall be available for the 
     hire or purchase of passenger motor vehicles, not to exceed a 
     fleet of twelve: Provided further, That expenditures in 
     connection with travel expenses of the advisory councils to 
     the Public Printer shall be deemed necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of title 44, United States Code: Provided further, 
     That the revolving fund shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for level 
     V of the Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5316): Provided 
     further, That the revolving fund and the funds provided under 
     the headings ``Office of Superintendent of Documents'' and 
     ``salaries and expenses'' together may not be available for 
     the full-time equivalent employment of more than 3,900 
     workyears: Provided further, That activities financed through 
     the revolving fund may provide information in any format: 
     Provided further, That the revolving fund shall not be used 
     to administer any flexible or compressed work schedule which 
     applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the grade 
     or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15: Provided 
     further, That expenses for attendance at meetings shall not 
     exceed $75,000.

                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office, 
     including not to exceed $7,000 to be expended on the 
     certification of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     (5 U.S.C. 5315); hire of one passenger motor vehicle; advance 
     payments in foreign countries in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 
     3324; benefits comparable to those payable under sections 
     901(5), 901(6) and 901(8) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 
     (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 4081(6) and 4081(8)); and under 
     regulations prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 
     United States, rental of living quarters in foreign countries 
     and travel benefits comparable with those which are now or 
     hereafter may be granted single employees of the Agency for 
     International Development, including single Foreign Service 
     personnel assigned to AID projects, by the Administrator of 
     the Agency for International Development--or his designee--
     under the authority of section 636(b) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2396(b)); $392,864,000: 
     Provided, That not more than $400,000 of reimbursements 
     received incident to the operation of the General Accounting 
     Office Building shall be available for use in fiscal year 
     1996: Provided further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 9105 
     hereafter amounts reimbursed to the Comptroller General 
     pursuant to that section shall be deposited to the 
     appropriation of the General Accounting Office then available 
     and remain available until expended, and not more than 
     $8,000,000 of such funds shall be available for use in fiscal 
     year 1996: Provided further, That this appropriation and 
     appropriations for administrative expenses of any other 
     department or agency which is a member of the Joint Financial 
     Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) shall be available to 
     finance an appropriate share of JFMIP costs as determined by 
     the JFMIP, including the salary of the Executive Director and 
     secretarial support: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation and appropriations for administrative expenses 
     of any other department or agency which is a member of the 
     National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional 
     Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of Forum costs as determined by the 
     Forum, including necessary travel expenses of non-Federal 
     participants. Payments hereunder to either the Forum or the 
     JFMIP may be credited as reimbursements to any appropriation 
     from which costs involved are initially financed: Provided 
     further, That to the extent that funds are otherwise 
     available for obligation, agreements or contracts for the 
     removal of asbestos, and renovation of the building and 
     building systems (including the heating, ventilation and air 
     conditioning system, electrical system and other major 
     building systems) of the General Accounting Office Building 
     may be made for periods not exceeding five years: Provided 
     further, That this appropriation and appropriations for 
     administrative expenses of any other department or agency 
     which is a member of the American Consortium on International 
     Public Administration (ACIPA) shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of ACIPA costs as determined by the 
     ACIPA, including any expenses attributable to membership of 
     ACIPA in the International Institute of Administrative 
     Sciences.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 211. (a) Effective June 30, 1996, the functions of the 
     Comptroller General identified in subsection (b) are 
     transferred to the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, contingent upon the additional transfer to the Office 
     of Management and Budget of such personnel, budget authority, 
     records, and property of the General Accounting Office 
     relating to such functions as the Comptroller General and the 
     Director jointly determine to be necessary. The Director may 
     delegate any such function, in whole or in part, to any other 
     agency or agencies if the Director determines that such 
     delegation would be cost-effective or otherwise in the public 
     interest, and may transfer to such agency or agencies any 
     personnel, budget authority, records, and property received 
     by the Director pursuant to the preceding sentence that 
     relate to the delegated functions. Personnel transferred 
     pursuant to this provision shall not be separated or reduced 
     in classification or compensation for one year after any such 
     transfer, except for cause.
       (b) The following provisions of the United States Code 
     contain the functions to be transferred pursuant to 
     subsection (a): sections 5564 and 5583 of title 5; sections 
     2312, 2575, 2733, 2734, 2771, 4712, and 9712 of title 10; 
     sections 1626 and 4195 of title 22; section 420 of title 24; 
     sections 2414 and 2517 of title 28; sections 1304, 3702, 
     3726, and 3728 of title 31; sections 714 and 715 of title 32; 
     section 554 of title 37; section 5122 of title 38; and 
     section 256a of title 41.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used for the maintenance or care of private 
     vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may 
     be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities 
     for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on 
     House Oversight and for the Senate issued by the Committee on 
     Rules and Administration.
       Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein. [[Page H 
     6185]] 
       Sec. 303. Whenever any office or position not specifically 
     established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 is 
     appropriated for herein or whenever the rate of compensation 
     or designation of any position appropriated for herein is 
     different from that specifically established for such 
     position by such Act, the rate of compensation and the 
     designation of the position, or either, appropriated for or 
     provided herein, shall be the permanent law with respect 
     thereto: Provided, That the provisions herein for the various 
     items of official expenses of Members, officers, and 
     committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and 
     clerk hire for Senators and Members of the House of 
     Representatives shall be the permanent law with respect 
     thereto.
       Sec. 304. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 305. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 306. (a) Upon approval of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and in 
     accordance with conditions determined by the Committee on 
     House Oversight, positions in connection with House parking 
     activities and related funding shall be transferred from the 
     appropriation ``Architect of the Capitol, Capitol buildings 
     and grounds, House office buildings'' to the appropriation 
     ``House of Representatives, salaries, officers and employees, 
     Office of the Sergeant at Arms'': Provided, That the position 
     of Superintendent of Garages shall be subject to 
     authorization in annual appropriation Acts.
       (b) For purposes of section 8339(m) of title 5, United 
     States Code, the days of unused sick leave to the credit of 
     any such employee as of the date such employee is transferred 
     under subsection (a) shall be included in the total service 
     of such employee in connection with the computation of any 
     annuity under subsections (a) through (e) and (o) of such 
     section.
       (c) In the case of days of annual leave to the credit of 
     any such employee as of the date such employee is transferred 
     under subsection (a) the Architect of the Capitol is 
     authorized to make a lump sum payment to each such employee 
     for that annual leave. No such payment shall be considered a 
     payment or compensation within the meaning of any law 
     relating to dual compensation.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the relocation of the office of any Member of the 
     House of Representatives within the House office buildings.
       Sec. 308. (a)(1) Effective October 1, 1995, the unexpended 
     balances of appropriations specified in paragraph (2) are 
     transferred to the appropriation for general expenses of the 
     Capitol Police, to be used for design and installation of 
     security systems for the Capitol buildings and grounds.
       (2) The unexpended balances referred to in paragraph (1) 
     are--
       (A) the unexpended balance of appropriations for security 
     installations, as referred to in the paragraph under the 
     heading ``capitol buildings'', under the general headings 
     ``JOINT ITEMS'', ``ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL'', and ``Capitol 
     Buildings and Grounds'' in title I of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (108 Stat. 1434), including any 
     unexpended balance from a prior fiscal year and any 
     unexpended balance under such headings in this Act; and
       (B) the unexpended balance of the appropriation for an 
     improved security plan, as transferred to the Architect of 
     the Capitol by section 102 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1989 (102 Stat. 2165).
       (b) Effective October 1, 1995, the responsibility for 
     design and installation of security systems for the Capitol 
     buildings and grounds is transferred from the Architect of 
     the Capitol to the Capitol Police Board. Such design and 
     installation shall be carried out under the direction of the 
     Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, 
     and without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of 
     the United States (41 U.S.C. 5). On and after October 1, 
     1995, any alteration to a structural, mechanical, or 
     architectural feature of the Capitol buildings and grounds 
     that is required for a security system under the preceding 
     sentence may be carried out only with the approval of the 
     Architect of the Capitol.
       (c)(1) Effective October 1, 1995, all positions specified 
     in paragraph (2) and each individual holding any such 
     position (on a permanent basis) immediately before that date, 
     as identified by the Architect of the Capitol, shall be 
     transferred to the Capitol Police.
       (2) The positions referred to in paragraph (1) are those 
     positions which, immediately before October 1, 1995, are--
       (A) under the Architect of the Capitol;
       (B) within the Electronics Engineering Division of the 
     Office of the Architect of the Capitol; and
       (C) related to the design or installation of security 
     systems for the Capitol buildings and grounds.
       (3) All annual leave and sick leave standing to the credit 
     of an individual immediately before such individual is 
     transferred under paragraph (1) shall be credited to such 
     individual, without adjustment, in the new position of the 
     individual.
       Sec. 309. (a) Section 230(a) of the Congressional 
     Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1371(a)) is amended by 
     striking out ``Administrative Conference of the United 
     States'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Board''.
       (b) Section 230(d)(1) of the Congressional Accountability 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1371(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``Administrative Conference of the 
     United States'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Board''; and
       (2) by striking out ``and shall submit the study and 
     recommendations to the Board''.
       Sec. 310. Section 122(d) of the Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-110; 2 U.S.C. 141 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``The Provost Marshal (U.S. Army Military Police), 
     Fort George G. Meade, is authorized to police the real 
     property, including improvements thereon, transferred under 
     subsection (a), and to make arrests on the said real property 
     and within any improvements situated thereon for any 
     violation of any law of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, or any State, or of any regulation promulgated 
     pursuant thereto, and such authority shall be construed as 
     authorizing the Provost Marshal, with the consent or upon the 
     request of the Librarian of Congress or his assistants, to 
     enter any improvements situated on the said real property 
     that are under the jurisdiction of the Library of Congress to 
     make arrests or to patrol such structures.''.
       Sec. 311. (a)(1) Effective as prescribed by paragraph (2), 
     the administrative jurisdiction over the property described 
     in subsection (b), known as the Botanic Garden, is 
     transferred, without reimbursement, to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture. After such transfer, the Botanic Garden shall 
     continue as a scientific display garden to inform and educate 
     visitors and the public as to the value of plants to the 
     well-being of humankind and the natural environment.
       (2) The transfer referred to in paragraph (1) shall take 
     effect--
       (A) on October 1, 1996, with respect to the property 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A); and
       (B) on the later of October 31, 1996, or the date of the 
     conveyance described in subsection (b)(1)(B), with respect to 
     the property described in that subsection.
       (b)(1) The property referred to in subsection (a)(1) is the 
     property consisting of--
       (A) Square 576 in the District of Columbia (bounded by 
     Maryland Avenue on the north, First Street on the east, 
     Independence Avenue on the south, and Third Street on the 
     west) and Square 578 in the District of Columbia (bounded by 
     Independence Avenue on the north, First Street on the east, 
     and Washington Avenue on the southwest), other than the 
     property included in the Capitol Grounds by paragraph (20) of 
     the first section of Public Law 96-432 (40 U.S.C. 193a note);
       (B) the site known as the Botanic Garden Nursery at D.C. 
     Village, consisting of 25 acres located at 4701 Shepherd 
     Parkway, S.W., Washington, D.C. (formerly part of a tract of 
     land known as Parcel 253/26), which site is to be conveyed by 
     the District of Columbia to the Architect of the Capitol 
     pursuant to Public Law 98-340 (40 U.S.C. 215 note);
       (C) all buildings, structures, and other improvements 
     located on the property described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), respectively; and
       (D) all equipment and other personal property that, 
     immediately before the transfer under this section, is 
     located on the property described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), respectively, and is under the control of the Architect 
     of the Capitol, acting under the direction of the Joint 
     Committee on the Library.
       (c) Not later than the date of the conveyance to the 
     Architect of the Capitol of the property described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B), the Architect of the Capitol and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into an agreement to 
     permit the retention by the Architect of the Capitol of a 
     portion of that property for legislative branch storage and 
     support facilities and expansion of such facilities, and 
     facilities to be developed for use by the Capitol Police.
       (d)(1) Effective October 1, 1996, all employee positions 
     specified in paragraph (2) and each individual holding any 
     such position (on a permanent basis) immediately before the 
     transfer, as identified by the Architect of the Capitol, 
     shall be transferred to the Department of Agriculture.
       (2) The employee positions referred to in paragraph (1) are 
     those positions which, immediately before October 1, 1996, 
     are under the Architect of the Capitol and are primarily 
     related to the functions of the Botanic Garden.
       (3) All annual leave and sick leave standing to the credit 
     of an individual immediately before such individual is 
     transferred under paragraph (1) shall be credited to such 
     individual, without adjustment, in the new position of the 
     individual.
       (e)(1) Notwithstanding the transfer under this section, and 
     without regard to the laws specified in paragraph (2), the 
     Architect of [[Page H 6186]] the Capitol shall retain full 
     authority for completing, under plans approved by the 
     Architect, the National Garden authorized by section 307E of 
     the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (40 U.S.C. 
     216c), including the renovation of the Conservatory of the 
     Botanic Garden under section 209(b) of Public Law 102-229 (40 
     U.S.C. 216c note). In carrying out the preceding sentence, 
     the Architect--
       (A) shall have full responsibility for design, construction 
     management and supervision, and acceptance of gifts;
       (B) shall inform the Secretary of Agriculture from time to 
     time of the progress of the work involved; and
       (C) shall notify the Secretary of Agriculture when, as 
     determined by the Architect, the National Garden, including 
     the renovation of the Conservatory of the Botanic Garden, is 
     complete.
       (2) The laws referred to in paragraph (1) are section 2 of 
     the Act entitled ``An Act providing for a comprehensive 
     development of the park and playground system of the National 
     Capital.'', approved June 6, 1924 (40 U.S.C. 71a), and the 
     first section of the Act entitled ``An Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts.'', approved May 17, 1910 (40 U.S.C. 
     104).
       (f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), effective 
     October 1, 1996, the unexpended balances of appropriations 
     for the Botanic Garden are transferred to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       (2) Any unexpended balances of appropriations for 
     completion of the National Garden, including the Conservatory 
     of the Botanic Garden, under subsection (e) shall remain 
     under the Architect of the Capitol.
       (g) After the transfer under this section--
       (1) under such terms and conditions as the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may impose, including a requirement for payment 
     of fees for the benefit of the Botanic Garden, the National 
     Garden and the Conservatory of the Botanic Garden shall be 
     available for receptions sponsored by Members of Congress; 
     and
       (2) the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Botanic 
     Garden, shall continue, with reimbursement, to propagate and 
     provide such plant materials as the Architect may require for 
     the United States Capitol Grounds, and such indoor plant 
     materials and cut flowers as are authorized by policies of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment is in order except the 
amendments printed in House Report 104-146. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated 
in the report, shall be considered as having been read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to 
amendment except as specified in the report and shall not be subject to 
a demand for a division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order by the rule.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 104-146.


                    amendment offered by Mr. neumann

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Neumann: Page 3, line 6, strike 
     ``$360,503,000'' and insert ``$351,217,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and a Member opposed will each be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that Congress should 
shrink its own budget as well as the rest of the budget for the U.S. 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle] to handle the debate on this amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss both what he was doing and an 
amendment which will come to his amendment shortly after this 
particular debate is concluded. There will be other speakers on this.
  The issue of the franking privilege in the Congress of the United 
States is one we have all wrestled with at one time or another. I have 
been working with some like-minded people to try to reduce the cost of 
the taxpayers of the United States of America in the area of franking.
  Now, let me just say, because I believe there will be some opposition 
to our amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], that the individuals who are working on this, 
on the Republican side, I think have done a remarkable job. Both the 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee and the Committee on 
Appropriations, I think, have done an outstanding job of trying to deal 
with this particular problem.

                              {time}  1230

  However, I feel that we should go even faster. I have here before us 
a couple of charts, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and the first of these 
charts shows the expenditures in an election year, and I think it is 
self-explanatory. I have always stated that, as far as the franking 
privilege is concerned, it is a tremendous boost to the incumbent 
because the incumbent can spend much more money on mail, either for 
town meetings, or questionnaires, or newsletters, or just mail in 
general during the course of an election year, and, as we cycle this, 
it shows completely that this can take place, and that is what the 
chart demonstrates, and I think that is a significant number to keep in 
mind.
  What we are trying to do here is to reduce the overall Members' 
representation allowance which has now been lumped together, and I 
think that is a good idea, too, with other office expenses, by $4.6 
million, and essentially it reduces it to where it was last year, at a 
sum of some $41 million.
  Now, as the Member who spent less than anybody else in this Congress 
last year on the franked mail, I can tell my colleagues that for sure 
we can answer all of our mail for this amount of money, and I say to my 
colleagues, if you want to give notices of town meetings, you can 
probably do that. You can probably have a statewide mailing in addition 
to that. But you are going to reduce some of these costs, as far as the 
margins are concerned, and that is essentially what we are attempting 
to do.
  So we have indeed put together this effort. We believe it is 
reasonable, we believe that it does not overreach in terms of the 
reductions which are in order, and even though there is some added 
costs to the Members' office because the folding room will no longer be 
a part of this and some other costs, I think it leaves a great deal of 
latitude to handle whatever mail is necessary to be handled in the 
Congress of the United States and indeed to allow the various Members 
to communicate fully with their constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Are we now debating the Castle amendment or the Neumann 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. In reply to the gentleman from California, the Castle 
amendment has not yet been offered.
  Mr. PACKARD. So we are now talking about the Neumann amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. Chairman, we have already cut severely the Members' allowance to 
pay for clerk hire for their staff as well as other office expenses in 
this bill. We have also, in order to absorb the cost of the reforms 
that the Committee on House Oversight has approved, we will be 
absorbing somewhere between $11 and $12,000 per office of existing 
office expense accounts, and each Member is asked to absorb those 
costs.
  We have also in this bill underfunded by the amount of $28 million 
the current allowances of Members for staff salaries, and an office and 
mail expenses. The House Finance Office estimates that the amount 
funded in the [[Page H 6187]] bill will be necessary for the salary 
expenses of the staff in Members office. There is no room for 
additional reductions.
  Simply said, the House budget has already been cut by $57 million, 
Members' allowances are underfunded by $28 million, and there is reason 
to believe that another almost $5 million will have to be absorbed 
because of administrative reforms. If we simply add additional 
reductions of $4.6, or $9 million in the Neumann amendment case, it is 
just going to put such a burden on Members' budgets that I think they 
will suffer dearly and would have to actually not pay their staff or 
release their staff. I strongly urge the Members to protect their own 
offices and their own staffs from a further cut and vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for the chairman 
of the subcommittee, all the work he has done, and he is absolutely 
doing the right thing, and anything I say to rebuttal to this, or 
anything anyone else might say, is in no way critical of that because 
they really are going in the right direction.
  But I must state, ``If you look at the second chart I have here, 
which shows our outgoing mail versus our ingoing mail, it is just 
absolutely evident to anyone who has ever examined these accounts that 
quite frankly there is a great deal of room to reduce the costs that we 
have, and it is correct that this particular Congress has taken very 
strong and good measures and intends to take more, which I know about, 
in order to address this problem, but the bottom line is that we are 
dealing with a relatively small reduction, a relatively small number, 
that hardly cuts into the outgoing mail.''
  Mr. Chairman, if I had my druthers, we would go much further than we 
are at this particular time. I would have clearly supported the first 
amendment before us right now, the Neumann amendment, and clearly the 
amendment which I will offer as an amendment to that, the Castle 
amendment which reduces it even more. I think it is one which should be 
supported, so I am in support of that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will say briefly, You can look at the 
franked mail charts over there, but this does not apply to franked 
mail. Part of the problem around here is that we have some people who 
were very earnest in the changes they want to make. You need to know 
that this is an appropriation bill. It goes into effect October 1. The 
combined representational account, which the gentleman from Delaware 
wants to cut, the gentleman from California, has already cut by more 
than one-third since the last year. We cannot make the changes to make 
it a single fund until the calendar year, and that's why the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard] is right.
  This money could very well go to deny already agreed-upon salaries to 
employees and purchasing of equipment. I want to underscore the fact I 
am not opposed to continuing to reduce Members' funds. There is a way; 
there is an orderliness to it. We are trying to move forward in an 
orderly fashion. The appropriation goes first, then the Committee on 
House Oversight will take those already agreed-upon changes and put 
them into effect.
  I say to my colleagues, when you introduce changes like this in 
midstream, that throws out the coordination of the leadership, the 
majority and the minorities' agreed-upon changes and it just makes it 
more difficult. I'm not opposed to cuts. I'm opposed to cuts at this 
time in this manner. Let's get this representational account combined. 
Let's then examine it.
  Frankly I am anxious to cut more than the gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle] is looking at, but I want to do it from a realistic, 
honest base where the Members have not already made commitments that 
they are now going to be forced to renege upon in the zealousness to 
get credit for some kind of a reduction.
  I would urge the Members to vote ``no,'' reluctantly, on this 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from 
California with whom I have discussed it, and by the way I cannot 
congratulate him enough on taking this issue and trying to run with it 
because I think he is doing absolutely the right thing, and I have no 
disagreement with that, but I do not think this is midstream. I believe 
that the franking privilege has lurked around this Congress at numbers 
well beyond anything that the public comprehends and certainly would be 
willing to live with it if they understood what those numbers are, and 
I think any time we can diminish those numbers we should. Quite frankly 
I wish I had a amendment accepted that would have cut it even more than 
ultimately what my amendment will be, the $4.6 million. We are going to 
a representational allowance, and I agree with the chairman. It is 
wonderful that he has done that, but still that provides for some extra 
costs too, $9.3 million, and this is merely a taking away of a very 
small part of that.
  So for all of these reasons I feel very strongly that what we are 
doing here today should happen today. It in no way deters the steps 
which the gentleman from California has taken or that those who 
advocate his position would want to do, and, as a matter of fact, I 
stand behind that and would encourage our pursuing that in every way we 
possibly can.


   Amendment Offered by Mr. Castle as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                         Offered by Mr. Newman

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Castle as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Neumann: Page 3, line 6, strike 
     ``$360,503,000'' and insert ``$355,903,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle] and a member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Chairman, today is a day for leadership by example. 
At a time when we are making very difficult decisions affecting 
Medicare, student loans, military base closures and low income heating 
assistance, this is not a time when we can afford to take ourselves off 
the firing line. I am very pleased to join with my colleague, the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Washington [Mrs. Smith], in support of this bipartisan reform 
effort.
  Let me first of all define the content of the amendment so that we 
are clear as to what we are talking about.
  The Castle-McHale-Smith amendment simply freezes the amount of money 
available for the frank at last year's level. The Castle-McHale-Smith 
amendment cuts $4.6 million from Members' representational allowances 
signifying a 13 percent reduction in franking funds from the committee 
recommended amendment for fiscal year 1996. The amendment that we now 
offer is supported by the National Taxpayers Union and by Common Cause.
  Let us be candid in defining the problem. Last year Congress sent out 
over six times more mail than it received. Two hundred sixty-seven 
million pieces of mail were sent out by Congress during that period. 
According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, in July and 
August of 1994 alone Members spent 84 percent more on the frank than 
during the same months in 1993.
  Mr. Chairman, we are making tough choices in balancing the budget. We 
have a moral and political responsibility to share in carrying that 
burden. This is a reasonable amendment. It is fiscally responsible, and 
it demonstrates, as we unfortunately rarely do, leadership by example.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
that, I assume inadvertently, he is wrong. This chart is wrong. It does 
not apply [[Page H 6188]] to franking, it applies to the salaries of 
the Members, to the Members' staff and what they have committed to. It 
applies to the computers that they may have already obligated 
themselves to in terms of purchasing. That is why we ought to go about 
these changes in an orderly fashion.
  I say to my colleagues, I believe you think you're cutting the frank. 
The way in which the amendment is written, means that this reduction 
goes to the salary of the staff that you've hired, to the computers 
that you have already obligated yourself and/or mail.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, Please, let me repeat once 
more, that this is not a reduction in the frank, you are 
misrepresenting this amendment. it is not. We cut franking by one-third 
already in this session, one-third, 33\1/3\ percent. This is not an 
amendment to cut franking.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. Chairman, I just simply say that because of the representative 
aspects of the way this is done we can only cut the office budgets as a 
whole, but clearly every office can take this money as a portion. Over 
435 Members is $4.6 million out of the money they would use for 
franking; it is that simple.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues' support for the Castle-McHale-Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment cuts $4.6 million from the Members' 
representational allowances, and my intent is to reduce Members' 
franking.
  I want to tell my colleagues a little bit about what happened in the 
last campaign. My opponent had a flurry of franked mail that came in 
the last few weeks. Many, many, 499 piece mailings. If they had that 
much money, they simply did not need it.
  I say to my colleagues ``We have to step up, folks, and start being a 
part of the budget problem,'' and what we are doing here is saying, 
``Take a small, not a significant, but at least small step in good 
faith to do that.''
  My colleagues will say, ``Well, we are going to go further later.''
  Well, this says we will because we are not going to put the money in 
right now. Good words for later just do not cut it, and I understand 
the intent here is good and strong for those that are working the 
congressional issues and the budget. But this should fit in real well 
to any planning to downsize Congress.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to reinforce what the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] said earlier, and that is this amendment does 
not target the mail account. This amendment applies to all three 
accounts that Members have. That is very important to know, that you 
are cutting back on office expense and Clerk hire. Frankly, we have 
given at the office in this bill. It is not necessary for us to cut to 
the point where we simply cannot do our job.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that it is very difficult to out reform a 
reformer, but we are a reform Congress. That is the whole point. That 
is the point of the November elections. We are reforming.
  Now, how much do we have to bleed on the floor to show, to 
demonstrate, that we are reforming? If you don't watch out, you start 
making cuts for the sake of cuts to the point that the reform becomes 
counterproductive. The reform, in essence, then becomes an obstacle to 
clean, efficient Government. Now, I thought the purpose of this entire 
effort over the last year, during which the House of Representatives 
and the Senate changed hands from one party to another, was in fact to 
pare down Government, to streamline it, and make it more efficient.
  Well, it seems to me that the primary amendment here, albeit well-
intentioned, from the gentleman from Wisconsin, as well as the 
amendment to the amendment, the Castle substitute, frankly leaves us in 
the position that we are not going to be able to reform. We are just 
going to be able to stand around and show how frugal we should be 
without really displaying any great deal of sense or wisdom.
  The fact is that the gentleman from California has shown that we are 
cutting the funding for this Congress, and we are paring down on all of 
our accounts. We are consolidating, we are merging, and we are doing it 
with a great deal of thought and effort. I commend the gentleman from 
California and his Committee on Oversight, and I especially commend my 
other friend from California, Mr. Packard, the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, for their efforts. They 
are conscientious and diligent in trying to bring some common sense to 
Government. They are eliminating agencies. They are downsizing the 
legislative branch and the Government in general.
  But to cut more just to say that we can cut more money is a 
counterproductive amendment, and it should be defeated. Frankly, it 
astounds me. If the gentleman is sincere about giving back money to the 
Treasury and saving money, let him give his own office account back. 
And I would say that to him and the other gentleman that they can turn 
their own money back. Any Member in this House can turn back to the 
Treasury any amount of money you want to get rid of. But do not impede 
the progress of the House of Representatives by shortsighted cuts that 
do not make sense.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle-
McHale-Smith amendment. While I feel, as I am sure Mr. Castle does as 
well, that we need to go further to address the issue of franking, this 
amendment is an excellent start.
  For too long, Members of Congress have used taxpayer financed mail as 
an extension of their reelection campaigns at the expense of the 
challengers as well as free and fair elections.
  This is not a wild accusation. The piles of newsletters in the House 
basement just before election cutoffs are a testament to their 
political nature. Furthermore, in the past decade franking expenditures 
have risen by as much as 50 percent in election years.
  I know my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware, who represents an 
entire State, agrees that we do not need to send our reams of 
newsletters to keep our constituents informed. In my first 2 years of 
service I spent less than $25,000 out of a budget of more than 
$300,000.
  This year it may be even more dangerous because of the unified 
budget. No longer will Members be constrained strictly by their 
franking budgets.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Castle substitute and go even 
further by calling for comprehensive franking reform along the lines of 
H.R. 798 which I introduced, or H.R. 923 introduced by my distinguished 
colleague from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, in this debate of about 20 minutes these 
charts have never been answered. We are sending out more mail in 
election years than at any time, and we are sending out a lot more mail 
from our offices than we are receiving. The cut we are talking about, 
which is $4.6 million, is a very small amount.
  To the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I am proud to 
say, I spent $10,000 out of $400,000 over 2 years. I did my part to 
return it to the taxpayers.
  This bill is endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union as a key vote, 
it is endorsed by Common Cause, it applies to all of the accounts of 
Congress. But if you want to, you can make sure it comes out of your 
franking portion of your account. There are no questions about that.
  Basically it still leaves $4.5 million after we reduce it by $4.6 
million in order to accommodate any extra costs which are added in with 
respect to [[Page H 6189]] some of the other aspects of the House which 
are being closed down.
  This is a very simple amendment. It is not a large sum of money. It 
will not deter in any way the progress we want to make on making deeper 
cuts. But I believe we should band together to make absolutely sure we 
are ending or at least reducing this practice, which has been very 
objectionable. I encourage Members to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing I would simply like to say we have 
underfunded. This bill underfunds the mail account by $13.3 million 
below the allowance of the Committee on House Oversight. They just 
lowered that allowance a few months ago, and we are well below that 
level. We have cut this allowance to a point where severe restraint is 
going to be necessary for the Members. For them to have to cut further 
is beyond restraint, it is fiscal imprudence.
  We have an amendment coming up that will further restrain the mail 
account to where they cannot mail out 90 days before an election, so we 
are putting more and more constraints on the mail account. We again 
feel that we have already given at the office in this bill. Let us not 
devastate each Member's office. I urge the Members to vote against the 
substitute amendment of Mr. Castle. We certainly agree that we need to 
cut. We think alike. It is just that we feel we have gone far enough in 
our bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair will 
reduce to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote, if ordered, on the 
Neumann amendment, if there is no intervening business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 215, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 402]

                               AYES--213

     Allard
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Burr
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Olver
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Coyne
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Porter
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spence
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gunderson
     Kaptur
     Moakley
     Schumer
     Torres
     Wilson

                              {time}  1313

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Gunderson for, with Mr. Moakley against

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DICKEY, Mr. ZELIFF, Ms. FURSE, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. DeLAURO, and 
Messrs. CREMEANS, SMITH of Texas, LaFALCE, LAZIO of New York, PAXON, 
and STOCKMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1315

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 104-146.


                   amendment offered by mr. gutierrez

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gutierrez: Page 3, line 6, insert 
     before the period the following: ``: Provided, That no such 
     funds shall be used for the purposes of sending unsolicited 
     mass mailings within 90 days before an election in which the 
     Member is a candidate.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Gutierrez] and a Member in opposition will each be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment, 
[[Page H 6190]] and I seek to control the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit mass 
mailings within 90 days of an election. As all Members are well aware, 
a prohibition currently exists barring such activities from occurring 
60 days before an election.
  In its simplest form, this amendment is an extension of that limit.
  But, it is more than that.
  It is a sign to an American public hungry for change that we are 
ready to implement reform.
  It is a sign that we are more interested in doing the people's 
business rather than our own political business.
  This additional 30 days makes sense. Common sense.
  We have all been through campaigns. As candidates. And as voters.
  So, we know what happens when it's 65 or 70 or 75 days before 
election day. In some ways, it's not so different from what happens 
right before election day.
  That is the point.
  Here is an example. Most years, Labor Day falls in that block of time 
that is currently unrestricted by franking prohibitions.
  Now, for a lot of people, Labor Day's a holiday. But, for any 
candidate hoping to keep his office, that's a day to labor--it is the 
heart of campaign season.
  And, most years, we are on the stump even earlier than that. The 
``dog days of August'' are often the red hot days of a tough campaign.
  Unfortunately, under current guidelines, it is entirely possible that 
your district-wide newsletter, sent at the taxpayers expense, hits the 
mailbox at the same time as a challenger's direct-mail campaign piece.
  That is not fair.
  It is not fair to voters who deserve a campaign based on the power of 
ideas, rather than the power of incumbency.
  And, you know what? As long as these double standards exist, it is 
not fair to us. It's not fair that Congress is perceived as inactive on 
reform.
  But today is our change to erase part of that perception.
  I offer this amendment in the greatest spirit of bipartisanship.
  I want to thank members of both parties on the Rules Committee who 
made this amendment in order. I know that many Republicans have 
introduced reforms of this nature--including my friend, Jack Quinn of 
New York.
  And, at the same time, this amendment is in keeping with the franking 
reforms initiated by the Democratic leadership--by Mr. Fazio and 
others--that have led to great savings.
  Since 1991, when some crucial reforms in franking were first put in 
place, a considerable sum of taxpayer funds has been saved--to the tune 
of over $190 million.
  I believe it is accurate that the trend I have just mentioned would 
continue and even accelerate with new reforms like this one.
  Regardless of those trends, let us just try to estimate cost savings 
this way.
  In 1994, an election year, House mail costs were $42 million.
  Let us ask: Did mass mailings--especially those sent in the heat of 
an election in late summer or early fall--account for half of that 
money?
  A quarter? A tenth?
  If they even accounted for just under 5 percent of such funds, then 
that equals $2 million.
  Two million bucks of the taxpayers money. That is a conservative 
estimate--and I am not usually a conservative.
  And, if you are looking for a couple of outside authorities on this 
matter, I think it's worth noting that the National Taxpayers Union--a 
group committed to cost savings--has pledged their support of this 
amendment.
  And, Public Citizen, a group well-known for its work on reform, also 
supports my amendment, because they see it as an important step--a 
first step--toward better government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time being yielded by my 
friend, the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to support the amendment offered by 
Congressman Gutierrez to prohibit congressional unsolicited mass 
mailings within 90 days of an election.
  Last year, I successfully offered an amendment to this bill, along 
with my colleague, Mr. Pomeroy, to cut congressional franking 
allowances by $4 million. The franking allowance, therefore, was 
reduced from $35 million to $31 million for House Members.
  There is quite a bit of talk in Washington about reducing the cost of 
Government. If Congress is ever going to be successful in getting 
Government spending under control, it first must reduce its own 
expenses.
  I consider the ability to communicate with my constituents to be very 
important. Nevertheless, when I first ran for Congress in 1992, I 
pledged not to send mass mailing within 6 months of an election. I have 
kept that promise throughout my tenure in Congress and it has worked 
very well.
  This amendment only prevents Members from sending mass mailings 
within 3 months of an election. By restricting myself from mailing 
within 6 months, twice the amount of time involved in this amendment, I 
have shown that this approach not only works, but is not overly 
restrictive.
  I invite my colleagues to support this amendment. I also encourage 
all of you to join me in an effort to restore credibility to this body 
by voluntarily withholding mass mailings within 6 months of an 
election.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying it was a number of years ago 
that we moved from 30 days to 60 days, and then under the leadership of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] who, by the way, should have 
jurisdiction of this issue within his committee, the Committee on House 
Oversight, we made sure people were not allowed to mail simply by 
delivering their printing to the Post Office and having it go out after 
the 60-day deadline was thought to be in place. In other words, if it 
is not postmarked before 60 days before the election, it cannot go.
  Mr. Chairman, we have occasionally had problems where people did mail 
after that date, but the effect of the Thomas amendment, I think, has 
gone a long way to cleaning up the problem that some of our colleagues 
continue to be concerned about.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just simply say that now, as we move to a 
contracting out concept with the folding room, Members will be dealing 
with literally hundreds of printers here and, I suppose, in their 
districts, so there will be no overruns of the 60-day period, which has 
occurred because of the heavy load of printing going through simply 2 
printers, one for the minority and one for the majority.
  More importantly, Mr. Chairman, if we move to 90 days, it would mean 
that Members with late primaries would be completely unable to send 
even community meeting bulletins, even notices of town hall meetings, 
for as long as 6 months at a time.
  Perhaps this is acceptable to some Members, but it seems to me that 
in the 6 months prior to our ability to go before the voters in 
November, there ought to be some opportunity for Members to communicate 
directly and personally with their constituents. I think we would end 
up, frankly, if we had a 90-day period, with a much more expensive 
mailing scheme even from normal purposes, even for those communications 
that go out to inform constituents of what the Congress has indeed 
accomplished.
  As we all know, much of what we do will not be known until the last 
few months before we leave here in the second year of the congressional 
session. Much of the reason for this saw-tooth effect that Members saw 
earlier on the chart is that while certainly elections are a factor in 
Members' thinking, just as important is the desire on the part of each 
Member to communicate the accomplishments or the failings of Congress, 
whatever they may have done on the issues that they said to their 
constituents they were to focus [[Page H 6191]] on in the second year 
of a Congress, when much of the work that we are engaged in comes to a 
close.
  Mr. Chairman, it would it seems to me that this amendment, pushing us 
out 30 more days, is much more than is appropriate. I would urge that 
it be defeated.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to add to what the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] said. Those who have late 
primaries, in September, would not be able to send anything out for a 
long period of time during a general election out for a long period of 
time during a general election and a primary election campaign. Also, 
Mr. Chairman, an early primary would force Members to do their mailing 
during the holiday season. That is not a good time to communicate with 
your constituents. Therefore, I think there are some reasons for 
Members to be very concerned about this provision of extending it an 
additional 30 days.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time remains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], has 1 
minute remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 75 percent of that time, 45 
seconds, to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], and I will keep 
15.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues 
for voting with us on the last amendment. It creates an orderly process 
in making change, and I want to thank them.
  I was the author of the 60-day postmark cutoff, because I thought 
that was what the law was supposed to be. I will tell Members that I am 
rising in support of this particular amendment because it does not 
create disorder. Since we are getting rid of the folding room at the 
end of August, the decision to go to 90 days from 60 days is basically 
a philosophical one. I would ask the Members to ask themselves whether 
they think it is appropriate or not.
  I would say that a September primary now, because of the 60-day 
cutoff, does not allow Members to mail between September and November, 
anyway. That is not an argument for this amendment. Members can send 
notice through newspapers and other means for town hall meetings. It 
does not have to be unsolicited mass mail. Therefore, this would not be 
disruptive, and I would support it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  No. 1, I think we can organize our mailings. People are watching us 
right now as we speak. I just want to say that I offer this amendment 
because I think it is important for the House to reform itself before 
the people reform us and demand these reforms. I think that is what a 
lot of the elections, at least the last two election cycles, have been 
about. I encourage everybody to support this amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I will just conclude, Mr. Chairman, with the comment that I think all 
of us who attempted to get people together at a townhall meeting 
relying on the good offices of local newspapers have found that to be a 
wanting approach. We do need to let people know when we are available 
for constituent consultation or for just the give and take on the 
issues. It seems to me to have 90 days before a primary and 90 days 
before a general election makes it almost impossible for Members to 
adequately communicate during the second year of a congressional 
session.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman that the 
Committee on House Oversight is working on the possibility of creating 
public service announcement-type purchases on the radio and other 
media, as a point of information, beyond mail, for the townhall 
meetings.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I appreciate that comment. I certainly think 
we should take a look at doing something to mitigate for this before we 
act on it, in the absence of any alternative. Therefore, I would urge 
that this amendment be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House report 104-146.


              amendment offered by mr. fazio of california

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 15, line 
     8, strike the colon and all that follows through ``1986'' on 
     line 10.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I think this issue has been 
debated probably more extensively in the general debate than the 10 
minutes we have to debate it now would permit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying, ``If it ain't 
busted, don't fix it.'' The Joint Committee that does the auditing 
work, looks over the work of the IRS, is not busted. I have been 
associated with it for about 30 years now. I have never heard one 
single complaint about their work.
  Let me repeat that. In the 30 years I have followed the work of the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, overseeing the IRS on refunds, I have 
never heard of one single complaint from either a taxpayer or from 
anybody involved in the tax-gathering business. It is highly 
professional. It is nonpartisan. It is something that needs to be done. 
The Congress set it up that way a number of years ago.
  It has worked well. We should not destroy what works well. This is a 
very controversial area of the law. I think anybody who is connected 
with the Code realizes that the IRS Code is very complicated and 
requires some very technical information. These are the people who know 
it and they do it well. Don't fix it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree at all with the previous speaker, and 
I do not believe that it really is broke. I believe that we did treat 
the Joint Committee on Taxation very favorably in this bill. We did not 
change anything.
  According to the colloquy and my understanding of the language in the 
bill, it simply confirms something that is important in terms of its 
function. We simply do not want the Joint Committee on Taxation to 
determine tax returns and refunds. We think that that is addressed in 
the bill. The colloquy I think addressed that.
  Frankly, I do not know that this amendment will do anything 
differently than what is already done. In the interest of time, I would 
simply ask the gentleman from California to withdraw his amendment and 
let it ride the way that the colloquy followed, but I will leave that 
to his judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do continue to offer the amendment, not because I at 
the moment am convinced that the plans of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard] are pernicious or would in any way be intentionally 
undermining the role of the Joint Committee, but I have yet to hear a 
rationale for the language that has been offered.
  I say that because in the earlier colloquy there was no problem 
cited, no indication that we had a lack of clarity about the powers of 
the executive or the legislative branch, no problem that had been 
presented in terms of the role [[Page H 6192]] the Joint Committee on 
Taxation has performed in this area.
  There is no question that they have performed admirably. They have, I 
think, saved the taxpayers countless millions of dollars, and will in 
the future. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means testified 
that he felt the process was working well and that this language in 
effect when it was discussed, not at that time offered, was perhaps 
going to be somewhat confusing.
  I do not really think that the Packard amendment, as it is currently 
worded and currently interpreted by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] in the earlier colloquy, does anything at all.
  What I would suggest is we simply leave the language out. If the 
intent was not to interfere with the processing of audits at the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, then I think we should be silent on this issue. 
This is an opportunity for the Members, I think, to register support 
for the work of the Joint Committee in this regard and for the 
oversight function that Congress must provide over the Internal Revenue 
Service.
  As the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has said, this is not simply 
an oversight function but one that helps the two entities educate 
themselves about new approaches that have been taken by countless 
attorneys and accountants to in many ways short the American taxpayers 
on a proper filing of their corporate returns. Ninety-two percent of 
these returns are corporate.
  I am urging my colleagues to vote down this amendment. I think it 
would be the most effective way to say we support the status quo. If at 
some point I am presented with some facts that show we are in disarray 
or disagreement between the two branches, if the Joint Committee has 
gone too far, if IRS thinks there is somehow some confusion about their 
role to actually be the final say on any given return, then I think we 
could revisit this in a future Congress.
  At this point, I reserve the balance of my time, but reaffirm my 
desire for this amendment to be defeated. I would hope perhaps that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] could withdraw it, because if 
he does not believe that this will do anything, I do not know that we 
need to present the amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if I have done anything, I have confused 
the gentleman from California. It is his amendment, not mine, and I 
think he wants a ``yes'' vote, not a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I am opposed to the language as placed in 
the bill. And the gentleman does correct me.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time and ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment to remove the language 
that I would hope the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] would 
voluntarily withdraw, should he succeed in this vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 104-146.


              amendment offered by mr. fazio of california

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 19, 
     after line 13, insert the following:

                    OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (Public 
     Law 92-484), including official reception and representation 
     expenses, expenses incurred in administering an employee 
     incentive awards program, and rental of space in the District 
     of Columbia, $18,620,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in this instance in strong 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of, obviously, an amendment that I 
think is important to restore the Office of Technology Assessment to 
that group of agencies that have shown an outstanding ability to assist 
this Congress in its workload.
  There is no question in my mind that this is an organization that, if 
eliminated, would be seriously missed by this institution and I think 
by the people who elect us and send us to Washington to serve every 2 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very complex world we are part of. Many of us 
are trained in the social sciences and humanities. We are not 
physicists, chemists. There are very few of us that have scientific 
degrees. Yet we as a Congress, in almost every committee of 
jurisdiction, are assigned a responsibility of very frequently, 
particularly in the appropriations process, making fundamental 
judgments about questions relating to science and technology that are 
beyond our ability to understand without the assistance of people who 
are expert.
  What have we done? Instead of going out and hiring a group of people 
who are standing by to advise us, we have created a small entity with a 
core staff that works with thousands of people, from the academic 
world, from the private sector, from national laboratories, from any 
number of places where scientists are employed in this country, to help 
us solve the problems that come to us on a regular basis. We have had 
this agency, which has a $22 million budget, pay for itself hundreds of 
times over by giving this Congress the kind of advice it needs to 
prevent mistakes from being made.
  Some are, anyway. We have not always used OTA to the extent we 
should. But my suggestion is, rather than eliminate it, let's let the 
new majority, if they are so inclined, to change it, to reform it, to 
mold it, to make it more useful. I think this meat ax approach should 
be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], a member of the board of OTA.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have been associated with 
the OTA since the hearings which led to its creation back in the 
1960's, and I have been on the board for some time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would concur in everything that the distinguished 
gentleman from California has said about the merits of the OTA. It is 
today a better organization than it has ever been. It is headed by one 
of the finest, most capable Members of the House, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Houghton], who is, and I have said this publicly, the 
finest chairman the board has had in my experience, and I hope he will 
have an opportunity to continue.
  The value of the work that is done I have illustrated here. I have 
brought with me some of the reports; the most recent, National Space 
Transportation Policy, dealing with critical issues in the Space 
Program which will require expenditures of billions of dollars, and on 
which most Members of this House will not be able to make informed 
decisions without the kind of advice and assistance that these reports 
represent.
  I think it would be tragic to eliminate the agency at this time. I 
very strongly urge support for the amendment of the gentleman from 
California to restore the funding.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in our efforts in this bill we have genuinely tried to 
find where there is duplication in the legislative branch of 
Government. This is one area where we found duplication, serious 
duplication. We have several agencies that are doing very much the same 
thing in terms of studies and reports.
  I served on the Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology for many, many years in this institution, and I 
am [[Page H 6193]] aware of the invaluable service of OTA, but there 
are other agencies that do the same thing. The CRS has a science 
division of their agency. GAO has a science capability in their agency. 
They can do the same thing as OTA.
  We evaluated how to best consolidate, and it was our conclusion as a 
committee that to eliminate OTA and absorb the essential functions into 
some of these other agencies that are going to continue was the best 
way to go.
  If the Members of Congress really feel that duplication and 
additional bureaucracies with additional personnel and office space and 
cost are the way to go and status quo is the way to go, then they
 would want to vote for this amendment, but I do not believe the 
committee nor the House feels that that is the way to go. We ought to 
eliminate those agencies where duplication exists. This is one of those 
areas.

  Mr. Chairman, I admit OTA has done a good job. They have good, solid 
professionals, but those professionals can work with other agencies 
that will do those same functions, if they are essential. We also have 
the CRS, GAO, and other agencies, such as the National Academy of 
Sciences. There are many alternatives, or this work can even be 
privatized and contracted out for the services. But we do not need this 
agency that has now outgrown its usefulness, has now outgrown its 
usefulness, has now increased its mission to other areas beyond 
science. I feel that the committee has done the right thing, and would 
strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important issue and I urge 
the members to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio]. So much of the work of this place now goes on 
really in a second language, the language of science and technology, 
whether it is space issues or research issues or environmental issues.
  Without OTA, essentially, to do simultaneous translation of the 
language that is very inaccessible to most of us who have not been 
trained in technical fields, we will essentially be engaging in an act 
of unilateral disarmament on very, very key national issues.
  Far from being a luxury that we could do without, this is a necessity 
that we would be foolish to try to do without. The idea that there is 
play or leeway in the budgets of any of the other support agencies, GAO 
or CRS, is simply not true. Those budgets are being held static. There 
is no place else to put these functions. We need to keep them alive and 
well at the OTA.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that this is over $18 million that 
would be added back into the budget. If we are serious about deficit 
reduction and balancing the budget, then it really needs to start with 
Congress itself, and this is an agency of the Congress itself.
  We believe that the American people would be very pleased to see 
Congress eliminate, certainly, the duplication and the bloat of the 
bureaucracy that we have created for ourselves over the years. Surely 
we can do without agencies that duplicate the same service.
  It is not a question of whether the science reviews and studies will 
be done or the reports will be done. It is a question of whether we 
want two or three or four agencies doing essentially the same work. So 
I urge my colleagues to save this $18 million, and not add it back as 
this amendment would do.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to make it very clear, I am going to be supporting my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], who will be 
offering a substitute in just a few seconds. That amendment, I think, 
is a compromise which does allow CRS to absorb OTA for purposes of 
getting us to conference.
  I will be honest, I do not want to draw down the Library of 
Congress'' budget for this purpose, and I would request that none of my 
colleagues vote against this amendment out of any concern for the 
library. We still have $26 million allocated by the full committee that 
has not been used. That will be enough to absorb what the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Houghton] expects to spend in the library.
  There is no question that OTA is accountable and should be reformed 
if Members of the majority feel it should. But I think the amendment 
that my colleague from New York is offering allows OTA to go through 
that process of reform under his stewardship and will put us in a 
position to continue to benefit from the expertise that we have 
reposited at OTA over the last decade plus.
  amendment offered by mr. houghton as a substitute for the amendment 
                   offered by mr. fazio of california

  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment 
is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Houghton as a substitute for 
     the amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 23, 
     line 18, strike ``$60,083,000'' and insert ``$75,083,000''.
       Page 26, line 19, strike ``$211,664,000'' and insert 
     ``$195,076,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Houghton], and a Member in opposition, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard], will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I will speak briefly because other Members want to express 
themselves.
  I have spoken earlier on the floor regarding the OTA. I believe it is 
critically important for this Nation to know what is going on in the 
business of technology and science into the 21st century. This is the 
only unit we have to advise this Congress, to work hand in hand with 
the scientists of this country and know what is there, and if we 
eliminate it, we go blindfolded, and I think that is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], who also is a member of the OTA Board, who would like to 
express himself.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Houghton 
amendment. I have had a great experience working on the Board at OTA. I 
have learned a lot. And what I have learned is this, that the 
information that we get as Members of Congress making policy is getting 
more and more technical and more and more difficult. And OTA has done 
yeoman's work in providing that kind of information.
  One example, we had a bill last year, if you will recall, dealing 
with wiretapping. We worked with the FBI, we worked with the telephone 
companies, to craft a bill that would allow the FBI and other law 
enforcement agencies to deal with the very real problem of using legal 
wiretaps on the new technology.
  We asked OTA to determine how that technology will result in either 
excessive or not excessive costs in implementing that program. It was a 
very important study. We just got the interim report back. We would 
expect the final report back relatively quickly. That will give us an 
idea about how that new technology will work and the ability of law 
enforcement to protect us from the kind of situation that occurred in 
Oklahoma City.
  I think it is important that OTA be made part of this proposal. I 
support the Houghton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to restore 
funding for the Office of Technology Assessment.
  While I am a relative newcomer to OTA's operations, I have been 
impressed with what I have observed. In addition to being on OTA's 
governing board, I am also one of its clients as a member of two 
subcommittees of the House Commerce Committee. In September I asked the 
OTA to take on a complicated job for the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and Finance--namely, to figure out the costs to the 
telecommunications industry of meeting law enforcement needs under the 
requirements of the Communications for Law Enforcement Act.
  The problem we had during the debate over the act, was that the 
telephone industry and [[Page H 6194]] the FBI had widely different 
ideas on costs. To understand these costs and whose numbers might be 
best, we quickly figured out that we needed to know a lot more about 
the technology than we did. And neither we nor our staffs has the time 
to do the necessary digging. So we turned to the OTA.
  What I discovered was a wealth of knowledge and insight related to 
the whole field of telecommunications. OTA, I found, has already 
completed numerous studies upon which we could draw and there was 
knowledgeable staff to quickly take on our task. I already have their 
preliminary results in hand and I expect the final report next month.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous 
Materials, I will be using OTA's expertise again. OTA's analysis of the 
Superfund Programs will be important as efforts begin in the Congress 
to completely revamp this program. Just last week, OTA provided 
important testimony before my subcommittee, and is continuing to 
produce analysis to help in rewriting Superfund legislation.
  I know that these limited experiences of mine are not unique. 
Countless other subcommittees and committees are continually tapping 
into OTA's knowledge base and expertise. At this time, when we are 
contemplating massive changes in the way this country is run, I think 
we need the best information and analysis available. With this in mind, 
I hope that my colleagues will carefully consider the OTA's 
irreplaceable expertise to Congress and support this amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment and would like to make some 
observations. The one area that services the Congress and the country 
perhaps best of all in the legislative branch of Government is the 
Library of Congress.
  There is not any Member of Congress that I know of that has any 
desire to limit or to cut back the Library of Congress. In fact, it is 
the one agency in our bill that we have struggled to remain whole and 
to provide for them even a modest increase.
  It is the most valuable resource I think the Members of Congress and 
the country have relative to the providing and preservation of 
information.
  This cut to the Library of Congress, a cut of over $16 million, over 
$16.5 million, would cut 306 full-time employees, it would be an 8.1-
percent cut in this particular area. And it would also limit or cut 
back on the time that the reading rooms would be open for the public, 
according to the Librarian.
  It would also reduce their cataloging facilities by 25 percent and if 
they cannot catalog, then other libraries throughout the country cannot 
use or access the bibliographic records. It would cut back on the 
preservation of collections by 15 percent to 20 percent. That is 40,000 
to 50,000 items that would not be preserved and would be lost because 
of paper or binding deterioration. And it would cut back on the law 
library services of the Library of Congress which is arguably the most 
important collection of legal materials in the world. The processing of 
library materials would be cut back.
  I received two phone calls from the Librarian, Dr. Billington, within 
the last 24 hours and he strongly urges a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment. And I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I wish Dr. Billington had called me. He did 
not, obviously, as the author of this amendment. The Library is not 
going to suffer if we deal with their needs in conference. There is no 
other way in a revenue-neutral sense that we could begin to help OTA 
unless we went to the one agency that was plussed up in this bill, the 
Library. Dr. Billington needs to understand the context in which this 
bill is being offered.
  Mr. PACKARD. I think it is clear that this substitute amendment 
unquestionably will penalize the Library of Congress by over $16.5 
million. I think that it is unconscionable to transfer these funds out 
of the Library. I would much prefer to see the OTA be absorbed into the 
Library of Congress, as this amendment does, but let the CRS absorb 
that workload and eliminate the costs at OTA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to respond a minute. This is a rather new argument, 
and it comes about because of the absorption of the costs. I, myself, 
have also talked to Dr. Billington. I explained our situation. I think 
he understood. I cannot speak for him, but I thought he did.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly supportive of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard] and the work that his subcommittee has 
done, but I must say in this situation I do wholeheartedly support the 
substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Houghton].
  It cuts 50 of 190 jobs. It cuts the budget by 32 percent, from $22 
million down to $15 million. And it folds its functions into the 
Congressional Research Service. So we cut down on the money, we cut 
down on the personnel, we downsize to the bone, but we do not lose the 
function.
  It just seems to me in this era of fiber optics and lasers and space 
stations, we need access to an objective, scholarly source of 
information that can save us millions and billions. We should not 
eviscerate everything that makes us a more effective Congress. So, I 
support the Houghton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The largest science project that has come before this Congress and 
before the country was the superconducting super collider project. OTA 
refused to do a study and a review and a report on that project.
  Subsequently, and I cannot fault the lack of a report and a study, 
but subsequently, there has been billions of dollars lost on that 
project because it did not go to fruition in the State of Texas.
  There are reports that have come late after the report was of no 
value. So there are some flaws in the process. It is not an agency 
without its problems. But I do not believe that we have to retain an 
agency if we retain the essential functions of the agency. And that is 
what we are proposing to do.
  It is not that the functions will not be done that have to be done. 
But if the Members of Congress are serious abut downsizing Government, 
if they are serious about cutting costs, they ought to start with 
themselves, and the committee has, in their judgment, felt that this is 
a place to start.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in a time when we are talking about risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis, getting the Congress the best 
possible information we can get is a very important undertaking. And 
having OTA to provide that kind of assistance to the Congress is 
absolutely indispensable.
  OTA, because of the fine technical work and because of the careful 
research which it has done on advanced questions involving technology 
and advanced information systems, has saved the Congress literally 
hundreds of millions of dollars over the time of its existence.
  To cut it back at a time when other nations are beginning to 
recognize the importance of this kind of advice to a legislative body 
would be a great shame, and would indeed cost us vastly more than any 
piddling savings that could be made by eliminating that agency. I would 
urge my colleagues to recognize this is a cost-benefit, efficient, and 
desirable step in continuing the existence of OTA.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment to preserve the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA] I fail 
to see precisely what problem the elimination of OTA is supposed to 
solve. [[Page H 6195]] 
  Is the problem that we suffer from a surfeit of clear, objective, 
analysis on the complex technical issues confronting the Nation? Is the 
problem that we expect that the questions facing the Congress are 
likely to become simpler and less related to technology? Is the problem 
that as individual Members we have more time, energy, and staff to 
delve into perplexing scientific and technical materials?
  Obviously, the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. And 
for that reason, the response to the proposal to eliminate OTA should 
also be a resounding no.
  OTA is the Agency that gives Congress half a chance at making sense 
of the growing welter of complex, technical issues we must consider. 
Without OTA, we will be ever more at the mercy of special interests, 
who appear at our doors with their particular take on the issues, their 
own tailored explanations, their specifically crafted data.
  Now of course I know why some Members want to eliminate OTA--to save 
a little money. But as I have said before, the public has asked us to 
do more with less--not to do more knowing less. There are other items 
we should examine before limiting our access to the most precious 
commodity in Washington--reliable information.
  The writer Kurt Vonnegut once defined the ``information revolution'' 
as the ability of human beings to actually know what they are talking 
about, if they really want to. OTA has given us the ability to 
participate in that revolution. It is a revolution we should embrace, 
not reverse. Support this amendment, and support the ability of 
Congress to know what it is talking about.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I rise in strong support of the Houghton amendment.
  I think it really does not make a whole lot of sense as we move into 
a more technologically driven era to be taking away the tool that 
really give us in Congress the opportunity to assess the effectiveness 
or ineffectiveness of various technologies. I know as the chairman of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that we rely, in doing 
that oversight as to the effectiveness of programs, OTA provides us 
with invaluable information.

                              {time}  1400

  So, you know, we seem to be going in the wrong direction when we 
really are going to have a much more scientifically, technically driven 
society, to be taking away the resource that enables us to make 
rational decisions as to what we should be investing in.
  I think it would be a terrible mistake to do away with OTA entirely.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear to the Members of the House this 
vote is a vote to determine whether there is a serious commitment to 
downsizing our own agencies and starting downsizing Government right 
here within our own legislative branch.
  On the Houghton amendment, the real choice is whether you want to 
downsize in the Library of Congress or whether you want to downsize 
OTA. The committee has studied this very carefully, and we have come to 
the conclusion that to eliminate an agency where the services could be 
rendered and done in another agency is a good move.
  We think we have made the right choice. We hope the Members of 
Congress will recognize that we are not eliminating the review process 
and the study process and the reporting process for science issues. It 
is simply a question of whether it is done in one agency or another.
  We think the Library of Congress can do it under the CRS. We think 
other agencies could do it. We do not think we need to preserve every 
agency that is current.
  There is no question in my mind that the status quo is not always the 
best. In this instance we think it is time for a change.
  We strongly urge that the Members of Congress vote to eliminate OTA, 
and to allow other agencies to do those functions that must be 
preserved and protected.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my 
good friend Amo Houghton to transfer $15 million in funding to the 
Congressional Research Service for the transfers of functions and 
personnel from the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA]. Efforts to 
eliminate funding for this program are a short-sighted move that 
Congress will regret as the OTA is an invaluable resource in 
determining the budgetary impact of new scientific developments.
  The OTA is a bipartisan agency that relies on technical and 
scientific expertise from a broad cross-section of industry, academia, 
and other well-respected institutions. The reports that OTA submit to 
congressional committees are thorough, top-notch documents that provide 
expert guidance in advising how Congress should adapt to emerging 
technologies.
  Furthermore, OTA is an efficient, unbiased organization that has made 
recommendations which have saved the U.S. Government millions of 
dollars. For example, the OTA's study of a Social Security 
Administration plan to purchase computers helped save the Government 
$368 million. Other OTA recommendations have been influential in public 
policy decisions. OTA's reports on preventative Medicare services 
validated the benefits of mammography screening in the elderly. Another 
study demonstrated how cost prohibitive it would be to institute 
cholesterol screening in the elderly.
  The point I am trying to make is that OTA is a proven organization 
that provides tangible benefits, expertise, and savings to Congress. 
Efforts to eliminate all of the functions and personnel of the OTA are 
misguided and I urge my colleagues to support the Houghton amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this effort to 
restore funding for the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA].
  As the chair of the Science Subcommittee on Technology, I can attest 
to the importance of OTA. It provides in-depth analyses of science and 
technology issues for Congress on a bipartisan basis. Reports are 
initiated only after OTA's congressional governing board, consisting of 
an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, agrees to proceed.
  OTA is a small agency that is able to do its job effectively because 
of its access to expertise from across the country, calling on 
industry, academia, and other experts to obtain free assistance. It has 
voluntarily reduced its management staff by 40 percent since 1993, and 
it continues to save Federal dollars by relying on temporary experts on 
staff. OTA's reports have led to important cost-saving innovations for 
our agencies as well.
  OTA's continued existence is critical to our resolution of 
complicated policy questions through an objective analysis of difficult 
issues. Currently, OTA is working on reports examining weapons 
proliferation, the human genome project, air traffic control, nuclear 
waste cleanup, and advanced telecommunications networks.
  The Houghton amendment proposes a 25-percent reduction in operating 
expenses for OTA, while still retaining its core function. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and to retain this valuable 
resource.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair will reduce 
to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote, if ordered, on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], if there is no 
intervening business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 201, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                               AYES--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse [[Page H 6196]] 
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--201

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (LA)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Parker
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Fattah
     Moakley
     Schumer
     Torres
     Wilson

                              {time}  1422

  Messrs. CANADY of Florida, GOODLATTE, ENSIGN, MOORHEAD, ZELIFF, 
HOBSON, LUTHER, WAMP, and SCHAEFER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. GOODLING, DAVIS, and MOLLOHAN 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.
                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, is it within the scope of the rules of this 
House and the rules of the Committee on Science for the chairman of 
that committee to call a vote after the bells have gone off, and all 
the Members on our side of the aisle have left that committee to come 
to vote, and then to take a recorded vote and have the people miss it? 
Is that within the rules of the House and the rules of the committee?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is no rule which precludes such voting in the 
committee.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman please, for the benefit 
of our Members, let us know what the rules of the Committee on Science 
are with respect to attendance, with regard to bells going off on this 
House floor for votes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not aware of a House rule affecting the 
Committee on Science's rules. The Committee on Science has its own 
rules, and the Chair assumes the membership knows those rules.
  Mr. DOGGETT. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman:
  Is there any mechanism available under the House rules that would 
permit a member of a committee where a vote has been called after a 
vote has been called here to be recorded in both places after the 
change in the House rules that abolished proxies?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is not a mechanism for that, but the Chair was 
informed that the members of the Committee on Science were voting, and 
the Chair waited until he saw them come in, and saw the chairman of the 
committee on Science come in and vote, and saw the chairman of the 
Committee on Science come in and vote before he called the end of the 
vote.
  Mr. DOGGETT. A further parliamentary inquiry then:
  How are the members of the Committee on Science to be advised of the 
Chair's awareness and decision to extend the vote beyond the degree 
provided in our rules?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was notified by the Democrat Cloakroom that 
there were people still voting in committee, and held the vote open 
until he saw them come on the floor.
  Ms. RIVERS. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, on the 
same issue then:
  Can we now expect that when committees vote during a rollcall vote 
here that all of us will have the opportunity to be recorded on the 
floor when we finish our duties in committee, that will be guaranteed 
to all Members who are participating in a committee vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would observe that it would hope the 
committee chairmen would not call votes during the course of a vote 
here on the floor.
  The Chair will also observe that the Chair has been keeping some 
votes open longer than the 17 minutes we intended to, and very nearly 
in the future the Chair is going to close votes within 17 minutes 
whether or not the Members are here.
  Ms. RIVERS. The question I am raising though, Mr. Chairman is that is 
a very flexible policy which is impossible to predict for someone who 
is not in the chair as you are. How do regular Members know they are 
going to be protected in an instance?
  For example, my concern is that I have been especially diligent and 
have never missed a vote on the floor, nor in committee. I have been at 
every committee hearing; I have been at committee activities when they 
have gone until 11 o'clock at night.
  I looked at the clock. I knew how long it took me to get here. There 
was inadequate time to do both of those things. I had to leave. There 
was no guarantee. No one came to me as a Committee on Science member, 
nor did anyone at the committee suggest that we would be accommodated 
in our need to vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has made her comment known to the 
entire House.
  Under rule VIII the House votes take primacy over the committee vote.
                 motion to rise offered by mr. volkmer

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
[[Page H 6197]]

                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 257, not voting 11, as follows:
  


                             [Roll No. 404]

                               AYES--166

  

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
  


                               NOES--257

  

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
  


                             NOT VOTING--11

  

     Boehner
     Gutierrez
     Hoyer
     Kaptur
     Minge
     Moakley
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Skaggs
     Torres
     Wilson

                              {time}  1443

  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                        parliamentary inquiries

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am not understanding the prior 
statement that was made. As a member of the Committee on Science, I am 
trying to understand the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. What is the gentlewoman's inquiry?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. The inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is reflecting on the 
gentlewoman from Michigan. Did the Chair give a ruling indicating that 
after the second bell, there was an opportunity to have reconsideration 
of a vote in a markup rollcall session in committee? Did the Chair give 
that ruling?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not give any ruling.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. So the Chair did not provide that protection, is the 
Chair saying?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has not the responsibility to provide 
protection. If this House wants to move to change its rules, it may do 
so. The Chair may not change the rules of the House or add rules to the 
House.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Did the Chair make any clarification that at least 
Members would be notified that votes were being held while the rollcall 
in committee was going on and a rollcall was going on on the floor?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not inform any Members that the vote 
would be held. What the Chair did say was under a House rule, No. 8, 
voting in the House takes priority interest.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, my final question, did the Chair not 
make a statement in this particular incident that the Chair had 
informed the Committee on Science chairman that the vote was being held 
on the floor for those Members?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not make that statement.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. That was my understanding, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. What the Chair did say was that the Chair had been 
notified by the Democratic Cloakroom that some Members would be late 
because a Committee vote was in progress. The Chair held the House vote 
open until he saw the chairman on the floor. The Chair has since found 
out the gentleman was the last one to leave the room.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I was in my prior parliamentary inquiry 
expressing concern about having to be two places at once. This is a 
different inquiry under our rules.
  My inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is, if a member of the Committee on Science 
or of any other committee of this House were serving on five or six 
committees and subcommittees, would that be a violation of the rules of 
the House?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole cannot give 
any anticipatory rulings at this point.
  Mr. DOGGETT. The Chair is advised that there are at least 30 Members 
of this House, including a member of the Committee on Science, who are 
serving on five or six appointments in violation of the rules of the 
House.
  The CHAIRMAN. That issue can be addressed in its proper context.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry, what remedy 
is available for a Member of this House to raise an objection to an 
open violation of the rules by a member of the Committee on Science or 
any other committee serving on five or six positions when the rules 
provide you can [[Page H 6198]] only serve on three? Is there any 
remedy?
  The CHAIRMAN. The rules provide that the House must approve certain 
subcommittee memberships and committee memberships.
  Mr. DOGGETT. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: Has there 
been any approval of the 30 Members who are serving on five or six 
committees? Has there been any waiver granted to them?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole cannot 
answer that at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 214, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 405]

                               AYES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--214

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Ehrlich
     Foglietta
     Hilliard
     Moakley
     Schumer
     Torres
     Wilson

                              {time}  1505

  So the amendment, as amended, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what reason does the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard] rise?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California moves that the committee 
do now rise. There is a motion on the floor. The gentleman from 
California has been recognized.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FAZIO of California. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, did you announce the vote? Mr. Chairman, did you 
announce the vote?
  Mr. BONIOR. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, we had 2 Members in the well with their 
voting cards out, and the vote was 214 to 213, and the gentleman in the 
Chair, respectfully I say to him, called the vote while two of our 
Members were voting. That, Mr. Chairman, is not fair. It is not right. 
This side of the aisle is not going to stand for it.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not correct.
  Mr. BONIOR. I would further add, Mr. Chairman----
  The CHAIRMAN. That was not a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has a 
privileged motion before the Committee. The gentleman will state his 
motion.
  Mr. PACKARD. The motion is to rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 190, not voting 11, as follows:
  


                             [Roll No. 406]

                               AYES--233

  

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen [[Page H 6199]] 
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
  


                               NOES--190

  

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
  


                             NOT VOTING--11

  

     Coburn
     de la Garza
     Greenwood
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Tejeda
     Torres
     Waxman
     Wilson

                              {time}  1528

  Messrs. BRYANT of Texas, OLVER, REED, NEAL of Massachusetts, JOHNSON 
of South Dakota, FIELDS of Louisiana, BAESLER, MILLER of California, 
PALLONE, MARKEY, TUCKER, SPRATT, MORAN, and DIXON changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GILLMOR, PAXON, BLILEY, KING, HOSTETTLER, SHADEGG, WALSH, and 
SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, 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. 1854) making 
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________