[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 103 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6213-H6226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). 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 further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 1854.

                              {time}  1217


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June 
21, 1995, amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 104-146 offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] had been disposed of.


   de novo vote on amendment offered by mr. fazio of california, as 
                                amended

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the Chair 
will now put the question de novo.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] be allowed to speak out of 
order for 2 minutes in order to underscore and explain the amendment 
that is about to be voted on.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will only 
consent to this request if we are given equal time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would amend my request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request now is that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Houghton] will be given 2 minutes, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard] will be given 2 minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] will be 
recognized for 2 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard] will be recognized for 2 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, rather than exercising my right to speak 
for 2 minutes, maybe I can handle this through a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Am I right that this is a revote on the Fazio 
amendment, amended by me yesterday?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me the time.
  I would reserve the balance of my time if the gentleman has yielded 
it to me.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close on this, so I will 
reserve the balance of my time.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, under what authority would 
the gentleman have the right to close on a unanimous-consent request 
that was divided?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] is the 
manager of the bill.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. But this is not on the bill. Under what 
authority would he have the right to close? This is a unanimous-consent 
request.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is additional controlled debate, permitted by 
unanimous consent, on an amendment to the bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I know we have had a lot of 
discussion this morning about Members [[Page H 6214]] who are aggrieved 
by the circumstances that occurred when this was last voted yesterday, 
and I certainly relate to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] and their concerns, but 
I think there is another individual Member who has been aggrieved as 
well, and I think that is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] worked very hard to bring 
to the floor a compromise amendment which allowed for a reduction in 
OTA of some $7 million, and yet under the aegis of the Library of 
Congress, kept this very important scientific advisory entity in 
existence. He worked his side of the aisle, and he found a majority; he 
found it once, and I believe he found it twice.
  He brings the perspective of perhaps the most successful businessman 
in this institution to this issue. He has made clear that he believes 
cutting our research and evaluation capability is not the way to 
downsize an institution, even the Congress of the United States.
  I hope when all Members choose their decision to vote now for the 
third time on this issue, they will affirm his position, they will vote 
to support his perspective and, I think, as well, will vote to confirm 
the fact that when you work the system right here in the Congress, no 
one, majority or minority, should be able to deprive you of having your 
day in court, the court of public opinion here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Houghton-Fazio amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that will preserve 
OTA but transfer it to the Library of Congress.
  The committee, in their bill, wants to allow the functions of OTA to 
be done at the Library of Congress or at other agencies that do 
scientific studies and reports that duplicate what now the OTA does, 
but the bill eliminates OTA.
  This amendment will preserve OTA, but transfer it to the Library of 
Congress. We think that if we are going to streamline, downsize, and 
consolidate duplicating services, the committee bill already does that.
  I must mention that the Speaker very strongly does not support this 
amendment and very strongly does not support gutting the Library of 
Congress. This amendment will take $16.5 million out of the Library of 
Congress. The Library of Congress would have to discontinue many of its 
functions in terms of its basic and core functions, in terms of 
cataloging. It would prevent a full quarter of the cataloging necessary 
for its new holdings, and it would also take away some of the services 
to the public. It would cut the preservation program by 15 to 20 
percent.
  It would also cut the infrastructure support, the automation program, 
personnel, and procurement processes. It would deeply hurt the Library 
of Congress.
  I urge the Members to vote against this amendment and to defeat the 
amendment to preserve the OTA, and to support the Speaker.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The Chair will now put the question de novo.
  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 he was in 
doubt.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 204, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 410]

                               AYES--220

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     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
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     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
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--204

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     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
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     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)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ackerman
     Chapman
     Harman
     Laughlin
     Moakley
     Parker
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Solomon
     Torres

                              {time}  1241

  Mr. SMITH of Texas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall 
410 [[Page H 6215]] to restore funds to the Office of Technology 
Assessment. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed 
in House Report 104-146.


                    amendment offered by mr. clinger

  Mr. CLINGER. 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. Clinger: Page 20, after line 10, 
     insert the following:
       In addition, for salaries and expenses of the Congressional 
     Budget Office necessary to carry out the provisions of title 
     I of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 104-
     4), as authorized by section 109 of such Act, $1,100,000.
       Page 26, beginning on line 12, strike ``operation and 
     maintenance of the American Folklife Center in the 
     Library;''.
       Page 26, line 19, after the first dollar figure, insert the 
     following: ``(less $1,165,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the 
amendment and would request the allocation of time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset I say that anybody who supported the 
unfunded mandates legislation which we passed earlier this year and 
which passed by an overwhelming vote, 390 Members in favor of that 
legislation, should indeed support this amendment. As I said at the 
time we debated the unfunded mandates legislation, this could be an 
effective way to reorder the Federal, State, and local relationship. It 
could also be an effective way to relieve the burdens which we imposed 
on State and local governments, but only if we were able to implement 
the law properly, and the CBO plays a vital role in the implementation 
of the unfunded mandates legislation. CBO must do the estimating as to 
whether or not the threshold of $50 million nationwide impact is 
reached or not. If it is not reached, then there is not a point of 
order lies. If it is reached, then a point of order does lie. The whole 
credibility of the unfunded mandates legislation would be called into 
question if those estimates are not accurate. If, in fact, they can be 
challenged or questioned or found to be somehow ineffective, then I 
think we lose the legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  What we have done is provide an offset of $1,100,000. That is not 
really sufficient to do the job CBO is charged to do under this 
legislation, but it will give them a good start on accomplishing that. 
We offset it from the Folklife Center in the Library of Congress. This 
is a program that is not authorized, it was not reauthorized. It is a 
program that receives a large amount of private sector funding, and we 
would encourage that to continue. It is also a program that frankly 
should go into the private sector for funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern is about the Folklife Center, which I know 
through personal experience to be a most useful entity and function of 
the Library of Congress. I visited with Chairman Clinger and Chairman 
Packard about this issue, and they have assured me, and I would like to 
engage the gentleman from California in a brief colloquy, that this 
function will not be decimated, that it will simply be rearranged. Am I 
correct in that understanding?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I think the American Folklife Center is 
important and ought to be retained. I cannot assure the gentleman from 
Missouri that it will be retained, because that will be a function of 
trying to work out this cut to the library appropriation. But certainly 
I would work toward that end.
  Mr EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. 
I know his commitment to the Folklife Center, and would like, as the 
process moves forward, to continue to work with him, and also in the 
authorization process, to ensure that this most vital function is 
indeed retained.
  I thank the gentleman for his generosity in yielding.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], a very valued member of the 
committee.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, why are we cutting the American Folklife 
Center? It is a great program, but I think the money can be raised from 
the private sector. It does not have to come from the governmental 
sector. More importantly, this money was deauthorized and is not 
authorized. This money is appropriated but does not have the proper 
authorization at this point.
  Why reprogram dollars to the Congressional Budget Office? I think the 
answer is very simple. Without this amendment, the unfunded mandates 
legislation that we passed in a bipartisan manner, both Houses of 
Congress, signed by the President, will have no teeth, because the CBO, 
who does the estimating on the costs of each mandate so that we will 
know what they will cost States and localities and the private sector, 
will not be able to do it. It will be gutted completely.
  Let us not undo the unfunded mandates reform that a bipartisan 
Congress and the President passed this spring and the President signed 
into law. Without this amendment, that is exactly what we are doing. So 
I rise in support of the Clinger amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I simply want to say at this point I am in a difficult position. I 
have been urging the chairman of this committee to provide additional 
funding to CBO. I do think they are going to need at least $2.5 million 
to take on their new responsibilities. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Davis, I think just outlined, as Chairman Clinger has, the 
responsibility that we have to give CBO the resources to do what we 
have just asked them to do in the first 100 days of this Congress.
  But I do not want to do it on the back of the Folklife Center. The 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the House 
Committee on Oversight, tells us that they will take up the 
authorization of this entity in due time. But if this amendment is 
adopted, there is obviously insufficient support for it, and therefore 
he may not even take up the authorization.
  I think people who believe that the Folklife Center has value, as I 
do, ought to vote against this amendment, and we ought to find 
additional 602(b) allocations to this subcommittee to help CBO when we 
get to conference. This is obviously a conferrable item with the 
Senate, a joint item we will both have to consider.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the Members of the House who do 
not know what the American Folklife Center is, I did not either, until 
I came on the House a couple years ago and we had an authorization bill 
under suspension, and I was told at the door that this was Lawrence 
Welk's homestead all over again. So like a hoard of other people, I 
voted no, only to get back to my office and have a phone call from a 
constituent, who happened to be chairman of the board of the American 
Folklife Center.
  I learned out in a hurry what it was all about. I want to say now I 
am a believer. I have seen it. There are about 12 full-time equivalents 
there. Last year they served the needs of 9,000 researchers, a 
wonderful repository of American folklife and folklore.
  One small example of what they do: Years ago, wax cylinders were made 
recording Indian chiefs and Indians of western tribes, recollections of 
their [[Page H 6216]] tribe, native music and things of this kind. 
These were languishing somewhere in the Library of Congress. This 
organization brought them forth, perfected them, made them into 
digitized CD-ROM's, and now we have that resource preserved. We need 
some organization that is committed to this. For $1.25 million, surely 
we can continue this kind of enterprise.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds merely to say 
last year the American Folklife Center raised $330,000 in private 
funding. It obviously does attract a great deal of private support. The 
other point I would make is that under our amendment, we do in no way 
limit the Library of Congress in the ability to apply funds to that 
purpose, if they so choose.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I will take a short time just to say I am 
not going to actively oppose this amendment, but I do have some 
concerns about continually raiding the Library of Congress. The last 
amendment that passed was $16.5 million. This is another $1.165 
million. That does give me some concerns. I hope we can find a way to 
protect and preserve the American Folklife Center.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the motives of the 
gentleman. He has to find money for the unfunded mandates. But clearly 
the American Folklife Center is not the place to cut, and would be a 
devastating cut. What we are basically doing is hurting the culture, 
the diverse culture, of this country.
  This Library of Congress Folklife Center has 1.5 million manuscripts, 
sound recordings, photographs, films, and periodicals. It is unique in 
the world. It reveals our history through collections of conservations, 
arts, crafts, songs, traditions of everyday Americans, our cowboy 
history, our native American history, our Mexican-American history.
  I have had many constituents call with great concerns about what this 
cut would do. This is not the right thing to do. We should not go after 
this center that is good, that is well-managed, and I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Clinger amendment because I 
believe there is nothing more sacred to the people of this country than 
our rich, diverse culture.
  The American Folklife Center housed in the Library of Congress 
maintains 1.5 million manuscripts, sound recordings, photographs, 
films, and periodicals. It is unique in the world. It reveals our 
history through collections of conversations, arts, crafts, songs, and 
traditions of everyday Americans.
  My State of New Mexico has a particularly diverse history. Ranchers 
rose every day of their lives to herd cattle and sing songs around the 
campfire during cattle drives and the Folklife Center provides the only 
recordings and conversations we have of this folk cultures.
  Mexican-Americans in New Mexico settled this country long before 
Columbus landed on Plymouth Rock. Their rich contributions to our 
culture should be and are chronicled in the John Donald Robb collection 
of Spanish-American folksongs and similar artifacts.
  New Mexico is also blessed with a rich Native American culture. The 
American Folklife Center documents that culture with early recordings 
of Zuni songs and folklore, which date back to 1890. There are also 
recordings from the eight Pueblos in northern New Mexico, and materials 
from the Mascalero and Chiricahua Apache peoples.
  As a nation, we have done more to destroy native American culture 
than to preserve it; recent appropriation bills would kill all funding 
for the National Museum of American Indian that would have been built 
here in Washington. Let's do the right thing and preserve the American 
Folklife Center collection of native American culture.
  The American Folklife Center brings history to life like no other 
museum we have. It keeps pieces of our history alive for future 
generations to understand. When our children want to know what songs 
their relatives sang, or what native American language sounded like 100 
years ago, the Folklife Center can provide that information.
  The center has been part of the Library of Congress since 1928--it 
survived the Depression and post-World War II downsizing, surely we can 
preserve it now.
  It is internationally renowned and heavily used. It's the sort of 
education that we must continue to cherish and fund.
  The center's budget includes not just programs but collections. Its 
Archive of Folk Culture contains nearly 1.5 million sound recordings, 
photographs, manuscripts, and other unique materials representing 
American and (to a smaller extent) world folk music, folklore, and 
folklife traditions.
  The Archive has been part of the Library since 1928, surviving the 
1930's, the post-WWII downsizing, and other vicissitudes. It is 
internationally renowned and heavily used. Users include researchers, 
publishing and record companies from the private sector, and members of 
the communities documented in the collections. Its American Indian 
holdings alone are unparalleled in the world; its African-American 
holdings are unequalled. Every State, every region, and nearly every 
ethnic group are likewise represented.
  The collections-based portion of the center's budget amounts to 
approximately three-fourths of the total budget; the other one-fourth 
covers programs and general operations overhead.
  The center in 1994 raised or leveraged funds amounting to about 
$350,000, or one-third again the appropriated budget. Fund-raising will 
continue to increase. But fund-raising for the basic collections 
support is difficult if not impossible. That base of public support, 
for the center and the Library as a whole, is what the public as well 
as donors expect the Congress to fund.
  Some supporters of the idea of removing the center's budget cite the 
Western Folklife Center in Elko, NV, as an example of a folklife center 
succeeding on private funding. This is not true, as the artistic 
director of the Western Folklife Center, Hal Cannon, testifies. First, 
that center has benefited greatly from tax-based support--Federal, 
State, and local. Second, the Western Folklife Center does not have the 
responsibility for a unique and heavily used national archive of 1.5 
million items; the personnel to support such a collection adequately--
acquisitions, processing, preservation, reference services--cannot be 
maintained by raising private funds.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], a very valuable member 
of the committee, a supporter of this legislation, and a cosponsor of 
this legislation.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, in March the President signed the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act into law. We all debated that issue on the floor, 
and we are all well aware we needed to take action that would require 
us under the new law to come up with money to pay for the studies that 
CBO had to do.
  That is basically what we are doing here today, is meeting our 
obligation to come up with some money. It is probably not enough money. 
We will have to do this again. It is unfortunate we have to take the 
money from the American Folklife Center. I understand that and am 
sympathetic to this. Somebody needs to speak on behalf of local 
government, county government, and State government on this issue. We 
have to do an assessment of the mandates so that we can get an actual 
cost. That is basically what we are doing today. We are doing it for 
local and State governments, and we need to be supportive of that 
amendment.
  In addition to that, it has been mentioned, and I will reiterate for 
the Members on our side, this is an activity that has the support of 
the private citizens, and they can raise the money and it is a way for 
us to go. I am just saying we can move to the private sector and we can 
raise some money to help this American Folklife Center, as well as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] mentioned that we might be able 
to conference this and work out another solution. If we can do that, 
that is great.
  But we have to fulfill our commitment on the unfunded mandate. The 
President signed the law. We in Congress need to come up with this 
component to make it happen. So ask all Members to vote in support of 
the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman], an architect of the unfunded mandates legislation 
and a strong supporter of this amendment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, by necessity. Let me say 
I think the Folklife Center can get a lot more in private funding. They 
did raise $330,000 in 1994, three times what they raised in 1990. The 
one in the western region does it entirely by private funds. I think 
that offset can be handled. [[Page H 6217]] 
  If you voted for the unfunded mandate bill, you should vote ``yes'' 
on this amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate the importance of the Folklife 
Center. I think we all understand we ought to fulfill our 
responsibility to CBO to allow them to do the workload we have just 
given them, and I am certainly hopeful we will do that in conference. 
But I would not want Members to vote for this amendment, because if 
they do, they will end up doing in the Folklife Center at a time when 
it may be impossible to resurrect it and bring it back as an authorized 
entity.
  The American Folklife Center has been an integral part of the Library 
of Congress since 1977, but really 1928 as the archives of folk 
culture. Its budget includes not just programs, but collections; 1.5 
million sound recordings, photographs, manuscripts, films, videos, 
periodicals, and other unique materials representing American and to 
some smaller degree world folk music, folk lore and folk life 
traditions.
  This is something we ought not to be doing in for $1.5 million. This 
is an entity that ought to be preserved. They will be raising more and 
more private fund sector funds, as the library in general is, but if we 
do them in, they will not be in a position to do that. I urge Members 
defeat this amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we will be delaying 
votes until the end. Does the rule call for this vote to be a 15-minute 
vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. This vote will be a 15-minute vote. Amendments 8 
through 11 will then be debated and the votes held until the end.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260, 
noes 159, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 411]

                               AYES--260

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--159

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Graham
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Browder
     Chapman
     Ford
     Johnson (CT)
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Moakley
     Parker
     Pelosi
     Richardson
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Stokes
     Torres

                              {time}  1314

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Lazio of New York for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Messrs. BISHOP, EWING, POMEROY, and EDWARDS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, PORTER, and LIGHTFOOT changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed 
in House Report 104-146.


                     amendment offered by mr. orton

  Mr. ORTON. 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. Orton: Page 25, strike lines 14 
     through 20. Page 32, line 16, strike ``$16,312,000'' and 
     insert ``$23,312,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes. Who 
seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair will repeat, the request for recorded votes on the next 
four amendments will be postponed until completion of amendment No. 11, 
pursuant to House Resolution 169.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
[[Page H 6218]]

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Before beginning, Mr. Chairman, since the House continues to waive 
its own rules prohibiting committees from meeting in voting session at 
the same time we are in voting session on the floor, I am currently 
missing recorded votes in the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services on a bill of which I am a cosponsor, to be here to present 
this amendment on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is deficit neutral. It is also simple. It 
shifts $7 million of increased spending on the Botanic Garden to 
restore $7 million of cuts in the Federal depository library program. 
Since 1985 the Federal depository library program has been a 
partnership between the Federal Government and 1,400 libraries around 
the Nation to provide the public with local access to Government 
information and documents.
  There is widespread use of these libraries, Mr. Chairman. One hundred 
sixty-seven thousand Americans per week utilize these collections. The 
legislation before us would cut 50 percent of funding from these 
libraries. Overall, this bill cuts only 8 percent of legislative branch 
appropriations, and actually increases spending on the Botanic Garden 
by over 200 percent.
  The Botanic Garden in the 1995 appropriation was $3 million. In 1996 
it is $10 million. The $7 million increase is the first of a 3-year $21 
million appropriation for construction on the Botanic Garden. The 
future of the garden is uncertain. It is listed for transfer from the 
Congress to the Department of Agriculture. The House is also 
considering proposals to privatize or move the garden.
  Cutting spending is tough business. In doing so, we must set 
priorities. In this Member's opinion, funding 14,000 libraries is a 
higher priority than constructing improvements on a building with a 
very uncertain future. Even the Architect of the Capitol, in testifying 
before the committee, stated the construction improvements would be of 
low priority, and the Botanic Garden would be subject to consideration 
for privatization.
  Mr. Chairman, I will refer to two letters which will be included, 
urging support for my amendment. One is from the American Library 
Association, and the other is a letter from both the American 
Association
 of Law Libraries and the Association of Research Libraries.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a sensible, deficit-neutral approach 
that will restore $7 million in critical funding to the Federal 
Depository Library Program--a true hallmark of our democratic society.
  Since 1895, this community-based partnership between the public and 
private sectors has provided unfettered public access to Government 
information--access that is vital to effective citizen participation in 
the democratic process. The Federal Depository Library Program is a 
partnership between 1,400 designated depository libraries and the 
Federal Government--the sole purpose of which is to disseminate 
Government information to the public, free of charge.
  To give you an idea of the widespread use of the services provided by 
this program, the Public Printer testified earlier this year that more 
than 167,000 persons utilize Federal Depository library collections 
nationwide each week.
  The GPO's 1996 request for the Depository Library Program was $2 
million less than the funding level for the previous year. The Public 
Printer testified that this request was sufficient to maintain program 
responsibilities, while also managing the transition to the appropriate 
use of electronic media.
  But, now these facilities are being asked to accommodate a 50 percent 
increase in electronically formatted copies, while taking a 50 percent 
cut in their funding source. While overall, the fiscal year 1996 
legislative branch appropriations bill only represents an 8 percent cut 
from last year's funding level.
  The purpose of the committee's 50 percent reduction in funding is to 
hasten the transition to electronic publishing, by requiring that 
executive branch agencies reimburse the GPO for the costs of producing 
and distributing paper and microfiche documents to depository 
libraries. The reduction in funding is a disincentive for Government 
agencies to participate in the Federal Depository Library Program.
  This will result in a drastic reduction in the number of printed 
documents produced by the agencies, and will ultimately hinder free 
public access to Government information. Also, these deep cuts will 
result in new costs to depository libraries, as more time and effort 
will have to be expended to locate and acquire Government agency 
information products.
  The president of the American Library Association testified earlier 
in the year that additional equipment and support would have to be 
provided to the depository libraries in order to implement the overly 
aggressive electronic program proposed in this legislation. 
Furthermore, some of the smaller, rural, public libraries don't have 
the necessary resources or the technology that the larger, research 
libraries have.
  But, the GPO and the depository libraries recognize the increasing 
need to move to an effective, electronically-based program, and they 
are making great strides in new technology. The GPO Access System was 
created to provide no-fee, online dissemination--via the Internet--of 
such publications as the Congressional Record and the Federal Register. 
Now, the public has free access to this service, either through on-site 
equipment at depository libraries or through off-site electronic 
gateways established in cooperation with the libraries.
  As important as this transition to electronic dissemination of 
information is, one must realize that not all Government information 
can be distributed electronically. Since the informational needs of 
each community are different, it is important to maintain a variety of 
formats--including print and microfiche.
  The distribution of electronic copies has been steadily increasing, 
with about 454,000 copies projected for fiscal year 1996--a 50-percent 
increase over fiscal year 1995.
  If we are to expect our Federal depository libraries to provide free, 
convenient access to Government information, we must allow for a more 
sufficient period of transition to an electronically-based program.
  My amendment restores $7 million to this vital program, asking our 
depository libraries to take a more reasonable cut of 22 percent from 
the GPO's request.
  I would now like to discuss the source of this critical funding.
  The fiscal year 1995 appropriation for the Botanic Garden was $3.23 
million. This legislation provides an appropriation of $10.053 million 
for fiscal year 1996; that represents a 200-percent increase at a time 
when other agencies and operations are being asked to take their share 
of cuts.
  The $7 million increase over last year has been provided for a 
renovation of the Botanic Garden's conservatory. This is one of three, 
annual $7 million expenditures to carry out this renovation. It would 
be nice to find the funding for this renovation, but we must set 
priorities for our limited resources.
  During hearings before the legislative branch appropriations 
subcommittee, the question was raised as to whether this renovation 
expenditure should be reconsidered in light of suggestions to privatize 
the Botanic Garden. Questions were also raised as to the primary 
function of the Botanic Garden.
  The Architect of the Capitol agreed that the Botanic Garden's 
function is limited, and that the only reason for housing the facility 
in its current place is for historical reasons.
  One of the members of the subcommittee suggested that the Botanic 
Garden might be able to serve its function better if it were privately 
funded. It was also suggested that services could be obtained from 
local landscape and nursery contractors.
  Finally, the Architect was asked the following question: ``If the 
committee asked the Architect's office to reduce their budget by 10, 
15, 20, or 25 percent for the next budget year, would this (Botanic 
Garden) be a low-priority item that you would recommend spinning off to 
privatize?''
  The Architect's response: ``It would.''
  One must ask the question: Should we be spending valuable resources 
on renovating a facility whose ultimate fate has not been determined?
  We are faced here with a question of priorities--increased funding 
for a limited facility in Washington, DC, or a much needed investment 
in the 1,400 depository libraries throughout the country.
  Let us ease the transition of our depository libraries to electronic 
dissemination of information, and assist these facilities in carrying 
out their primary objective--which is to provide vital Government 
information to the public.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the information I referred to.
  The information referred to is as follows:

                                              American Association


                                             of Law Libraries,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 1995.
     Hon. William Orton,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Orton: On behalf of the American 
     Association of Law Libraries and the Association of Research 
     Libraries, we would like to express our gratitude to you for 
     offering an amendment to H.R. 1854 to restore $7 million to 
     the Government Printing Office's Salaries and Expenses (S&E) 
     appropriations. As you know, this [[Page H 6219]] fund 
     supports the Depository Library Program which provides 
     government information in all formats to over 1,400 
     Congressionally designated depository libraries.
       We are very concerned that the proposed fifty percent 
     reduction in funding for S&E, shifting the cost burden to 
     agencies as an unfunded mandate, will drastically reduce the 
     number of documents disseminated to the American public 
     through depository libraries. Further, we believe that the 
     need for a well-studied transition period Must be recognized 
     as the government converts to an effective electronically-
     based environment.
       Thank you again for offering this amendment to restore 
     funding for the Depository Library Program. We are very 
     appreciative of your efforts and grateful for your support.
           Sincerely,
     Robert L. Oakley,
                                Washington Affairs Representative.
     Prudence S. Adler,
                                Association of Research Libraries,
     Assistant Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                 American Library Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 1995.
     Hon. William Orton,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Orton: On behalf of the American Library 
     Association, I write to tell you of our support for your 
     amendment to restore $7,000,000 to the Superintendent of 
     Documents Salaries and Expenses Appropriation as the House of 
     Representatives considers H.R. 1854, the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations for FY96. The House Appropriations Committee 
     cut this appropriation by 50 percent from the FY95 funding 
     level, a cut far in excess of the overall 8 percent reduction 
     in the bill for the Legislative Branch. Additionally, H.R. 
     1854 amends the statute governing the Depository Library 
     Program, a procedure not appropriate on an appropriations 
     bill.
       The SuDocs Salaries and Expenses appropriation funds the 
     Depository Library Program which provides government 
     publications in print, microfiche and electronic formats to 
     constituents through the nearly 1,400 Congressionally 
     designated depository libraries. This drastic cut does not 
     provide for the orderly transition that the government must 
     follow to assure that its statutory requirements are 
     fulfilled to disseminate government information to the public 
     under Title 44, United States Code.
       While intended to encourage agencies to publish 
     electronically, this slash in the appropriation will more 
     likely result in a great reduction in the number of printed 
     documents made available to the public. Agencies have not 
     budgeted in FY96 for depository copies. Agencies may well 
     shirk their responsibilities to disseminate agency 
     information and the number of fugitive documents--those that 
     escape the program--may increase enormously.
       Additionally, the deep cuts in appropriations for the 
     Depository Library Program will result in an unfunded mandate 
     for the state and local governments that support 
     depositories, and result in additional costs to participating 
     libraries as more time and effort will be invested to locate 
     and acquire publications. Many libraries will not have the 
     money to buy the equipment and paper needed to provide on-
     demand print service to the public.
       A 1992 survey of depository libraries confirmed that 
     participating libraries make significant contributions in 
     personnel, equipment, facilities, and resources (including 
     resources beyond those provided by the Government Printing 
     Office) to carry out their part of the partnership with the 
     government to ensure that the American people have equitable 
     and ready access to federal information.
       The likely result of the change in funding and the shift to 
     an electronic Depository Library Program is a loss of 
     information to the American public as the government 
     undergoes a transition from a print-based to an electronic 
     environment. In 1994, GPO acquired, cataloged, and 
     distributed approximately 21 million copies of 65,000 
     documents to depository libraries for about $1 a copy. Of 
     these titles, only 306 were in electronic format.
       In addition, the GPO Access System now provides 24-hour no-
     fee public access through depository libraries and gateways 
     to the Congressional Record, Federal Register, text of all 
     published versions of bills introduced in Congress, the 
     History of Bills, the U.S. Code, and Public Laws of the 104th 
     Congress. GPO plans a gateway in every state. But that 
     development is in jeopardy because Congress required GPO 
     Access to be funded by cost savings from the GPO's 
     distribution of publications. With the reduction you are 
     being asked to vote on today, GPO will no longer be able to 
     support and expand the resources of GPO Access.
       The American Library Association is also very concerned 
     about the Appropriations Committee's decision to publish only 
     on CD-ROM the Serial Set and the bound Congressional Record. 
     Everyone does not have access yet to a computer for their 
     information needs. The elimination of the print format of 
     these very important titles will create information have-
     nots. Further, these two publications are at the core of 
     Congressional information and serve as the official record of 
     the daily activities of Congress. The longevity and 
     durability of the CD-ROM format remain untested. In addition, 
     the paper format has always served as the permanent and 
     official record.
       Congress should hold hearings and study the cost 
     effectiveness and impact of these policy changes on public 
     access to government information.
       The American Library Association deeply appreciates your 
     willingness to offer an amendment to restore funds to the 
     appropriations for the Depository Library Program. ALA is a 
     nonprofit educational organization of 57,000 librarians, 
     library trustees, and friends of libraries.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arthur Curley,
                          President, American Library Association.

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear to the Members of the House, we 
are not going to cut in this bill our commitment to the depository 
libraries. What we are doing in this bill is requesting that the 
agencies of Government, including the administration agencies in the 
executive branch, as they provide documents printing for depository 
libraries, they will have to pay for their own print on paper rather 
than having the GPO pay for it out of their own funds. Therefore, the 
work will still be done. It is just that we are transferring the costs 
to those that require the printing to be done.
  In reference to the conservatory, this is a historic building. We all 
see it. It is the glass building right here close to Capitol Hill. It 
is falling apart. We simply have to preserve and protect it, as well as 
to repair it, or else it will simply not be able to be visited by 
people who want to visit the exhibits, because of safety reasons.
  We have worked out a program where we have cut them back in their 
request for construction money from $28 million to $21 million. If we 
take this $7 million away, then we may lose the private funds that are 
being raised and contributed for the purpose of the National Garden, 
but we also undercut the entire process of renovation. We think that 
would be a very sad mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, it is only right that the agencies that request the 
printing to be done pay for their own requests. That is all our bill 
does. This would frustrate that process. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Orton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot promote the general welfare unless the 
citizens are informed. Our people cannot fruitfully engage in the 
pursuit of happiness in this complicated information age unless they 
are informed. For the past 100 years Congress has paid for Government 
publications to be sent to depository libraries located in each of our 
districts across the country. The depository library program ensures 
that ordinary citizens can have access to Government information, but 
H.R. 1854 reverses 100 years of precedent by having executive branch 
agencies reimburse the Government Printing Office for their 
publications. I assure the Members, no executive branch agency will 
have it as a priority. They will not do it.
  H.R. 1854 also mandates a massive shift from print to electronic 
dissemination of information. However, in promoting a ``cyber 
government'', the bill ignores the fact that we cannot electronically 
reach most of our constituents through these libraries. They are not 
wired. They do not have the ability to receive electronic information.
  Mr. Chairman, information must be produced not only in electronic 
formats, but also in traditional print formats, in order to accommodate 
the wide range of the majority of our people's needs and abilities. 
Many citizens are not yet ready to use Government information in an 
electronic format. Most libraries do not have the capacity to receive 
it that way.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1854 also eliminates the availability of free 
copies of the Congressional Record that we send to our public schools, 
hospitals, and nonprofit libraries, not to mention free copies of 
bills, reports, and other documents that we supply. These proposed 
changes do not take us anywhere. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
amendment.
[[Page H 6220]]

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the bill number is H.R. 1854. The concept 
driving this amendment is truly circa 1854. No one is talking about 
cutting off depository libraries from getting information. In fact, we 
want to promote it. What we do not want to encourage is a central paper 
printing process which then produces a bulk paper product, which is 
then shipped across country, and then made available at a depository 
library. That is what we are trying to change.
  More than 90 percent of the libraries transmit, send, and receive 
electronic data today. What we are trying to do is tell the executive 
branch agencies we are not going to fund them. I have no quarrel with 
where the money comes from, the Botanic Garden, that is a secondary 
issue. It is up to those people to decide what they are going to do.
  I object strenuously, that they are taking money from congressional 
sources and funding an executive branch agency when they do not want to 
spend the money themselves. We should not be forced to pay the money 
for the executive branch to pay for perpetuating an 1854 paper world. 
What we want to do is get up to speed in sending that same data
 electronically, and by CD ROM. If taxpayers want a hard copy at the 
depository library, the library will produce it there. Taxpayers do not 
pay for shipping wood, printed on wood, across country. That is what 
they did in the 19th century.

  What we are trying to do is stop that. This amendment perpetuates it. 
It is wrong. It may be revenue neutral, but the concept is wrong. 
Unfortunately, I am going to ask Members to vote against the amendment 
of the gentleman from Utah.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has 1 minute 
remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman, I would say we do need to 
gear up the electronic highway, we do need to transmit information 
electronically. Hopefully, this will save us costs. However, the 
reality is costs and transition time to shift to an electronic-based 
program, while placing an additional burden on the libraries in the 
immediate future.
  Demand for electronic copies is projected to increase by 50 percent 
in just 1 year. A 50-percent cut in funding right now will make it 
impossible to meet this demand.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, the informational needs of each community are 
different. Not every community in America has an off ramp from the 
electronic highway. Not all Government information can be distributed 
electronically. It is critical to provide documents and Federal 
information by print, microfiche, and CD ROM. The result of a 50 
percent budget cut would be significant reduction of services and 
elimination of some Federal depository libraries.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues postpone the $7 million 
capital construction to the building of uncertain future, and let us 
continue to fund the Federal depository libraries. I urge support for 
my amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee removed from the conservatory 
construction funds $7 million in this year 1995 rescission bill. We 
have already cut them back $7 million. To cut them back an additional 
$7 million would be simply gutting the renovation process.
  Let me speak very briefly to the idea of access to the electronic 
equipment and information, Mr. Chairman. Virtually all, over 90 percent 
of the depository libraries, have access to electronic information 
through Internet and other electronic access equipment. To say that 
they cannot access it is simply not true. Furthermore, we ought to push 
them toward access. We ought to nudge them toward putting in the 
equipment that would give them access to electronic information and 
facilitate that process.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, if we move this process to the electronic age, 
we will save more than the $7 million that we are trying to save in 
paperwork that is now being printed. We will save it with the 
electronic age.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] will be 
postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed 
in House Report 104-146.


                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. 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. Klug: Page 34, line 24, strike out 
     ``3,900'' and insert in lieu thereof ``3,550''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard] and the fine work the Committee on Appropriations has 
done to this point in trying to execute one of the key platforms of the 
Republican agenda, now that we have taken control of the House, and 
that is a trend toward prviatization.
  This appropriations bill we have in front of us today does it when it 
comes to the beauty shop and barber shop here in the House, the 
elimination of the folding room, and we all hope the eventual sale of a 
powerplant that the U.S. Congress actually owns and operates.
  I have to tell the Members that I think this amendment is far too 
timid when it comes to the matter of the Government Printing Office. 
Mr. Chairman, the Government Printing Office has 4,000 employees in it, 
which essentially serve at the will of Congress itself to print 
documents connected to our business here. I think we have to ask 
ourselves why it is in 1995 that we run a printing plant.
  There are 115,000 private printers in the United States. Assuredly 
one of them is capable of printing the Congressional Record at much 
more reduced costs than what we presently pay the Government Printing 
Office on a regular basis. Since 1991 the GPO has lost money every 
year. For my colleagues here in 1994, they may remember the bizarre 
situation where GPO lost business and suddenly decided it had to raise 
rates in order to make up for the shortfall. What business in America, 
if they lose business, would suddenly increase their costs?
                              {time}  1330

  This amendment we have in front of us, Mr. Chairman, will reduce the 
Government Printing Office staffing levels. The Subcommittee on 
Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations has already reduced it 
from 4,200 to 3,900. This amendment will reduce it by another 350 
slots. In the long run, what we hope we will accomplish is a glide path 
to force the Government Printing Office to essentially become a 
procurement agency in the next several years and to close down the 
printing function altogether. In fact, the committee report itself 
directs the Public Printer to study the outsourcing of both security 
personnel and custodial care which account for 144 of the 350 positions 
that we are discussing today.
  I think this amendment is absolutely crucial if we are going to be 
serious about privatization in this House.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. [[Page H 6221]] 
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talks about a printing plant. I hope the 
gentleman has visited that plant. In point of fact, it is in the 
Internet, it is on the World Net. It, in fact, has the state of the art 
technology in terms of information transfer available to it. 
Individuals anywhere in this country can get the Congressional Record 
and other Government documents in their home and can print it, 
presuming that they have the proper facilities, as we get it ourselves.
  The fact of the matter is, in addition, 80 percent of the GPO's 
workload is contracted out right now to the private sector. The fact of 
the matter is there are certain things; namely the Congressional Record 
and other documents that we need inhouse for security reasons or other 
reasons.
  The gentleman talks about a glide path. Approximately 5,000 employees 
3 years ago, down to 4,104. This bill brings them down to 3,900. They 
are on a glide path, they are reinventing, they are downsizing.
  This will cost 20 million additional dollars. The reason being, 
because it will require RIF's, 554 to be exact if they come down that 
fast, and there will be a tremendous cost, not a cost savings.
  This is a bad amendment, it is not timely, and it will undermine the 
ability to get the information that this Congress needs in a timely 
fashion.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], who has been an absolute tireless champion on 
reform of the Government Printing Office and has been a mentor on this 
issue since I first got here in 1990.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  As the ranking Republican Member on the House-Senate Joint Committee 
on Printing, I have been alarmed with the dramatic losses being 
incurred by the GPO. The gentleman from Maryland asked if anybody has 
been down to the GPO. I have, many, many times.
  This year the GPO estimates its losses to be nearly $10 million. The 
Joint Committee has requested four different studies over the last 
several years to be conducted by the GAO, and Arthur Andersen, and the 
Public Printer's GPO 2000 study, to determine the cause and options to 
reduce these losses. This is $10 million.
  I think it is far more sensitive to employees to really gradually try 
to reduce the work force, if we can, than at a future date to be forced 
to totally eliminate the entire agency.
  The gentleman from Maryland has indicated that the argument that we 
are going to have RIF's here and it is going to cost money--that is 
false and shortsighted. We do not have to go to RIF's. The GPO can do 
it. It is not required to utilize RIF's. Even if the GPO chooses to do 
so, the amendment will still save taxpayers over $6 million.
  We are talking about 350 positions. This has been a glidepath but, 
again, this agency has lost over $10 million. They are under orders 
from the Joint Committee to quit losing money, and it is not the fault 
of the employees. It is that the GPO is the victim of a technological 
revolution in regard to printing.
  The gentleman's amendment is in good standing. It is the continued 
way to go to save money. We will await the studies and see if we can 
make further savings. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to the Klug-Roberts amendment. The Government Printing Office has 
served our country for 100 years and they still have a vital role.
  Just to clarify for the American people, to give them a sense of what 
this agency does on a daily basis, they produce 20,000 copies of the 
Congressional Record, 32,000 copies of the Federal Register, 26,000 
copies of Commerce Business Daily and process nearly 2,000 orders from 
the American people. All of this is being done despite a 50-percent 
decrease in staff since 1975.
  I would submit that in fact the committee considered this issue very 
thoroughly. They made reductions to the tune of 200 positions that are 
being reduced. This amendment would add to that 350, and rest assured, 
you cannot do 550 positions without some additional cost. You cannot do 
it all through attrition. There will in fact be some cost as a result 
of RIF's.
  But the final point I would like to make is this: They do it 
efficiently. They produce the overnight service, the 24-hour turnaround 
that is required to meet our needs. There is no plant, no facility on 
the east coast, in the mid-Atlantic area that has shown the capacity to 
deliver this work product in a timely, efficient, and most importantly 
consistent manner as the Government Printing Office.
  I believe I would have to return to the old adage: ``If it ain't 
broke, don't fix it.''
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I assume I have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], a member of 
the committee, has the right to close.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me respond to a couple of points, if I can, Mr. Chairman. First 
of all the argument that nobody on the east coast is capable of doing 
this work.
  Somewhere in India or Bangkok today a reporter from the Wall Street 
Journal will file a story, it will be edited in New York, sent up on a 
satellite dish, and the Wall Street Journal will end up on my doorstep 
the next morning in Madison, WI. Assuredly somebody is capable on the 
east coast of publishing the Congressional Record overnight.
  In terms of the cost of RIF's, let's make it very clear on the 
arithmetic for everybody who is in this Chamber today. On the average 
it costs us $55,000 an employee at the Government Printing Office. The 
one-time cost if we have to end up paying those people a RIF is 
$25,000. That means at a minimum we save $30,000 a year on each single 
employee. It does not cost us money. It saves us $6 million.
  In the long run if what we are interested in is attempting to save 
money and to move toward privatization, then it is clear we have got to 
be very aggressive on privatizing services in the Government Printing 
Office, and RIF'ing, and eliminating another 350 positions is exactly 
the way to do it.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], a former chairman of the 
Joint Committee on Printing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I 
would love to let the Wall Street Journal print the Congressional 
Record if we could sell ads, but that is another day.
  The point is clear: In my opinion, as for 4 years I was chairman of 
the House Administration Committee and either chairman or vice chairman 
of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Government Printing Office is 
on a glide path as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] so well put. 
It will cost money. It will cost money if we have to reduce under this 
amendment as quickly as this amendment says we should.
  I am in sympathy with the objects that the gentleman who authored 
this amendment had. But let me tell you a little story. The other 
night, the White House wanted something printed in color and they were 
a little afraid to work it through the Government Printing Office, so 
they went to Kinko's to get 30--however many copies they needed--
Kinko's in Washington. Kinko's could not handle it as quickly as they 
wanted it, so they farmed it out all over town.
  It wound up costing $30,000. It would have cost $5,000 if it had been 
procured, and that is what GPO basically is today, is a procurement 
shop. It would have been $5,000 if it had been procured through GPO, in 
color. It would have been $3,000 if it had been done in black and 
white. THe quick turnaround time necessary for printing the documents 
that we use in this institution is what keeps this work force alive and 
in necessary for us.
  My colleagues, I beg you, let's don't speed up the glide path that 
the Government Printing Office is on now. You are going to pull a nose 
dive off that is [[Page H 6222]] going to have a crash and is going to 
cost us a lot more than if the normal path that has already been set up 
for many years now is followed.
  The Government Printing Office is basically a procurement shop. I do 
not want the Defense Department being able to go out and choose 
whatever printer it wants to print its business. I want the Government 
Printing Office to be competitively bidding those jobs out in the 
private sector as it has been for years. I hope that will continue. I 
respectfully ask my colleagues, please don't vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] will be 
postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House 
Report 104-146.


                  amendment offered by mr. christensen

  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. 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. Christensen: Page 49, after line 
     25, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 312. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the salaries or expenses of any elevator operator 
     in the House of Representatives office buildings.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Christensen] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come for Members of Congress to start 
pushing their own buttons. Yes, that grievous, arduous task of pushing 
your own elevator button. No, my amendment does not propose to 
eliminate elevators, nor does my amendment require the Members to take 
the steps from here out. All my amendment requires is that we begin 
pushing our own elevator button.
  Last week a young woman who had been visiting my office commented to 
my staff that she was shocked to see that we still had elevator 
operators in the House office buildings. She remarked, ``I though you 
guys got rid of those the first week.''
  Well, if we the Members of this body have heard that comment once, we 
have heard it too many times. My amendment very simply would eliminate 
funding for the 10 elevator operators in the House office buildings, 
not the Capitol, just the House office buildings.
  Each and every day this body convenes in committees and task forces 
all over the Capitol to make tough choices about changing the way our 
Government does business. We were elected to change the way our 
Government does business because it is no longer acceptable to 
Americans for us to mortgage the future of our Nation and our children.
  My amendment is not going to bring the deficit down a whole lot. It 
is not going to work on the debt, but it is going to save the taxpayers 
$263,000 this year in salary and benefits.
  I understand some very well-intentioned Members may suggest that we 
should commission a study on this issue. A study. How anyone could 
suggest a study to examine how to eliminate 10 elevator operators and 
keep a straight face while saying it is beyond me. With a $5 trillion 
debt, the last thing we need is another study.
  In our economy, when businesses are forced to downsize, it is the 
perks that go first: company cars, expense accounts, and corporate 
country club memberships, all cut back in the name of the bottom line. 
By what justification can any of us say that we must downsize 
Government but keep House elevator operators?
  I will be the first to admit that many of the people who run the 
automatic elevators are good,
 decent people. However, we must remember that any time a company is 
forced to downsize, many kind and friendly people may lose their jobs 
as well.

  It might be argued here today that the purpose of the operators is to 
assist Members in arriving at the floor in time for votes. But I submit 
that my amendment has no bearing whatsoever on the elevator operators 
in the Capitol Building. It only affects those in the House office 
buildings.
  I also remind Members that there are already elevators set aside for 
Members only to use, the speed of which remains the same no matter who 
pushes the button.
  In closing, I will again remind all assembled here that our Federal 
Government is broke. We are nearly $5 trillion in debt. At a time when 
we are asking Americans to tighten the belt and make do with less, 
surely this body can make do without elevator operators.
  My colleagues, the time has come for us to begin pushing our own 
buttons.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend yielding, and I know 
he is into sacrifice.
  Am I correct that the gentleman's office is on the first floor of the 
Longworth?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. The gentleman is correct. I am on 1020 Longworth.
  Mr. HOYER. Am I correct that the gentleman does not need an elevator, 
therefore, because he is at street level? He just walks right out?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Reclaiming my time from my friend from Maryland, it 
is correct that I am on 1020 Longworth, but the issue is not whether I 
am on the first floor or the seventh floor or in Rayburn or in Cannon.
  Mr. HOYER. You want to give it up for the rest of us.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. The issue is that it is time for us to push our own 
automatic elevator buttons.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Virtually every Member that does work in the Longworth Building would 
not want to have the elevators made more inconvenient. There has never 
been a time on the floor of this House when the whole issue of being 
able to get here to vote on time is more graphic than it was yesterday 
and today.
  And to even consider making it more difficult for our Members to meet 
the time frame of getting here to vote by virtue of eliminating 
elevator operators, that only operate for Members at least during the 
time that we have a vote call, this would not be the right time.
  We have not asked for a study. We have simply asked the chief 
administrative officer of the entire House of Representatives, to 
review the process of elevators and elevator operators and give us a 
recommendation as to how it can be improved. That is not going to be a 
long study and expensive study. We expect that to come back to us. We 
will readdress this issue at the appropriate time in the future.
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen]. We have already cut the elevator 
operators from 150 a few years ago down to 22. The gentleman is not 
giving us any credit for that.
  And I might say for the elevator operators, these are good people. 
They have families. They are working. And what are we doing in the U.S. 
Congress? I thought we were going to put our emphasis on finding ways 
to build self-esteem and self-worth. We cannot all be chiefs; we need a 
lot of Indians. And we all do different things to get the job done and 
accomplish the mission.
  Let us give our elevator operators a break. I do not see the 
gentleman from Texas putting a cap on these people [[Page H 
6223]] making $10 million or more, yet we want to single out the 
elevator operators who give information, they give advice, they give 
directions, and they are trying to make a difference.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new issue. It is an issue that 
is easy to make fun of. The American public hears you have got push-
button elevators. What do you need an operator for? Like all the 
elevators around the country, they are run by computers and the 
computers cannot tell, they are not as sophisticated as human beings 
still.
  And human beings, as the chairman has pointed out, can make a 
difference, can make judgments, can make sure that people get up and 
down the 7 floors of the Longworth Building or the 6 floors or the 5 
floors of the Cannon and Rayburn Buildings so that Members can get to 
the floor on time.
  We have just had a substantial incident where a number of Members 
were late getting to the floor. We had a big confrontation about that 
and the Speaker told us, voting in a timely fashion is important. We 
want to limit it to 17 minutes. This facilitates that at a relatively 
small cost. Why? Because the computers cannot tell as well as human 
beings can how to accommodate the 15-minute voting patterns.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have, with all due respect, seen a lot of 
bonehead amendments in the years that I have been here, but this one 
ranks up at top.
  The elevator operators on the House side work very hard. They are 
scared to death about this. They are scared to death about losing their 
jobs. And, frankly, we need them. Those of us who are in the Longworth 
Building, many times we run down the steps because the elevators are so 
difficult to get in that building. Without the elevator operators, we 
would probably miss half the votes.
  So, I can think of nothing more that is so silly. The savings is next 
to nothing. All it is doing is making a lot of loyal government 
employees, who work hard and are not paid much, frightened to death and 
making it impossible for Members to vote in a timely fashion.
  If there was ever a vote that did not make sense on the merits, this 
is it. It does not make sense from a monetary point of view. It saves 
us nothing. It does not make sense from an efficiency point of view.
  I very, very strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to defeat this amendment. It may play great with the folks back home, 
saying we have cut out fat. This is not fat. This is necessary. I urge 
defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. For any Member to suggest that they are going to miss votes 
because they cannot push their own button, but they need an elevator 
operator to push the button, is ludicrous. What is this country coming 
to when you cannot push your own automatic elevator button?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has 1 
minute remaining and has the right to close.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of my amendment and I guess it 
would just be the fact that it is not about the families, because they 
are good people. They are very good people. But when you downsize, you 
have to make some cutbacks and some people have to find other work. So, 
I would urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Christensen] is mistaken. This is not a tough vote at all. It is not 
tough to cut out jobs; to inconvenience the Members when we have only 
17-minutes to get to a vote. It is a cheap-shot vote. It is a bad vote. 
It is not a tough vote.
  The elevator operators here control the traffic and the flow of the 
crowd during the times of votes. It is very important that they do 
that. I would urge the Members to vote down this amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In writing this bill we have not approached it to save jobs, per se. 
We have tried to streamline and improve the operation of Government. 
And the time will come when we will reevaluate the operators after we 
have upgraded the elevators and made them work better for the Members. 
But for the time being, this is not the time to make it more difficult 
for the Members and to eliminate the elevator operators in this 
amendment. I urge a strong no vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen] will 
be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed 
in House Report 104-146.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Zimmer

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Zimmer: Page 49, after line 
     25, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 312. Any amount appropriated in this Act for ``HOUSE 
     OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members' 
     Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for 
     fiscal year 1996. Any amount remaining after all payments are 
     made under such allowances for such fiscal year shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury, to be used for deficit reduction.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Zimmer] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 
minutes. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, together with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] 
and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], I am proposing an 
amendment that addresses an issue that has caused great confusion, 
consternation, and rancor in this House.
  Many of us have gone to great lengths not to spend the money that is 
available for our office expenses because we believe that frugality 
begins at home. We believe that we cannot credibly ask for major cuts 
in programs that affect our constituents unless we cut programs that 
affect us and reduce spending in our own offices.
  I have saved more than $500,000 in my 4 years in Congress, and many 
of my colleagues have save more. But there has been persistent 
uncertainty about what happens to the money that we do not spend.
  This amendment ends that uncertainty by explicitly dedicating the 
money we save to deficit reduction. Simply put, this amendment gives 
Members a real incentive to do the right thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak not so much in opposition as to 
explain the circumstances. In my opinion, this amendment simply does 
not do anything that is now not being done through the normal process.
  There has been the mistaken idea, and I had that mistaken idea for 
many years when I first came here, and I think many of my colleagues 
had the [[Page H 6224]] idea, that there was a slush fund out there 
that all the extra money that we did not spend in our official expense 
or our other office expense allowances, clerk hire and so forth, if 
there were surpluses at end of the year, that money would be turned 
back to the slush fund that the Speaker or somebody else in the House 
would control.
  That is simply not true. The fact is that when I do not spend money 
out of my official accounts, it is never withdrawn from the Treasury. 
It is never spent from the Treasury.
  Members need to know that what we do not spend, what is surplus at 
end of the fiscal year out of our official moneys, and that is for all 
three accounts, never comes out of the Treasury.
 That includes the mail account, that includes the official expense 
account, and that also includes the clerk hire account. What is not 
spent, there is nothing written out of the Treasury. So there is 
nothing to return to the Treasury as this amendment would request.

  We cannot return to the Treasury money that has never been withdrawn 
from the Treasury. So in my judgment, this amendment has absolutely no 
meaning in terms of changing existing policy. It will still remain the 
same.
  With that explanation, I oppose the amendment because I think it 
simply adds a layer of redundancy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I am proud to join in cosponsoring the amendment with Mr. Zimmer. I 
introduced this bill as H.R. 26 on the first day of Congress. It has 
121 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans. The idea has been endorsed 
by the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, 
and the Concord Coalition, because it does address the deficit.
  We should vote for this for two reasons, and I strongly disagree with 
the analysis of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. One is 
because we should lead on deficit reduction. We should take the first 
step. If American families are tightening their belts, Congress 
certainly can do the same thing. And voluntarily return money. I 
voluntarily returned $677,000 over the last 4 years.
  Second, in response to the gentleman from California, [Mr. Packard], 
this is a truth-in-budgeting amendment. It is outrageous that somebody 
could say we need to appropriate less money in the appropriations 
process and count on the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], or the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], or the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Browder], or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] to return money 
to pay for these other people spending more.
  I thank the chairman and the sponsor of the amendment and join 
proudly in a bipartisan way to urge passage.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I, too, at one time introduced a bill to do exactly what the 
gentleman from Indiana has done, but I was wrong. I simply 
misunderstood the process, and I now know what the process is. The 
money never goes out of the Treasury.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I too, do not rise in opposition or in 
support of this particular amendment. I would tell the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] he does not return money to the Treasury.
  First of all, no money is appropriated for individual offices. There 
is no appropriation for the 21st District of California, for example. 
There is no appropriation for Members' offices. There is an 
appropriation to the House in support of our official duties.
  Members draw down on that account. If they do not use all of the 
money, it means they did not draw down all of their call on that 
account. They do not return money to the Treasury. Having said that, 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] knows that I have been working 
with our lawyers and others to try to figure out a way to make this 
happen. We are talking about even fundamentally changing the way in 
which we appropriate so that Members who do not draw down their account 
to the maximum amount available under law, can go back home and say: 
That amount I did not draw down is designated to go to deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that is a positive. That is an incentive and it 
is probably a better goal than just going back into the Treasury to be 
churned for other expenditures.

                              {time}  1400

  So that is why I am not opposing this measure, but you have got to 
have an understanding, folks. Your concept of the way this place works 
in flat-out wrong.
  What we need to do is to make sure that what you are talking about, 
in fact, becomes reality, and I pledge my support to continue to work 
on this.
  And the reason I am not opposing the gentleman from New Jersey is 
because if, in fact, it is possible, within the context of this 
appropriations bill, to make some determinations without having to go 
to statute, at least, he says, it is to go to deficit reduction instead 
of the general treasury. That is a modest step forward, if we can make 
it happen.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time.
  I join him in urging support of this amendment, as well as the 
gentleman from Indiana.
  I agree with much of what the gentleman from California said. He is 
correct in that these funds are not office- or district-specific. 
However, the fact is if all of the offices collectively do not use the 
appropriated amount, these funds can be reprogrammed.
  In the past, I would submit that that has occurred in this House, and 
what this amendment would do is it would change that procedure so those 
leftover funds are not reprogrammed.
  In the beginning of this session, during the debate on the rules 
package, I came to the floor and requested that we have an independent 
audit of House operations to include an examination of where these 
funds go, because it has been blurred and made difficult for us to find 
this out.
  So I would urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the sponsor of 
this amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], and also 
the author of H.R. 26, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], for 
allowing me to speak on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Zimmer amendment.
  As a new Member of Congress, I have discovered there are few clear 
choices when it comes to balancing the Federal budget. This amendment 
is a simple, commonsense proposition for Members of the House to claim 
they support this goal. Each year many Representatives have money left 
over in their office budgets. This money goes back to the general House 
fund for use on other projects.
  The Zimmer amendment would require Representatives to apply all 
excess funds from their office budgets each year to the Federal debt. 
In essence, Members of Congress would be making their contribution to 
the ultimate goal of balancing the budget, a goal which many of us 
support.
  I ask Members who came to Congress as a result of the 1994 elections 
to carefully consider this amendment. The American people sent us here 
to reduce the deficit and change the way Congress does its business. 
The Zimmer amendment accomplishes both goals.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, this is a familiar fight for the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], 
and other people in my class because we actually began it back in 1990.
  I understand the point of the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], that it is 
certainly not the intention, his intention, nor the intention of his 
colleagues to turn around and reprogram money. [[Page H 6225]] 
  It seems to me if there is a question or if there is essentially some 
sense of indecision about whether or not this is binding, then we 
should clearly err on the side of deficit reduction. Let us remove any 
sense of temptation that presently exists for the Committee on 
Appropriations to reprogram any of this money. Let us settle it once 
and for all.
  Like my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], I have 
worked very hard in my office to hold down expenses and have had the 
lingering suspicion over the least 4 years much of the money I saved 
somehow gets spent someplace else.
  Let us say to the Members of Congress, if you are careful enough to 
hold down travel and careful enough to hold down salaries of your staff 
and careful enough to watch the kind of monies spent throughout your 
House operations, then at the very least all the incentives should be 
in place to save money rather than spend it.
  I strongly support the Zimmer amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, and Members, I, too, join in the opposition 
to this amendment. I really think, after listening to the dialogue 
here, that the problem could be corrected by allowing Members to put 
out a press release saying that they returned money to the Treasury.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in my concluding remarks, I want to simply remind 
Members that we went to special efforts to give Members credit for not 
spending all of their funds. The report provides that there will be a 
letter that would indicate that they have not spent all of their funds; 
they can use it for whatever purpose that they wish.
  Any amount left in the appropriations account, in this account, 
remains in the treasury. It is never spent out of the treasury and thus 
it is available for deficit reduction.
  The absolute intent of this amendment is being realized in the 
existing process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] will be 
postponed.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the 
following order: Amendment No. 8, offered by the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton]; amendment No. 9, offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Klug]; amendment No. 10, offered by the gentleman from Nebraska 
[Mr. Christensen]; and amendment No. 11, offered by the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first such vote in this series.


                     amendment offered by mr. orton

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton] a recorded vote on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. Those in support of the demand for a recorded vote will 
rise and be counted. The Chair will count all Members standing in 
support of the request for a recorded vote.
  This is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair advise us as to how the vote 
turned out on the voice vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair said in the reading of the announcement that 
the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has not yet been ordered.
  The pending business before the committee is a request for a recorded 
vote.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand this is not necessarily a 
parliamentary inquiry. Was it the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton]?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes, by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
                 expressing concern on voting procedure

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order for 1 minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. The concern I have, I would say to the acting ranking 
member and the chairman, is that if one of our colleagues requested a 
vote and expected that vote to occur and is now off the floor, I think 
it would be somewhat unfair of us not to--here is the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Orton].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. I know my 
colleagues were glad to hear from me.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any Member may make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on my amendment. 
Pending that, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the point of order and 
demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, 
noes 321, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 412]

                               AYES--104

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Geren
     Gordon
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Mascara
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rose
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Williams
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--321

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake [[Page H 6226]] 
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Ackerman
     Clayton
     Laughlin
     Moakley
     Parker
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Torres

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. WISE and Mr. MARTINEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ESHOO, Messrs. PAYNE of Virginia, BAESLER, FARR, NADLER, LEWIS of 
Georgia, MFUME, FOGLIETTA, CRAMER, TAYLOR of Mississippi, OBERSTAR, 
KLECZKA, MASCARA, SHAYS, and TOWNS, Ms. LOFGREN, and Messrs. BORSKI, 
TAUZIN, BACHUS, GORDON, MARKEY, SKELTON, RICHARDSON, and LUTHER changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  

                          ____________________