Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7171-H7196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3754.

{time} 1240

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3754) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Linder
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill continues the program we began last year to right size the
legislative branch of government. We are trying to become more
efficient with a smaller work force and by using technology wherever
possible as long as it helps to do our job better.
The bill cuts legislative spending for 1997 by $37.4 million. That
continues the tone set in the 1996 bill over the last 2-year period.
The size of the legislative branch has been reduced by $262 million
over the last 2 years.
We have also reduced our work force by 1,753 jobs over the last 2-
year period, 726 in this year's bill alone. That is a reduction of 6.8
percent of the entire legislative branch work force in a 2-year period.
The CBO has indicated through their calculations that, if the entire
Federal budget were to be reduced in the same proportion as this
committee has reduced the legislative branch budget, we would have a
$100 billion surplus in our Federal budget and it would be balanced
already. We would make a $100 billion down payment on the national
debt, if all other agencies and programs were cut the same level that
we have cut ourselves. This is just based on a straightforward
extrapolation, but it indicates, I think, the magnitude of the efforts
that we have taken in reducing the size and the cost of the legislative
branch of government.
In specifics, this bill will make permanent law the 90-day
prohibition on mass mailing, unsolicited mass mailing before elections.
The bill also will fund the CyberCongress, in other words, the computer
and telecommunications and information services of Congress. We will be
spending about $211 million in this bill in that area. That is 12.5
percent of the entire legislative budget on this whole area of
information and telecommunications and the CyberCongress.
Also, in this year's bill we are completing the downsizing of the
General Accounting Office by 25 percent. That is a 2-year process, this
being the final year of that process.
We have also converted the permanent edition of the bound
Congressional Record, a 26-volume document, to CD ROM. That will
expedite the research possibilities for Members of Congress and
researchers in general, and it will also save about $1 million a year.
We are also converting the congressional serial set, a 60-volume
document, to the CD ROM, the electronic information process. That, too,
will save about $1 million a year.
We are also outsourcing the custodial work at the Ford House Office
Building. We are conducting studies to outsource our maintenance and
operational work at the powerplant, the congressional powerplant. We
are also looking to privatize the Government Printing Office plant
more, and the Botanic Garden.

{time} 1245

We are also looking to further the public-private collaboration of
the National Library Digital Program.
All in all we have made great strides in the right direction to bring
about fiscal responsibility to the Congress of the United States and to
those agencies that are here to support the Congress of the United
States.
We also are funding the mandatories in this bill; that is, the COLA's
for staff, salary and the benefit packages for staff and Federal
workers in the Congress. And that, I think, is a must.
We are also funding the 1997 inaugural ceremonies at the Capitol, the
joint inaugural committee, which we must do every 4 years after the
election of a new President.
All in all we are very proud of this bill; we think it moves in the
right direction.
Laster on today we will be hearing amendments, one of which is to cut

[[Page H7172]]

this bill by almost 2 percent, 1.9 percent. I urge the Members of
Congress to realize that this bill already makes major cuts, and has
over the last 2 years. No appropriations bill has cut to the level that
the legislative branch has cut themselves. It would be irresponsible, I
think, to cut ourselves across the board. That would include books for
the blind, that would include the staff, the cost of staffing our
offices. It would include the CyberCongress, it would include the
police, the physicians, and every phase, every part, of this bill would
be cut by almost 2 percent after we have already cut ourselves over the
last 2 years by almost 12 percent, and that is 12 percent of the dollar
amount of the 1995 budget year.
Mr. Chairman, it would be absolutely irresponsible, I believe, for us
to inflict upon ourselves further cuts when we have set the pattern for
cutting back the size of government. And, frankly, it would hurt deeply
the Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, which has
accepted a 25 percent cut already over the last 2 years. To ask them to
absorb another 2 percent cut again would be a bad-faith effort on the
Congress after I have negotiated with the General Accounting Office to
work toward this 25 percent. It would be, I think, catastrophic, and I
would hope that all Members of Congress would resist this amendment of
across-the-board cutting of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my deep appreciation to the new
ranking member of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Thornton]. He has been a member of the committee and been an extremely
active and very, very faithful member of the committee. He has now
moved to become the ranking member, and it is a great pleasure on my
part to work with him. He has been a great help in crafting this bill
and been very supportive of the general efforts that we have tried to
make in this bill, and it is a pleasure to work with him.
I also wish to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio] who is the former chairman of this subcommittee,
but also the former ranking member. He has been a great help over the
years in this bill, and I wish to thank him for his cooperation.
Under leave I have already obtained, I would like to insert a
tabulation of the amounts in the bill:

[[Page H7173]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY96.000

[[Page H7174]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY96.001

[[Page H7175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY96.002

[[Page H7176]]

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying how much I have enjoyed the
privilege of working with the gentleman from California, the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. It has truly been a
bipartisan effort. We have tackled a difficult task, and we have come
through it with a very austere recommendation which we bring to the
floor of the House in the form of the legislative appropriation bill.
If every other agency in Government as the chairman said, had done the
same degree of cutting that the legislative branch has done, we would
have a Federal budget surplus today in the United States.
This effort did begin under the chairmanship of my colleague from
California, Mr. Fazio, who in 1992 instituted a program for the
reduction of FTE's for the legislative branch. As a result of
continuing that policy under the chairmanship of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard], we have reduced more than 5,500 employees
from the Federal legislative branch of Government.
I also want to join my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Packard], in opposing a further across-the-board cut of 1.9 percent.
Such a cut would decimate many of the activities of the legislative
branch, and the legislative branch of Government has serious
responsibilities of oversight to check and balance the operations of
the executive branch and of the judicial branch. I urge all of my
colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment when it comes before
the House.
Mr. Chairman, this is an exemplary bill. It is not a perfect bill. We
have cut areas where I personally would rather have not seen us cut. I
was very saddened last year when the Office of Technology Assessment,
which was instituted under the Presidency of Richard Nixon and
supported for all the years in between, was brought to an end. But it
was one of the cuts that had to be made in order to bring the
legislative branch to this meeting today having already accomplished
its entire goal in 2 years of reductions needed to reach a balanced
budget in 7 years.
I commend the subcommittee, the full Committee on Appropriations, for
their work.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller] who serves on the subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of this appropriation bill. It has been a pleasure to serve on this
particular subcommittee because we have accomplished what our goals
have been, which are reducing the size and scope of the Government and
reducing the amount of money we spend here in Washington.
This bill sends an immensely important signal to our constituents
back home. Our efforts to reduce the size and scope of the Federal
Government starts with ourselves, and for the second year in a row we
cut the taxpayer burden of running Congress.
This bill is significant because it continues to build on the
successes previously achieved. We not only continue to cut spending,
but we also continue to bring the House of Representatives into the
21st century.
In this subcommittee last year we cut over 9 percent from the
legislative branch appropriation. This is $154 million that we saved
the American taxpayers, and that is a very significant contribution. If
every subcommittee had been able to cut their budgets proportionately,
as the previous speaker said, the Federal budget would show a surplus
today.
The decisions for cutting last year were not easy. We had to
eliminate certain agencies that outlived their usefulness and remove
many of the perks that have become institutional here in Congress. This
bill continues the momentum that was established last year by cutting
an additional $37.4 million, a reduction from last year of 2.2 percent.
The committee goes further than any other appropriation committee in
the House. Once again we have undertaken a review of how to reduce the
costs of operating Congress to demonstrate our commitment not only to
cutting spending but also learning how to spend our tax dollars wisely.
While we have cut the cost of Congress, we have also moved into the
21st century and made this a more efficient institution. The importance
of this year's legislative branch bill extends beyond merely the
funding issue. Within the bill are several provisions which embody much
of the new congressional spirit, proposals for privatizing,
streamlining and modernization.
One example is the report language requesting a study of the
possibilities of privatizing or transferring the botanic gardens. I
understand there is a lot of support for the gardens here in Congress,
but why should Congress be running this agency? It should be
transferred out of the Congress budget into Agriculture. We have the
arboretum and other areas that can address this issue very effectively.
So at least we are asking for further study of what to do with this.

Another proposal that the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has
requested is for the Chief Administrative Officer to review other ideas
for privatizing various functions. Many other agencies and departments
and businesses have privatized their in-house services from payroll to
cleaning with great success.
I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] that it is
time for the Congress to become competitive and look for cost-effective
ways to provide the most basic services.
Additionally, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] once again
promotes modernization. Bill language compels the Government Printing
Office to reduce the number of copies of the Congressional Record and,
instead of printing them in bound copies, to use CD-ROM copies. We
would continue to produce a limited number of printed copies, but now
we can make available on CD-ROM the entire Congressional Record. This
would provide significant space and savings in both time and space.
Just think. Instead of having to pull down from the shelf a large
bound volume and have to read through to find a passage, we can just
put a disk in the computer and do a word search to find what we are
looking for.
What we have here is a balanced bill which embodies much of the
spirit of the new House of Representatives. We continue to reduce the
level of expenditures within this account. We move to privatization and
streamlining many of the functions of Congress which we have promoted
in other government agencies. As we begin the process of modernization,
which like all the changes takes time but reaps great rewards, it has
been an honor on serve on this committee, and I commend our chairman
for his insight and diligence and urge support of my colleagues for
this bill.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the
Committee on Science.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding me this time, and I rise to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriation
Subcommittee if he is agreeable.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, during
the full committee markup of this bill the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey] offered an amendment from me which called for an independent
evaluation of the General Accounting Office's processes and procedures,
building upon previous independent reports that have compelled
important changes at the Agency. The amendment failed, but since then
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and I have had a chance to
talk further about this study and reached an understanding.
Specifically, I am concerned about the procedures that GAO uses to
vet its reports to begin congressionally requested studies and to gauge
its success. The independent study would

[[Page H7177]]

have taken an outsider look at these insider's processes to suggest
needed improvements.
In addition, GAO has undergone a rapid period of change, including
significant downsizing and restructuring. As the Agency evolves
further, outside advice could prove very useful to the Agency in its
leadership. It is a very important arm of the Congress and should be
supported. However, there are important problems, and I believe the
chairman shares these concerns.
Mr. PACKARD. I do, Mr. Brown. I do share the gentleman's concerns,
and I also understand and recall the amendment that was offered, and I
believe the amendment was offered in full committee with the best
interests of the GAO and the new Comptroller General in mind.
However, I am concerned that a study performed now before the new
Comptroller General is appointed, which should be later this year,
would interfere with the ability of that person to institute their own
reforms in the Agency. In deference to the new Comptroller General,
whoever that may be, I did ask the gentleman from California to
withhold his amendment today. After the new Comptroller General is
appointed, we will discuss with him or her whatever studies may be
useful. If such a study remains useful for the Agency in the Congress,
I would gladly join with the gentleman to invite a reprogramming of
funds for that purpose.
In addition, a new Comptroller General has not been appointed, and if
the subject of the independent study has not been addressed by the time
the subcommittee prepares the legislative branch appropriation bill for
next year, then I will re-examine this request from the gentleman.
In the meantime I would gladly work with the gentleman to try to
resolve any problems at the Agency and again will cooperate in every
way I can.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for his statement. In deference to his judgment I will not offer
my amendment at the appropriate time. The gentleman and I would both
like to see a strong GAO operating with an unparalleled standard of
excellence, and I look forward to working together with him to reach
that goal.

{time} 1300

Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to talk about what is not in this bill and
not in the rule, rather than what is in it. What ought to be on the
floor this afternoon would be an amendment to end cyber censorship in
the House, to end the restriction on information available to the
American public about the work and positions of the minority members of
the House's committees.
Unfortunately, a decision, an absolutely incredible, astounding, un-
American decision, was taken by the House Reform Committee back in May
that puts the majority here in control of information flow about the
activities and positions of the minority members of House committees.
I know that may be impossible for rational, reasonable Americans to
believe to have happened in this home of democratic principles and
traditions, the people's House. It is absolutely un-American. It should
offend our basic sense of fair play, that the American public cannot
get to information about what the minority in this place is doing
without passing through gates that are kept and controlled by the
majority, and which can essentially be shut so that you cannot find out
what you may need to know about major activities of your U.S. Congress.
If this happened anywhere else in this country, other than being
buried in the House rules, it would be a patent, patent violation of
the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But because we have a
special status under the Constitution and one that is clearly subject
to our own abuse, we can impose this kind of censorship on ourselves,
and then put it off limits by not permitting a rule today that would
even enable us to debate and vote on it.
Mr. Chairman, we should have had that opportunity because, in good
faith and good will, we believed when we debated this bill in the full
Committee on Appropriations that such an amendment would be made in
order, if this issue were not earlier resolved. The assurances that
were offered in full committee and that prompted the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio] to withdraw an amendment at that time, have not
been kept, unfortunately.
So here we are today in this predicament, unable to have a vote on an
issue that goes to the absolute core values of any democratic
institution and any democratic process.
This is not just a passive matter, either. Evidently the HIR, House
Information Office, has been directed to so engineer access to web
sites, Internet sites for the House, that users from the outside will
not even be able to put what is called a bookmark on a particular site
so they can get back to it the next time without having to go through
all the rigamarole that the majority feels it is appropriate to put in
the way of, again, access to information.
Mr. Chairman, does anyone here really believe that the American
people, the American public, should not have free and equal access to
both majority and minority points of view? Does anybody believe
minority committee members should not be able to get their thoughts and
positions before the American public without this form of direct and
indirect censorship being put in the way?
I truly do not understand how we could have gotten into a situation
like this. It is absolutely insulting to the integrity and the
intelligence of Members of those body as well as the American people.
For all of the proud rhetoric that we got from the majority about an
open Congress, an open process, a free flow of information through
cyperspace, that is now shown to be a cynical and empty promise. This
is an extremely disappointing performance by our colleagues on the
majority side, an absolute insult to democratic traditions and
principles. We should be ashamed to see it stand.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about what is in this
bill. Coming from Silicon Valley, I have very strong concerns about
what is not happening with technology and how we are very foolishly
trying to censor ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, I got the information about the CyberCongress, and that
we were all going to get a computer. Mine arrived at my office 6 months
late, and what we did was we called just a regular vendor out of the
phone book, not anybody politically connected. They will sell these
machines to us for $900 less than we paid for them and they will
deliver them in 4 days. So we are going to spend $400,000 more on these
computers than we needed to spend. It makes me very suspicious, I will
say that. It makes me very uncomfortable.
I am also concerned that for those of us who use the Internet
frequently, as I do, one of the things you cannot get from the
CyberCongress is the voting records, how we voted every day. You can
get extension of remarks, you can get tributes to Little League
coaches, but you cannot find out how your Congress Member voted on the
Internet. I have introduced a bill to require us to post that
information. It has not had a hearing. It seems to me if we can print
votes every day in the Congressional Record, they ought to be posted on
the Internet too. I think this bill should address that.
Finally, I want to talk about web pages the previous speaker
mentioned before. I just came back here from some time at home.
Everywhere I went, my constituents and neighbors would say, ``Do they
not get it back there? Do any of them use the Internet?'' I had to say,
actually, probably they do not get it. I think the new policy on web
pages is proof that the leadership of this body does not get it yet. To
suggest that for security reasons, which is ludicrous, that the URL has
to be only with the majority instead of the minority is foolish indeed.
Mr. Chairman, what has really evolved here is not only censorship,
which Americans object to. Technologically it is foolish. Ultimately,
to try to prevent web users from actually accessing minority web pages
is a very bad precedent, and technically, in the end, I think it will
fail. We would not

[[Page H7178]]

suggest that it is OK to prohibit Members of Congress from issuing a
statement, from putting a differing point of view in writing and
sending that to other Americans. That is what this policy on web pages
does. I object to it strongly, and I hope we will be able to change the
current policy on minority web pages administratively or through this
bill. I think there should be an amendment allowed to deal with it, and
I hope that when I go home next, I can say yes, they finally got it
here.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute simply to respond
to the last two speakers.
It is the Committee on House Oversight that has jurisdiction over the
operations of the cyber Congress and the information services, and also
has jurisdiction over the web page. This is not the vehicle, the bill,
that should be used to establish those kind of legislative policies.
That committee has dealt with these things and is continuing to deal
with them, and to put it in this bill would fly in the face and really
be offensive, I think, to the authorizing committee. That is why we
have resisted putting those items onto this bill. It would simply be
inappropriate.
If the committee had agreed to the web page, the committee of
jurisdiction, then we would, at their instructions, put it in the bill.
But for us to put it in our bill over the objections of the authorizing
committee I think would not be appropriate.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the
chairman of the subcommittee, who is a gentleman of great integrity and
who does appreciate the technical rules of the House. Indeed it would
be difficult to bring the amendment, which would correct the terrible
abuse of lack of direct Internet access, to the floor on this bill.
However, the Committee on Rules has allowed other bills which legislate
upon an appropriations measure to come before the House, and this is
the only way an appeal could be made to the full House in this policy.
I do recognize that the chairman has a great tradition on his side in
not wishing to offend the authorizing committee which dealt with this,
but I think that in this instance it would have been a very appropriate
and fair thing for the Committee on Rules to allow the House as a whole
to vote on the question of access to Web sites.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. This is
an important matter in terms of adequately funding the resources and
staff we need to competently do our work. Quite frankly, it is evident
from some of the products coming out of the Oversight Committee in
terms of policies dealing with the web site that they are not doing
their job in a competent and bipartisan manner.
It is an egregious action that was taken on a partisan matter which
prohibited or prevented direct access by the minority committees to in
fact have access through the Internet by our constituencies. In fact,
as late as May 28, several committees, the Committee on Agriculture,
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and Means, did not even
have a web site. By virtue of that, the minority was precluded from
access to the Internet, while the Republican majority caught up.
In fact, the majority had gone through the initiative in terms of
providing a web site on the Internet from the Democratic Committee on
Banking and Financial Services, and were in fact subsumed by the
Republican majority committee by virtue of the Oversight Committee
rule. Now in order to get access to that Democratic minority web site
you have to go through the Republican material, wonderful photograph of
our chairman, and you have to go through a lot of other window dressing
in terms of explanation as to what is going on. As the gentleman from
Colorado pointed out, you may not even put an electronic bookmark in
place, so once you have done that, you could gain access again. That
would obviously be helpful--but certainly the issue goes beyond that
point.
Mr. Chairman, we should not be censoring, the House should not be
censoring the speeches of Members on this floor, nor should they be
censoring the information on the Internet that is providing direct
access and communication on a democratic basis. We should not be afraid
of the competition of ideas in this Congress and expressing those and
sharing that information on the Internet. Yet, that is what this action
has achieved--our constituents can only achieve access to minority
views and news in the context that the Republican majority deems
appropriate.
What are the GOP Members afraid of in terms of communication in this
sense? We talk about the Internet in terms of various other improper
materials, and the courts have held those limits improper. It is not a
matter of space, it is not a matter of security, it is a matter of GOP
censorship of the minority Democratic views on these web sites. This
substantive amendment is not being permitted to be offered on the floor
today, and this Congress has repeatedly provided for authorization
legislation on appropriations bills and riders that go far beyond this
point, and there is no other opportunity to vote on this subject to be
addressed by a vote of the full House.

Today we have to take a vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] which tries to transfer some
money. I hope Members will rise to vote for that and send a signal, at
least, to the Oversight Committee in terms of the abuse that is going
on, that this decision and limit is inappropriate and uncalled for.
The fact is that we have to go through what really amounts to
censorship and editorializing by the GOP majority of the Democratic
minority views. I think that this is wrong, it is patently wrong to
have moved in this particular direction. This bill would be the proper
vehicle, this legislative appropriation measure, to in fact deal with
that issue, but it has been rejected by the Committee on Rules, again
on a partisan basis.
I appeal to my colleagues to vote for and support the Fazio
amendment, and at least symbolically to deal with this issue of GOP
once more trying to control the voices of dissent in this House in such
an inappropriate manner.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Serrano], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to beat this subject to
death, but I think we really have to understand what we are talking
about here. The new way that this Congress and everyone in this country
will put forth information is through the Internet. Right in this Hall
today, in the Capitol today, throughout Washington, DC, there are young
people, for instance, who are visiting during summer vacation. These
young people will go back in September and begin school once again.
More and more every day they get their information through the
Internet.
One of the things that I tell people about my web page is that I want
to reach a point where they can get as much information about
government as possible from the Library of Congress to the Smithsonian
to local institutions in my district to how I vote and how I think and
what I feel about certain issues. To now tell people that they can
visit the majority party but that they have no access to the minority
party on its own with a different view is really from the beginning of
this procedure to set out censorship rather than freedom. What kind of
a message are we sending? This is totally improper.
The best way to see what this is like is to look at it this way.
Imagine if visitors were allowed to visit the chairman of the committee
but were not allowed to visit the office of the minority leader of the
committee. They visit the chairman but they are not allowed to visit
the other person, and if they are going to speak to that ranking
member, they have to speak to them in the presence of the chairman.
They cannot exchange views on a private and separate basis. That is
what we are talking about.
Rather than doing this, we should be thinking about the future. I
would like to see the day when the Internet for the House of
Representatives personally reaches out to the world, not only in
English but in different languages, so people could learn about us,
learn about our democracy, read about us. How nice it would be if Latin
American countries and students could read in Spanish about the House
of Representatives of this, the greatest democracy

[[Page H7179]]

on earth. Instead of thinking about that, you are saying no, you cannot
put your words out, and if you put them out you have to check with us
first.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of this
amendment and I commend my colleagues from Michigan, Mr. Smith, and
Indiana, Mr. Roemer, for offering it.
Mr. Chairman, as a result of streamlining and working more
efficiently, I returned $100,000 from my 1995 office budget back to the
Treasury Department for reducing the deficit. Combined with similar
cost savings in 1993 and 1994, I have returned a total of $500,000. I
am very proud of this record.
However, without the language of this amendment again added to the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, the tax dollars I and other
Members save from the efficient operation of our offices could not be
returned to the Treasury. Instead those savings would be reallocated to
other spending priorities.
Thus, I was pleased to have been a cosponsor of last year's
successful amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, and
I am pleased to join again this year.
Mr. Chairman, we need to send a message to the American public that
Congress is working more efficiently and with greater accountability.
And just as we ask other agencies of Government, Congress needs to
reduce spending and make its contribution to reducing the deficit.
Vote for the Smith-Roemer-Harman-Zimmer-Klug-Goss-Browder-Minge and
Camp amendment.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my
support for the legislative branch appropriations bill before us. I
have enjoyed working with Mr. Packard on this bill, as well as the
other members of the subcommittee. We are tasked with an important, but
often anonymous role, that of drafting the legislation that allows our
branch of Government to function effectively. This measure continues
the spending reductions begun in past Congresses and deserves our
support.
Since fiscal year 1992, Congress has reduced total legislative branch
staffing by 5,500 full-time equivalent positions--a reduction of nearly
20 percent. While these cuts are necessary to reduce bloated staffing
and inefficient operations, we must not reduce spending merely for the
sake of reduction.
The Congress, as a coequal branch of our Government, is charged with
a fundamentally important mission. Without adequate resources to check
and balance the other branches, we are abdicating this constitutionally
mandated responsibility.
This bill contains an appropriation of $1.68 billion for
congressional operations and related agencies. I am pleased that
operating funds for the House of Representatives have been increased
under this bill to $683.8 million and that committee staffing has been
held at current levels. The overall reduction of $37 million in this
year's bill is financed from the reduction to the GAO to fulfill a
staffing reduction commitment of the Comptroller General.
While I am generally pleased with this year's bill, I remain troubled
by the restrictive Internet policy adopted by the House Oversight
Committee. The policy would require all Internet and World Wide Web
users to access information on Democratic Committee Web page
counterparts.
There are good reasons for a Web page policy, but I believe that the
policy decided upon by the chairman of the Oversight Committee
unnecessarily restricts the free flow of information so vital to our
democracy. For example, if the Republican leadership of a given
committee refuses to create, or decides to terminate, its home page,
the Democratic minority must automatically follow suit.
I find it ironic that the other party--which has received so much
credit for instituting an information-based ``Cyber-Congress''--would
make the first congressional policy regarding the Internet such a
restrictive one. The World Wide Web is a forum for communicating
information of every conceivable type. It is the ``town crier'' of the
21st century. To bury the valuable committee information of the
minority party beneath pages of photos, biographies, and press releases
from the majority party flies in the face of an open Congress.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fazio
amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year
1997. This amendment attempts to revisit action taken in the
Appropriations Committee that deserves the light of full debate.
The majority has brought this appropriations bill to the floor with
an onerous provision that restricts public access to congressional
information. Most House committees have both majority and minority Web
sites that the public can access to seek legislative information,
committee schedules, and other relevant committee material. Since these
sites first went on-line, they have been accessible to the public
without restriction. The Republican majority would like to see this
changed.
The same majority that claims to have a commitment to a
``cybercongress'' and the information infrastructure has placed limits
on what information the public can access. They want to make all
committee home pages controlled by the majority. The public will not be
able to read the minority information without reading the majority
information first.
This is not the way to open up Congress to an ever-increasing
electronic electorate. By limiting the information the public can
access, the Republican majority is blocking freedom of speech, and
limiting debate on issues the public has a right to be informed about.
The minority, regardless of party, has a right to be heard. It is not
a question of Republican versus Democrat, it is a clear question of
what the public has a right to read.
The committee refused to hear an amendment offered by Mr. Fazio in
committee that questioned this arrangement, and then claimed that since
it was a regulation and not a law, that the committee need not discuss
the provision. Last night the Rules Committee made a similar amendment
by Mr. Fazio out of order.
What are they afraid of? Individuals should be able to realize their
freedom to access information, and the Republican majority should not
define the way in which that information is available. What happens if
a committee chairman decides not to put up a Web page, the minority is
automatically cut off from the Internet? This is our Nation's highest
democratic body, but this process is anything but democratic.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and support a free and
open government.

{time} 1315

Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 3754 is as follows:

H.R. 3754

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for
other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Salaries and Expenses

For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives,
$683,831,000, as follows:

house leadership offices

For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law,
$11,592,000, including: Office of the Speaker, $1,535,000,
including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker;
Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $1,526,000, including
$10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office
of the Minority Floor Leader, $1,534,000, including $10,000
for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the
Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip,
$957,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the
Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the
Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $949,000, including $5,000 for
official expenses of the Minority Whip; Speaker's Office for
Legislative Floor Activities, $376,000; Republican Steering
Committee, $664,000; Republican Conference, $1,130,000;
Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, $1,191,000;
Democratic Caucus, $603,000; and nine minority employees,
$1,127,000.

MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES

Including Members' Clerk Hire, Official

Expenses of Members, and Official Mail

For Members' representational allowances, including
Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail,
$363,313,000.

Committee Employees

standing committees, special and select

For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special
and select, authorized by House resolutions, $80,222,000.

committee on appropriations

For salaries and expenses of the Committee on
Appropriations, $17,580,000, including studies and
examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal
services for such committee, to be expended in accordance
with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for
services performed.

salaries, officers and employees

For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as
authorized by law, $86,259,000, including: for salaries and
expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not more than
$3,500, of which not more than $2,500 is for the Family Room,
for official representation and reception expenses,
$15,074,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of
Garages, and

[[Page H7180]]

including not more than $750 for official representation and
reception expenses, $3,638,000; for salaries and expenses of
the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, $55,209,000,
including salaries, expenses and temporary personal services
of House Information Resources, $22,577,000, of which
$16,577,000 is provided herein: Provided, That House
Information Resources is authorized to receive reimbursement
from Members of the House of Representatives and other
governmental entities for services provided and such
reimbursement shall be deposited in the Treasury for credit
to this account; for salaries and expenses of the Office of
the Inspector General, $3,954,000; Office of the Chaplain,
$126,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian and $2,000 for
preparing the Digest of Rules, $1,036,000; for salaries and
expenses of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the
House, $1,767,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of
the Legislative Counsel of the House, $4,687,000; and other
authorized employees, $768,000.

allowances and expenses

For allowances and expenses as authorized by House
resolution or law, $124,865,000, including: supplies,
materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims,
$2,374,000; official mail for committees, leadership offices,
and administrative offices of the House, $1,000,000;
reemployed annuitants reimbursement, $71,000; Government
contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and
other applicable employee benefits, $120,779,000; and
miscellaneous items including purchase, exchange,
maintenance, repair and operation of House motor vehicles,
interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to heirs of
deceased employees of the House, $641,000.

child care center

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

Administrative Provisions

Sec. 101. (a) Section 107A of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1996 (109 Stat. 522) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``For fiscal year 1996, subject'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``(a) Subject'';
(2) by striking out ``of the total amount'' and all that
follows through ``cost of inventory'' and inserting in lieu
thereof the following: ``the amounts deposited in the account
specified in subsection (b) from vending operations of the
House of Representatives Restaurant System shall be available
to pay the cost of goods sold''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) The account referred to in subsection (a) is the
special deposit account established for the House of
Representatives Restaurant by section 208 of the First
Supplemental Civil Functions Appropriation Act, 1941 (40
U.S.C. 174k note).''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996.
Sec. 102. (a) Section 3210(a)(6)(A) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by inserting ``(or, in the case of a
Member of the House, fewer than 90 days)'' after ``60 days'';
and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking out ``60 days'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``90 days''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect
on October 1, 1996, and shall apply with respect to any
mailing postmarked on or after that date.

JOINT ITEMS

For Joint Committees, as follows:

Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies of 1997

For construction of platform and seating stands and for
salaries and expenses of conducting the inaugural ceremonies
of the President and Vice President of the United States in
January 1997, $950,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of
the Senate and to remain available until September 30, 1997:
Provided, That such funds shall be available for payment, on
a direct or reimbursable basis, for such purposes whether
incurred on, before, or after, October 1, 1996.

Joint Economic Committee

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

Joint Committee on Printing

For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on
Printing, $777,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the
Senate.

Joint Committee on Taxation

For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on
Taxation, $5,470,000, to be disbursed by the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House.
For other joint items, as follows:

Office of the Attending Physician

For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of
the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his
assistants, including (1) an allowance of $1,500 per month to
the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $500 per month
each to two medical officers while on duty in the Attending
Physician's office; (3) an allowance of $500 per month to one
assistant and $400 per month each to not to exceed nine
assistants on the basis heretofore provided for such
assistance; and (4) $867,000 for reimbursement to the
Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and
equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician,
which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable
appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries,
allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be
available for all the purposes thereof, $1,225,000, to be
disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

Capitol Police Board

Capitol Police

salaries

For the Capitol Police Board for salaries of officers,
members, and employees of the Capitol Police, including
overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, clothing allowance
of not more than $600 each for members required to wear
civilian attire, and Government contributions for health,
retirement, Social Security, and other applicable employee
benefits, $68,392,000, of which $32,927,000 is provided to
the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, to be
disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House,
and $35,465,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper of the Senate, to be disbursed by the Secretary of
the Senate: Provided, That, of the amounts appropriated under
this heading, such amounts as may be necessary may be
transferred between the Sergeant at Arms of the House of
Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
the Senate, upon approval of the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.

general expenses

For the Capitol Police Board for necessary expenses of the
Capitol Police, including motor vehicles, communications and
other equipment, security equipment and installation,
uniforms, weapons, supplies, materials, training, medical
services, forensic services, stenographic services, personal
and professional services, the employee assistance program,
not more than $2,000 for the awards program, postage,
telephone service, travel advances, relocation of instructor
and liaison personnel for the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, and $85 per month for extra services
performed for the Capitol Police Board by an employee of the
Sergeant at Arms of the Senate or the House of
Representatives designated by the Chairman of the Board,
$2,685,000, to be disbursed by the Chief Administrative
Officer of the House of Representatives: Provided, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the cost of basic
training for the Capitol Police at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center for fiscal year 1997 shall be
paid by the Secretary of the Treasury from funds available to
the Department of the Treasury.

Administrative Provision

Sec. 103. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for the
Capitol Police Board for the Capitol Police may be
transferred between the headings ``salaries'' and ``general
expenses'' upon the approval of--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, in the case of amounts transferred from the
appropriation provided to the Sergeant at Arms of the House
of Representatives under the heading ``salaries'';
(2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, in the
case of amounts transferred from the appropriation provided
to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate under
the heading ``salaries''; and
(3) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives, in the case of other transfers.

Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office

For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service and
Special Services Office, $1,991,000, to be disbursed by the
Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That no part of such
amount may be used to employ more than forty individuals:
Provided further, That the Capitol Guide Board is authorized,
during emergencies, to employ not more than two additional
individuals for not more than one hundred twenty days each,
and not more than ten additional individuals for not more
than six months each, for the Capitol Guide Service.

Statements of Appropriations

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

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

Salaries and Expenses

For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as
authorized by section 305 of the Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), $2,609,000.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

Salaries and Expenses

For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public
Law 93-344), including not more than $2,500 to be expended on
the certification of the Director of the

[[Page H7181]]

Congressional Budget Office in connection with official
representation and reception expenses, $24,288,000: Provided,
That no part of such amount may be used for the purchase or
hire of a passenger motor vehicle.

Administrative Provisions

Sec. 104. (a) Any sale or lease of property, supplies, or
services to the Congressional Budget Office shall be deemed
to be a sale or lease to the Congress subject to section 903
of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1983 (2 U.S.C. 111b).
(b) Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 1996.
Sec. 105. (a) The Director of the Congressional Budget
Office shall have the authority, within the limits of
available appropriations, to dispose of surplus or obsolete
personal property by inter-agency transfer, donation, or
discarding.
(b) Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 1996.
Sec. 106. (a) The Director of the Congressional Budget
Office shall have the authority to make lump-sum payments to
separated employees of the Congressional Budget Office for
unused annual leave.
(b) Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 1996.

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

Office of the Architect of the Capitol

salaries

For the Architect of the Capitol, the Assistant Architect
of the Capitol, and other personal services, at rates of pay
provided by law, $8,454,000.

travel

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

Contingent Expenses

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

Capitol Buildings and Grounds

capitol buildings

For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the Capitol and electrical substations of the
Senate and House office buildings under the jurisdiction of
the Architect of the Capitol, including furnishings and
office equipment; including not more than $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, to be expended as the
Architect of the Capitol may approve; purchase or exchange,
maintenance and operation of a passenger motor vehicle; and
attendance, when specifically authorized by the Architect of
the Capitol, at meetings or conventions in connection with
subjects related to work under the Architect of the Capitol,
$23,255,000, of which $2,950,000 shall remain available until
expended.

capitol grounds

For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of
grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office
buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $5,020,000, of which
$25,000 shall remain available until expended.

house office buildings

For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the House office buildings, $32,556,000, of
which $4,825,000 shall remain available until expended.

capitol power plant

For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating,
power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water
and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office
buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds
about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air
conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of
such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and
Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water
for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, Union
Station complex, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
and the Folger Shakespeare Library, expenses for which shall
be advanced or reimbursed upon request of the Architect of
the Capitol and amounts so received shall be deposited into
the Treasury to the credit of this appropriation,
$30,749,000: Provided, That not more than $4,000,000 of the
funds credited or to be reimbursed to this appropriation as
herein provided shall be available for obligation during
fiscal year 1997.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Congressional Research Service

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated
Constitution of the United States of America, $62,641,000:
Provided, That no part of such amount may be used to pay any
salary or expense in connection with any publication, or
preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of Public
General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress
unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either
the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration
of the Senate: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the compensation of the Director of
the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,
shall be at an annual rate which is equal to the annual rate
of basic pay for positions at level IV of the Executive
Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Congressional Printing and Binding

For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and
the distribution of Congressional information in any format;
printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol;
expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthly and session
index to the Congressional Record, as authorized by law (44
U.S.C. 902); printing and binding of Government publications
authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress;
and printing, binding, and distribution of Government
publications authorized by law to be distributed without
charge to the recipient, $81,669,000: Provided, That this
appropriation shall not be available for paper copies of the
permanent edition of the Congressional Record for individual
Representatives, Resident Commissioners or Delegates
authorized under 44 U.S.C. 906: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for the payment of
obligations incurred under the appropriations for similar
purposes for preceding fiscal years.
This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Operations
Appropriations Act, 1997''.

TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES

BOTANIC GARDEN

Salaries and Expenses

For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings,
grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange,
maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor
vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on
the Library, $2,902,000.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not
otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance
of the Union Catalogs; custody and custodial care of the
Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and
repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the
custody of the Library; preparation and distribution of
catalog cards and other publications of the Library; hire or
purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and expenses of the
Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not properly chargeable
to the income of any trust fund held by the Board,
$215,007,000, of which not more than $7,869,000 shall be
derived from collections credited to this appropriation
during fiscal year 1997, and shall remain available until
expended, under the Act of June 28, 1902 (chapter 1301; 32
Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150): Provided, That the Library of
Congress may not obligate or expend any funds derived from
collections under the Act of June 28, 1902, in excess of the
amount authorized for obligation or expenditure in
appropriations Acts: Provided further, That the total amount
available for obligation shall be reduced by the amount by
which collections are less than the $7,869,000: Provided
further, That of the total amount appropriated, $8,458,000 is
to remain available until expended for acquisition of books,
periodicals, and newspapers, and all other materials
including subscriptions for bibliographic services for the
Library, including $40,000 to be available solely for the
purchase, when specifically approved by the Librarian, of
special and unique materials for additions to the
collections.

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, including
publication of the decisions of the United States courts
involving copyrights, $33,402,000, of which not more than
$17,340,000 shall be derived from collections credited to
this appropriation during fiscal year 1997 under 17 U.S.C.
708(d), and not more than $4,929,000 shall be derived from
collections during fiscal year 1997 under 17 U.S.C.
111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), and 1005: Provided, That the
total amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the
amount by which collections are less than $22,269,000:
Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of the amount
appropriated is available for the maintenance of an
``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright Office
of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training
nationals of developing countries in intellectual property
laws and policies: Provided further, That not more than
$2,250 may be expended, on the certification of the Librarian
of Congress, in connection with official representation and
reception expenses for activities of the International
Copyright Institute.

Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

salaries and expenses

For salaries and expenses to carry out the Act of March 3,
1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 U.S.C. 135a),
$44,964,000, of which $11,694,000 shall remain available
until expended.

Furniture and Furnishings

For necessary expenses for the purchase and repair of
furniture, furnishings, office and library equipment,
$4,882,000.

Administrative Provisions

Sec. 201. Appropriations in this Act available to the
Library of Congress shall be

[[Page H7182]]

available, in an amount of not more than $194,290, of which
$58,100 is for the Congressional Research Service, when
specifically authorized by the Librarian, for attendance at
meetings concerned with the function or activity for which
the appropriation is made.
Sec. 202. (a) No part of the funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by the Library of Congress to administer any
flexible or compressed work schedule which--
(1) applies to any manager or supervisor in a position
the grade or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15;
and
(2) grants such manager or supervisor the right to not be
at work for all or a portion of a workday because of time
worked by the manager or supervisor on another workday.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``manager or
supervisor'' means any management official or supervisor, as
such terms are defined in section 7103(a) (10) and (11) of
title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 203. Appropriated funds received by the Library of
Congress from other Federal agencies to cover general and
administrative overhead costs generated by performing
reimbursable work for other agencies under the authority of
31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536 shall not be used to employ more than
65 employees and may be expended or obligated--
(1) in the case of a reimbursement, only to such extent
or in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; or
(2) in the case of an advance payment, only--
(A) to pay for such general or administrative overhead
costs as are attributable to the work performed for such
agency; or
(B) to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in
appropriations Acts, with respect to any purpose not
allowable under subparagraph (A).
Sec. 204. Of the amounts appropriated to the Library of
Congress in this Act, not more than $5,000 may be expended,
on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in
connection with official representation and reception
expenses for the incentive awards program.
Sec. 205. Of the amount appropriated to the Library of
Congress in this Act, not more than $12,000 may be expended,
on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in
connection with official representation and reception
expenses for the Overseas Field Offices.
Sec. 206. (a) For fiscal year 1997, the obligational
authority of the Library of Congress for the activities
described in subsection (b) may not exceed $108,275,000.
(b) The activities referred to in subsection (a) are
reimbursable and revolving fund activities that are funded
from sources other than appropriations to the Library in
appropriations Acts for the legislative branch.
Sec. 207. (a)(1) Subject to subsection (b), for fiscal year
1997, the obligational authority of the Library of Congress
for the activities described in paragraph (2) may not exceed
$2,000,000.
(2) The activities referred to in paragraph (1) are non-
expenditure transfer activities in support of parliamentary
development that are funded from sources other than
appropriations to the Library in appropriations Acts for the
legislative branch.
(b) The obligational authority under subsection (a)--
(1) shall be available only with respect to Russia,
Ukraine, Albania, Slovakia, and Romania; and
(2) shall expire on December 31, 1996.
Sec. 208. (a) Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for
the Library of Congress under the headings specified in
subsection (b) may be transferred among such headings, upon
approval of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate.
(b) The headings referred to in subsection (a) are as
follows: (1) in title I, ``Congressional Research Service'',
``salaries and expenses''; and (2) in this title, ``Salaries
and Expenses''; ``Copyright Office'', ``salaries and
expenses'', ``Books for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped'', ``salaries and expenses''; and ``Furniture and
Furnishings''.
Sec. 209. From and after October 1, 1996, the Disbursing
Officer of the Library of Congress is authorized to disburse
funds appropriated for the Office of Compliance, and the
Library of Congress shall provide financial management
support to the Office of Compliance as may be required and
mutually agreed to by the Librarian of Congress and the
Executive Director of the Office of Compliance. The Library
of Congress is further authorized to compute and disburse the
basic pay of all personnel of the Office of Compliance
pursuant to the provisions of section 5504 of title 5.
All vouchers certified for payment by duly authorized
certifying officers of the Library of Congress shall be
supported with a certification by an officer or employee of
the Office of Compliance duly authorized in writing by the
Executive Director of the Office of Compliance to certify
payments from appropriations of the Office of Compliance. The
Office of Compliance certifying officers shall (1) be held
responsible for the existence and correctness of the facts
recited in the certificate or otherwise stated on the voucher
or its supporting paper and the legality of the proposed
payment under the appropriation or fund involved, (2) be held
responsible and accountable for the correctness of the
computations of certifications made, and (3) be held
accountable for and required to make good to the United
States the amount of any illegal, improper, or incorrect
payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or misleading
certificate made by them, as well as for any payment
prohibited by law which did not represent a legal obligation
under the appropriation or fund involved: Provided, That the
Comptroller General of the United States may, at his
discretion, relieve such certifying officer or employee of
liability for any payment otherwise proper whenever he finds
(1) that the certification was based on official records and
that such certifying officer or employee did not know, and by
reasonable diligence and inquiry could not have ascertained
the actual facts, or (2) that the obligation was incurred in
good faith, that the payment was not contrary to any
statutory provision specifically prohibiting payments of the
character involved, and the United States has received value
for such payment: Provided further, That the Comptroller
General shall relieve such certifying officer or employee of
liability for an overpayment for transportation services made
to any common carrier covered by section 3726 of title 31,
whenever he finds that the overpayment occurred solely
because the administrative examination made prior to payment
of the transportation bill did not include a verification of
transportation rates, freight classifications, or land grant
deductions.
The Disbursing Officer of the Library of Congress shall not
be held accountable or responsible for any illegal, improper,
or incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or
misleading certificate, the responsibility for which is
imposed upon a certifying officer or employee of the Office
of Compliance.

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

Library Buildings and Grounds

structural and mechanical care

For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and
structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library
buildings and grounds, $9,003,000, of which $560,000 shall
remain available until expended.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Office of Superintendent of Documents

salaries and expenses

For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents
necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of
Government publications and their distribution to the public,
Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and
designated depository and international exchange libraries as
authorized by law, $29,077,000: Provided, That travel
expenses, including travel expenses of the Depository Library
Council to the Public Printer, shall not exceed $150,000:
Provided further, That amounts of not more than $2,000,000,
from current year appropriations are authorized for producing
and disseminating Congressional serial sets and other related
publications for 1995 and 1996 to depository and other
designated libraries.

Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make
such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and
in accord with the law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 9104 of title 31, United States Code, as
may be necessary in carrying out the programs and purposes
set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for the
Government Printing Office revolving fund: Provided, That not
more than $2,500 may be expended on the certification of the
Public Printer in connection with official representation and
reception expenses: Provided further, That the revolving fund
shall be available for the hire or purchase of not more than
twelve passenger motor vehicles: Provided further, That
expenditures in connection with travel expenses of the
advisory councils to the Public Printer shall be deemed
necessary to carry out the provisions of title 44, United
States Code: Provided further, That the revolving fund shall
be available for temporary or intermittent services under
section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates
for individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay for level V of the Executive
Schedule under section 5316 of such title: Provided further,
That the revolving fund and the funds provided under the
headings ``Office of Superintendent of Documents'' and
``salaries and expenses'' together may not be available for
the full-time equivalent employment of more than 3,700
workyears: Provided further, That activities financed through
the revolving fund may provide information in any format:
Provided further, That the revolving fund shall not be used
to administer any flexible or compressed work schedule which
applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the grade
or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15: Provided
further, That expenses for attendance at meetings shall not
exceed $75,000.

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office,
including not more than $7,000 to be expended on the
certification of the Comptroller General of the United States
in connection with official representation and reception
expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section
3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for
individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual
rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule
under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor
vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries

[[Page H7183]]

in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3324; benefits comparable to
those payable under sections 901(5), 901(6) and 901(8) of the
Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 4081(6) and
4081(8)); and under regulations prescribed by the Comptroller
General of the United States, rental of living quarters in
foreign countries; $332,520,000: Provided, That not more than
$100,000 of reimbursements received incident to the operation
of the General Accounting Office Building shall be available
for use in fiscal year 1997: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 9105 hereafter amounts reimbursed
to the Comptroller General pursuant to that section shall be
deposited to the appropriation of the General Accounting
Office then available and remain available until expended,
and not more than $5,805,000 of such funds shall be available
for use in fiscal year 1997: Provided further, That this
appropriation and appropriations for administrative expenses
of any other department or agency which is a member of the
Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) shall
be available to finance an appropriate share of JFMIP costs
as determined by the JFMIP, including the salary of the
Executive Director and secretarial support: Provided further,
That this appropriation and appropriations for administrative
expenses of any other department or agency which is a member
of the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional
Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance
an appropriate share of Forum costs as determined by the
Forum, including necessary travel expenses of non-Federal
participants. Payments hereunder to either the Forum or the
JFMIP may be credited as reimbursements to any appropriation
from which costs involved are initially financed: Provided
further, That to the extent that funds are otherwise
available for obligation, agreements or contracts for the
removal of asbestos, and renovation of the building and
building systems (including the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning system, electrical system and other major
building systems) of the General Accounting Office Building
may be made for periods not exceeding five years: Provided
further, That this appropriation and appropriations for
administrative expenses of any other department or agency
which is a member of the American Consortium on International
Public Administration (ACIPA) shall be available to finance
an appropriate share of ACIPA costs as determined by the
ACIPA, including any expenses attributable to membership of
ACIPA in the International Institute of Administrative
Sciences.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used for the maintenance or care of private
vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may
be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities
for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on
House Oversight and for the Senate issued by the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
Sec. 302. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act
shall remain available for obligation beyond fiscal year 1997
unless expressly so provided in this Act.
Sec. 303. Whenever in this Act any office or position not
specifically established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929
is appropriated for or the rate of compensation or
designation of any office or position appropriated for is
different from that specifically established by such Act, the
rate of compensation and the designation in this Act shall be
the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided, That the
provisions in this Act for the various items of official
expenses of Members, officers, and committees of the Senate
and House of Representatives, and clerk hire for Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives shall be the
permanent law with respect thereto.
Sec. 304. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 305. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 306. During fiscal year 1997 and fiscal years
thereafter, amounts appropriated to the Architect of the
Capitol (including amounts relating to the Botanic Garden)
may be transferred among accounts available to the Architect
of the Capitol upon the approval of--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, in the case of amounts transferred from the
appropriation for Capitol buildings and grounds under the
heading ``house office buildings'';
(2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, in the
case of amounts transferred from the appropriation for
Capitol buildings and grounds under the heading ``senate
office buildings''; and
(3) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives, in the case of amounts transferred
from any other appropriation.
Sec. 307. (a) Upon approval of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and in
accordance with conditions determined by the Committee on
House Oversight, positions in connection with House public
address sound system activities and related funding shall be
transferred from the appropriation for the Architect of the
Capitol for Capitol buildings and grounds under the heading
``capitol buildings'' to the appropriation for salaries and
expenses of the House of Representatives for the Office of
the Clerk under the heading ``salaries, officers and
employees''.
(b) For purposes of section 8339(m) of title 5, United
States Code, the days of unused sick leave to the credit of
any such employee as of the date such employee is transferred
under subsection (a) shall be included in the total service
of such employee in connection with the computation of any
annuity under subsections (a) through (e) and (o) of such
section.
(c) In the case of days of annual leave to the credit of
any such employee as of the date such employee is transferred
under subsection (a), the Architect of the Capitol is
authorized to make a lump sum payment to each such employee
for that annual leave. No such payment shall be considered a
payment or compensation within the meaning of any law
relating to dual compensation.
Sec. 308. (a) Effective October 1, 1996, the responsibility
for maintenance of security systems for the Capitol buildings
and grounds is transferred from the Architect of the Capitol
to the Capitol Police Board. Such maintenance shall be
carried out under the direction of the Committee on House
Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Rules and Administration of the Senate. On and after
October 1, 1996, any alteration to a structural, mechanical,
or architectural feature of the Capitol buildings and grounds
that is required for security system maintenance under the
preceding sentence may be carried out only with the approval
of the Architect of the Capitol.
(b)(1) Effective October 1, 1996, all positions specified
in paragraph (2) and each individual holding any such
position (on a permanent basis) immediately before that date,
as identified by the Architect of the Capitol, shall be
transferred to the Capitol Police.
(2) The positions referred to in paragraph (1) are those
positions which, immediately before October 1, 1996, are--
(A) under the Architect of the Capitol;
(B) within the Electronics Engineering Division of the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol; and
(C) related to the maintenance of security systems for the
Capitol buildings and grounds.
(3) All annual leave and sick leave standing to the credit
of an individual immediately before such individual is
transferred under paragraph (1) shall be credited to such
individual, without adjustment, in the new position of the
individual.
Sec. 309. Such sums as may be necessary are appropriated to
the account described in subsection (a) of section 415 of
Public Law 104-1 to pay awards and settlements as authorized
under such subsection.
This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1997''.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendments shall be in order except amendments
printed in House Report 104-663, which shall be considered in the order
printed, may be offered only by a member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, except as specified in the report, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Pursuant to the previous orders of the House, amendment No. 6 by the
gentlemen from California [Mr. Campbell] may be considered in modified
form; amendment No. 1 by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] may
be considered at any time; and an amendment by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard] may be considered at any time as though
printed in the report, and debatable for 10 minutes.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be
less than 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 104-663.

amendment offered by mr. klug

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H7184]]

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentlewoman from
Washington [Ms. Dunn] whose amendment is printed in the report?
Mr. KLUG. I am, Mr. Chairman. The gentlewoman from Washington [Ms.
Dunn], unfortunately, was called back to her district offices because
of a health problem with one of her staffers.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Klug: Page 28, beginning on
line 9, strike out ``3,700 workyears'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``3,600 workyears by the end of fiscal year 1997''.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]
and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
Is the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton] opposed?
Mr. THORNTON. I am opposed, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas will be recognized for 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today again on behalf of
Jennifer Dunn, who unfortunately had to be back in her district because
of a health problem affecting one of her staffers, and also Chairman
Pat Roberts.
Mr. Chairman, both Ms. Dunn, Chairman Roberts, and I believe that the
Government Printing Office needs to continue to privatize and downsize.
Mr. Chairman, much of the debate over the last year has been about
what level of government is capable of doing service the best, whether
the Federal Government or the State government should run welfare,
whether the State government or the Federal Government should run
Medicaid, the health care program aimed at women and children.
But I think, Mr. Chairman, there is an additional question involved,
which is to say what business is the Federal Government involved in
today that we should not be involved in any longer whatsoever? I cannot
think of a better example than the Government Printing Office,
established essentially and maintained today in order to print
Government documents that are needed on an emergency basis. Mr.
Chairman, as soon as I find a Government document that needs to be
printed on an emergency basis, I will be happy to share it with you and
everybody else in the Chamber.

The fact of the matter is the Government Printing Office remains in
business today for the most part to print the Congressional Record. Mr.
Chairman, there are 115,000 private printers in the United States, and
I think they are certainly capable of printing the Congressional Record
overnight. If the Wall Street Journal can have a story filed in
Johannesburg, sent to New York where it is edited, sent up on a
satellite dish in the Midwest, and it plops on my doorstep in Madison,
WI, at 5:30 in the morning, assuredly somebody, one of the 115,000
private printers in the United States, can manage to print the
Congressional Record overnight.
We continue to invest, I think foolishly, in printing equipment which
is essentially out of date the minute it is put in place and into
operation at the Government Printing Offices over on North Capitol
Street.
This amendment today will reduce the full-time equivalent workyears
by 100 which will save taxpayers about $5 million. While that is a kind
of a marginal savings on the outside, the bottom line is we continue to
cut Government Printing Office staffing levels down from 4,500 where it
was several years ago, below 4,000, now on the way to 3,500.
Let me make clear I know that our chairman's biggest fight in this
entire battle is not necessarily in this House. We last year passed an
amendment that passed by two-thirds. The fight will be in the
conference committee. I think again we need to send a signal to the
Senate that we want a Government Printing Office that essentially will
contract out work and will procure work and serve as a clearinghouse
for the Government but not to essentially be a Government printing
press. Last year's amendment, as I said, received bipartisan support
with a vote of 293 to 129.
The bottom line in all of this, and one more point, Mr. Chairman,
before I yield to the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, in
1991 the GPO lost over $1 million, in 1992 it lost almost $5.5 million,
in 1993 it lost $14 million, in 1994 it lost $21 million, in 1995 its
loss was $3 million, and the fiscal year 1996 loss to date is $13
million. Every place you look, the Government Printing Office loses
money because the Government should not be in the business of running
printing presses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Packard], the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, it would be of interest to the Congress to
note that in this bill, we have provided funds for a study that would
help to determine whether the GPO would be better off contracting out
or privatizing the printing of the daily journal. So we are moving in
the same direction, I believe, that the offeror of the amendment would
like us to go.
It is true that the Government Printing Office has lost money, about
$60 million over the last 6 years, that the inplant work load has
declined by about 17 percent, and that the printing procurement work
load has declined by about the same, 17 percent, and that it is
realistic to assume that we can reduce the work force further in GPO.
Therefore, I am perfectly willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The GPO has
already had a series of cuts, leading to 3,700 employees at this time.
Much of the work of the GPO is already contracted out. The efficiencies
and effectiveness which were designed to be brought into the Government
Printing Office have been successful and are on a right track. GPO
should be allowed to continue on this track into the future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding
time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a continuing effort to, I think,
precipitously reduce the FTE'S at GPO. Very frankly, it is my feeling
that, until it is reduced to zero, that the gentleman from Wisconsin
and the gentlewoman from Washington State will continue to offer
amendments to reduce it. I understand that. That may not be completely
accurate, but that is my sense.
This reduces an additional 100 FTE's. This amendment, in my opinion,
does not take into account the hard work that continues to occur at the
GPO to downsize its work force. I think they have gotten the message--
in a manner, however, that is consistent with the requirements placed
on it by Congress. That is the key. Consistent with the requirements
placed on it, not by some third party, but by Congress itself.
There is a point, Mr. Chairman, when the essential demands of the
House and the Senate to put a Record of word-for-word proceedings on
the desk of each Representative and Senator the next morning and,
frankly, at the request of every citizen in our country, to print the
Federal Register in a timely fashion, to print bills for committees and
subcommittees, there is a point when this kind of reduction in
personnel will cause the GPO to become unable to react satisfactorily.
Since 1993, the GPO has reduced its work force by over 1,000 persons.
This is not an agency that is growing or is bloated. It is an agency
that has been reduced, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]
and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thorntion] have reduced it further
by an additional 50 in this bill.
The Committee on Appropriations in this bill has already adopted, as
I say, the reductions after examining the process carefully; and the
GPO management has a program to continue downsizing its work force in a
managed framework.
I know that the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], because I
have been at some of his hearings, is keenly aware of the questions
arising by GPO's activities and is looking at it very closely.
I submit that this additional FTE cut will make the process of
downsizing

[[Page H7185]]

even more difficult for the GPO and should not be adopted.
This amendment attempts to micromanage the Government Printing Office
by an arbitrary reduction of its work force. That is no way to run a
very successful printing operation on which the Congress depends
heavily and on which the American public depends.
I would urge that this amendment be defeated, Mr. Chairman, and for
the House to permit GPO to continue its orderly program of downsizing.
Why is that important? It is important, first of all, because we have
people that we have asked to perform duties for the Congress and for
the American public.
If management is given a figure to reduce to, they can effect that if
you give them sufficient time to let attrition and a change in the
undertakings, the responsibilities of that agency, to occur. If,
however, you do it precipitously, there is no alternative but to RIF
people. As everybody knows, a reduction in force under the Federal work
rules is a very costly endeavor indeed, which is why even in the
private sector they try to avoid that if at all possible.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the House would support the action of
the committee which has already reduced based upon its judgment of what
can be done within the time frame available in the fiscal year 1997
budget. I commend the committee for its actions, and I would hope that
they would be sustained by the House.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
(Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dunn amendment
which would reduce the Government Printing Office by 100 full-time
employees.
Some Members may say, what is the big deal about reducing 100 full-
time employees from this office. If you take into consideration that in
1976 there were 8,000 employees at the GPO and presently there are
3,800 employees at the GPO, that becomes a big deal. One thousand of
these cuts have occurred since 1993. These reductions were accomplished
through attrition and improved computer technology. The GPO has managed
the transition to electronic technologies and downsized without
interrupting services to the Congress, other Federal agencies and, most
importantly, to the public. They have done an excellent job.
As computer technology changes the way the Federal Government does
its business, we should be sensitive to reducing the work force, the
people, which produce government documents. The futurist, John Nesbitt,
in his book ``Megatrends'' wrote that as society becomes more high
tech, it should remain high touch. I believe that can be interpreted to
mean that as a computer society becomes bigger and more important in
our lives, we should not let this advancement influence the way we
treat our fellow human beings.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment may be high tech, but it sure is not
high touch. Vote against the Dunn amendment, please.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just respond briefly to the gentleman from North Carolina, in
talking about concerns and feelings and a sense of having empathy. My
empathy goes out to the taxpayers of America who continue to fund an
organization that I think largely is out of date and I think the
gentleman from North Carolina brings up a very good point. With the
increasing use of the Internet, the Government is less reliant on paper
than ever before. CD roms can now replace entire volumes of hard-bound
documents.
The point is in the current environment we are going into, it does
not call for a continual support of the GPO. It essentially says that
GPO has an even tougher job in the future justifying their existence,
period.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Roberts].

{time} 1330

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
In the recent past I was the ranking Republican member serving on the
House-Senate Joint Committee on Printing. That is the congressional
entity with oversight of the GPO's operation. I have been over there
many times and talked with many employees and many of the
administrative folks down there as well. I think the basic problem here
is the financial loss. In 1991, as has been stated in the debate, when
the GPO lost $1.2 million, 1992 losses began to increase to $5.2
million; in 1994, losses topped out at $21.8 million. Even during this
fiscal year, the GPO has already lost $13 million. Only the Federal
Government, it seems to me, would continue to run an agency at a total
loss to the taxpayer. There is a lot of red ink down there, we have to
fix it.
The first question that comes to mind is, where does all the money go
in regard to the GPO? Every study that we have had in regard to this
operation says about 80 percent of all the GPO costs are dedicated to
personnel costs.
Now, the second question that comes to mind is this: Why is so much
money being lost? Well, I do not think we can blame the employees. That
is not the intent. They are doing their jobs and they are doing them
well, for that matter. Rather, it is the advanced technology that has
been discussed on the floor in this regard and the move toward
something called electronic printing that has changed the way that the
GPO does business.
The entire Government is using less paper and shifting to on-line
services to gather and disperse information. The traditional customers
of the GPO are simply turning to these alternatives to get their
information much more quickly and in a cost-efficient manner. This
amendment simply reflects the future of government as dictated by
technology and as demanded by taxpayers. That is what the amendment is
about. With this trend continuing toward less paper and more reliance
on web sites and CD-ROM's, we will need fewer people to produce the
government documents.
I have said many times in the last few years, at many hearings, the
world is changing and the GPO must change as well. While I recognize
and appreciate the efforts of the GPO, I believe we must continue to
guide the GPO down the path to a smaller, more efficient Government. We
have a responsibility to the taxpayer to reduce costs, just as all of
the printing businesses on America's Main Streets do in the same
situation.
I would point out that last year this amendment or a very similar
amendment received bipartisan support and the vote was 293-129. It
reduced the FTE's by 350. That was down from 3,900 to 3,550. Then 250
FTE's were restored in conference. I believe the final conference
version simply brought the FTE count to 3,800.
So, first we achieved the reform, and then it is taken away in
conference. First we make the cuts, which are reasonable cuts, by a
vote of 293 to 129. Then 250 are restored in conference. So we really
did not even do what the House voted for in the last session of
Congress. This has nothing to do about employees, nothing to do about
the good work at the GPO. It is advanced technology and the way the
Government does its job in regard to that technology.
So I am very happy to cosponsor the amendment on behalf of the
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] and also my colleague from
Wisconsin. I urge its support.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, we have a level of about 3,700 people in the
Government Printing Office now. That is less than 50 percent of what it
used to be. We used to have about 8,000 people in the Government
Printing Office, and they had a reputation for doing a very good job.
They still have a reputation for doing an excellent, professional job.
If we talk to people in the private sector, the Printing Industries of
America, whatever, they will say that they have a high level of respect
for people in the Government Printing Office.
Now, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], our friend, said this
is not about people, this is not about those employees. Well, the fact
is, it is.

[[Page H7186]]

We are cutting another 100 people that are doing their job, have
consistently done everything that the Congress has asked them to, have
been subject to continuing downsizing. They accept the downsizing. They
are on a glide path. They are reducing the number of people that work
there, not as fast as they are reducing their workload.
The only thing that makes sense is that this is some kind of vendetta
against the Government Printing Office and it does not make sense. We
were reducing them. Let us do it in the way that we previously agreed
to. Reject this amendment.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton] has 3
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Arkansas, a member of the
committee, has the right to close.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella], showing the bipartisan opposition to this
amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It
does indicate that there is bipartisan opposition, because opposition
to this amendment is to really assist this Congress and the people of
the United States.
This amendment that I oppose and many others oppose would arbitrarily
reduce the Government Printing Office by 100 additional full-time
employees. These are people who have worked for many years for the
Government Printing Office for us. The legislative branch appropriation
bill, it already reduces the Government Printing Office by 100 full-
time employees, reducing its staff from 3,800 FTE's to 3,700 FTE's.
Twenty years ago, GPO had a staff of 8,000. Today it is less than
half that amount. More than half of these cuts have occurred since
1993. The Government Printing Office has been able to accomplish these
reductions by careful management, attrition and by updating their
computer systems. An additional cut of 100 employees would disrupt the
GPO's work. Between 75 and 80 percent of GPO's work is already being
sent to outside bidders, and we know that GPO gets the best price
around. The remaining work done in-house is often sent by the Congress
to be done on a moment's notice and they do it.
This amendment would arbitrarily disrupt both the productivity of the
Government Printing Office and the lives of its personnel. I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing the Dunn amendment.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just make a few brief points in closing because
we are just about out of time on both sides. I simply want to make the
point that, more so than anything else, if we are going to be
interested in somebody's interest in this debate that is going on, the
interest should be that of the American taxpayers. The General
Accounting Office, which his the investigative arm of Congress, when it
has done investigations in the past on the Government Printing Office,
essentially says, whenever we print a document there, it costs 2\1/2\
times what it does in the private sector.
In response to the point earlier of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer], I do not want to see the Government Printing Office be
eliminated, but I think it should largely become a procurement arm of
the government and get out of the printing industry itself.
Over the last 5 years, as we have pointed out, the Government
Printing Office has lost $57 million. The gentleman on the other side
are correct that the Government Printing Office does what Congress asks
it to do. What we are trying to say on this side of the aisle is we
have asked it to do so many things. We should ask it to do less, and we
should ask it to do with fewer people than we see at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the committee has carefully reviewed this and has
determined that the reductions, which are significant, which have been
recommended by the committee, are appropriate and that the functioning
of the GPO, which, among other things, has the responsibility of
transferring authority to the electronic media, can be well carried out
within the committee recommendation.
I believe that the adoption of the amendment will impair that
function, and I urge opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 104-663.
Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wish to offer his
amendment?
If not, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 104-663.

amendment offered by mr. volkmer

Mr. VOLKMER. 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. Volkmer: Page 31, after line 2,
insert the following:
The aggregate amount otherwise provided under this heading
is hereby reduced by $250,000, and the amount of such
reduction shall be retained in the Treasury for purposes of
deficit reduction and shall not be available for
appropriation for any other purpose for fiscal year 1997.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]
will each control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered for two purposes. One is to
show my dissatisfaction with the operations of the GAO, and especially
for some of the studies that have come forth that I have been cognizant
of, that I find less than professional. I wish to serve notice on the
GAO that I believe they can do the job a lot better, and I feel more
objective, than what I have seen in the past.
I acknowledge that the committee has already cut GAO by a significant
figure and, therefore, my amendment really is not meaningful. But this
amendment was drafted over a month ago in preparation. I told my staff
that I wanted to be able to take this opportunity to suggest that the
GAO can do a better job.
But the second purpose of me being here is to talk about the
appropriation bill that is now before us.
Back last year during the Government shutdown, when Speaker Gingrich
decided that the Government should shut down in order to persuade the
President to sign a balanced budget that they wanted, and other bills
that they wanted, we had Federal employees, many of which are in my
district, who did not know whether they were going to be able to work,
did not know whether they were going to be paid if they did work. And
many of them were very hurt by the actions of this Congress.

I had one lady who worked for a Federal agency who called me up, and
she has children. She got a paycheck for 2 weeks' work that was around
$5. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, every employee of the legislative
branch, GAO, committee staff, my staff, everybody else was feeling
great. They were getting paid right along because their appropriation
bill had been signed in October.
Well, I called my friend over at the White House, not the President
but somebody else, and talked to him at that time about it. I said,
next year we will probably be ending up at the same place, and it looks
to me like we are going there. When I look at the Interior bill, I look
at the HUD and Independent Agencies bill, I look at Labor, HHS and
Education bill, going down the same road, dead end, not going to get
done.
I am not the only one that says that. Their own leader, the gentleman
from Texas, is saying it. He is saying we are not going to get it done,
we have got to have a continuing resolution until March to get by this.
Well, my position is, and I think I would like to find out from the
gentleman from California, who I consider a good friend. Ever since we
have been here, we have worked together on things.

[[Page H7187]]

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill should be the very last bill
that gets signed by the President. If other Federal agencies, employees
of this Federal Government are not going to know whether they are going
to get paychecks or not, are not going to know whether they are going
to be able to work or not at their jobs, I do not believe that my
employees, that any committee staff, GAO, Library of Congress, police
force, you name it, they should have the same problem.
My position is, if all that happens, maybe we will actually get it
done, rather than having your own staff gripe at Members and saying,
well, I do not have money for dinner, because those people out there, a
lot of them did not have money for dinner. They might come along and
ask: Can I come over to your house for dinner? I need something to eat,
if it is on your own committee or your own personal staff.
So my suggestion is let us go slow on this bill. If we want to finish
up here today and have the Senate take it up later when Members take it
to conference, just do not come out of conference until everything else
is done. Then, when all the other bills are out of the way and we know
that the Government will not shut down again, because last time it was
shut down because somebody in this House, the Speaker and a few other
people on that side, decided they wanted to shut it down. They were
going to teach the President a lesson. Well, that same thing could
happen. Very easily, somebody does not get their way on that side, they
decide, well, let us shut the Government down again.

If it does, why should our employees have the comfort, and that is
what it is, a comfort of knowing that they are going to be able to go
to work the next day. They are going to get their paycheck at the end
of the month when all these other Federal employees do not have any
idea at all about it.

{time} 1345

We know what happened last year in that Government shutdown was
terrible. I still have people in my district who went through that at
the Veterans Hospital, at research centers and others, that still talk
to me about it. They still do not know. There is no certainty to them.
They are wondering right now whether they are going to be paid and they
are going to be working or there is going to be another Government
shutdown.
Well, if we want to try to ensure that there will not, let us say no.
If there is going to be a shutdown, we shut down too.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from California. I want to know
his position on that.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment has very little
to do with what he has expressed.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman that that is correct.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would say to take it out on the GAO as a means of trying to convey the
gentleman's concerns for whether we shut the Government down again or
not is probably not the appropriate thing to do.
I certainly am not, and this subcommittee is not, going to be making
the decision as to whether we shut down or not.
Mr. VOLKMER. I agree with that.
Mr. PACKARD. My personal observation is that there is bipartisan
agreement that shutting down the Government is not a good procedure,
and I think we will use every effort to avoid that, and I assume we
will avoid that.
I think, speaking directly to the gentleman's amendment, I have some
real concerns because we have cut the GAO over the last year's bill and
this year's bill to 25 percent of the dollar cut from the previous
year, and a 37 percent cut in the staff. $250,000 is no significant
amount of money in their large budget, but the fact is it would be a
slap in the face for them, I think, after we have made an agreement
that we would not ask them to sustain more than the 25-percent cut.
They would have liked to have sustained less than the 25-percent cut
this year, but they agreed to keep their word, and I would have a very
red face to go back to them and say $250,000 we will cut further.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has time
to do all that, but I am trying to get an answer to a simple question
and I have not got it yet.
Does the gentleman think that his should be the last bill to go until
all the other bills are done or should he go ahead so all his workers
and his committee staff, they get the comfort of knowing they are going
to get paid while they go ahead and shut down the Government on the
other people?
Mr. PACKARD. The President has the option to veto this bill. I think
we should sent it to the President as quickly as we can.
Mr. VOLKMER. In other words, the gentleman believes that it is all
right to tell other people in the Federal Government, others that they
can be shut down, they do not get paid, but he is going to take care of
his.
Mr. PACKARD. I think our job as appropriators is to appropriate the
funds necessary to run Government, and that is what we are doing in my
bill and that is what we are doing in the other bills. Certainly I am
not suggesting that we shut the Government down.

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is obvious to me
that the gentleman from California is willing to shut down the
Government on other people, like he did, and the gentleman participated
in that. I can show him the votes where he agreed to shut down the
Government and let it be shut down, and those people did not get paid
for a long time. They went weeks without pay and then, at the same
time, he had the comfort of knowing that this committee staff, sitting
around him now, his personal staff, they all got their paychecks and
everything else. That was comfort.
All I am saying is if there is going to be sacrifice, I think we
should start with the sacrifice. I do not think that we should consider
our people and the people that work for this legislative branch better
than other Federal agencies. That is why I am asking the gentleman to
hold off on this bill and not do it until every other appropriation
bill for all Federal agencies are done.
If there is going to be a shutdown, and I think there is a
possibility there will, then the gentleman should let his legislative
staff and my legislative staff have to suffer also.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
It really is punitive to the GAO and the message and the signal that
the gentleman wishes to convey to our leadership on both sides and the
President as to whether we shut the Government down is totally
extraneous to this issue. I would really invite the gentleman to
withdraw his amendment because we have cut the GAO far more than I
think he ever would have had he been chairman of this subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe this is the forum in which we debate
the whole issue of whether we shut the Government down again or not. I
do not anticipate that debate coming for several weeks or maybe several
months, but the point is that will not be made by this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
say it is obvious to me, because of what I have said before in my
statement, that we are headed for a shutdown as far as certain agencies
are concerned. Unless that side makes some changes, that shutdown will
occur. And if it does occur the way the gentleman wants it to, there
will be agencies out there that will not get paid while our people are
paid.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There is no objection.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PACKARD

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the previous order of the
House of today, I offer the Packard amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Packard: On page 32, at the end of
line 17, add the following: (c) If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person

[[Page H7188]]

intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, such person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds provided
pursuant to this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in section 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be recognized for 5
minutes and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will be recognized
for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to tell Members that this is the Traficant language regarding ``Buy
America.'' I have no problem with the amendment and will accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I
want to thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Thornton], for the great job he has done.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's
consideration and the committee staff who helped with this, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Packard] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to have a colloquy with the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the committee
for its work in promoting the Books for the Blind Program. The Books
for the Blind Program is funded through the Library of Congress and
ensures that our blind and visually impaired populations will have
continued access to printed reading materials.
This past week I had the pleasure of addressing the national
convention of the National Federation of the Blind, an organization
representing those members of our society who must rely almost
exclusively on the Books for the Blind Program for reading materials of
all kinds, whether educational, informational, or for the latest best
seller. I therefore wish to commend my colleagues on the committee for
increasing funding for this worthy program to nearly $45 million.
Due to the tremendous role this program plays in the lives of our
blind and visually impaired fellow citizens, I would like to inquire of
the gentleman from California what effect, if any, would section 208 of
the measure have on the Books for the Blind Program.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to
speak to the gentleman's point.
Section 208 allows the Library of Congress to request that funds from
the five-line-item appropriations funding the Library of Congress be
shifted to meet its needs. The Books for the Blind Program is one of
these five line items, but of course this committee has not
legislatively decreased these funds for the blind. In fact, we
increased funds in this year's bill.
As the gentleman pointed out, this program is the primary source of
reading material for the blind, and the committee has been pleased to
increase funds for this service in the bill that we are debating today.
Under section 208 the Librarian could request, for instance, that funds
be added to the Books for the Blind account and taken from the other
four line items.
It is most unlikely, though possible, that the Librarian could
request funds to be shifted out of this account; however, even were the
Librarian to make such a request, it would have to be approved by the
House and Senate appropriations committees before any transfer could
take place. I personally have to approve that, and of course we have
been very protective of the Books for the Blind. So section 208
provides a mechanism by which the efficiency of the Library of Congress
and the Books for the Blind program can be maximized.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I thank the gentleman for his explanation, and I applaud his
efforts in ensuring that the Books for the Blind Program continues to
provide services so desperately needed by the Nation's blind and
visually impaired citizens.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5, printed
in House Report 104-663.

amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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. Smith of Michigan: Page 35, after
line 22, insert the following new section:
Sec. 310. Any amount appropriated in this Act for ``HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members'
Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for
fiscal year 1997. 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 House Resolution 473, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith] and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield
5 minutes to the distinguished cosponsor of this amendment, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and that he be allowed to control
that 5 minutes of time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, pending the
arrival of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] on the floor, I
might stand in his stead for the 5 minutes. When he arrives I will be
pleased to yield that time to him.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Many Members of this body who come to Congress come with the goal of
saving taxpayers money, being frugal with their own office spending
accounts as is possible. Since entering Congress, many of us try to
save for the taxpayers and keep our office expenses to a minimum.
Over the last 3 years in our Michigan's 7th District office, we have
saved $636,000. After my first year of cost cutting and making the
effort to be conscious of spending. I was appalled and disturbed that a
Member's savings did not save money; that the money would go
automatically into other accounts and add to those accounts to expand
spending.
In my first year in Congress, like many first-year Members, we were
striving to make sure that we do not buy more than what is needed in
stationery, that we do not waste the money by overspending on computers
or any other items only to find out that someone else spent the money
that was saved. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like the amendment that
we put in last year, for the first time allows the savings to go to the
Department of the Treasury for deficit reduction.
This amendment is identical to the amendment that we passed last
year, and I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. Last year this
amendment was passed by a vote of 423 to 21 margin as an amendment to
the legislative appropriation bills to return these unspent funds to
the Department of the Treasury. If we do not have some consideration,
some incentive for Members to be careful on how they spend taxpayers'
money, then we are not as apt to do it.

[[Page H7189]]

So I say let us pass this amendment, let us notify each office of how
much they have under spent, how much they have saved taxpayers, and let
us make sure with this amendment that that money will be going toward
deficit reduction rather than simply into another account.

{time} 1400

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was accepted last year and
I would certainly be anxious to accept it this year. It expresses the
very intent of our bill, and that is to return these funds to the
Treasury.
It is the intent of the committee bill. It is the desire of the
chairman and, I believe, the ranking member, that this be done. I do
not think there is any opposition from any member of the subcommittee.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the amendment will be accepted and that
we can move on to the following.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and do so
for the following reasons. Mr. Chairman, as we look out across America
and we see people working so hard, sometimes both people in the family
are working to support their children. Sometimes small businesses are
making very, very tough decisions to stay in a mode where they are
growing and maybe just making it through that year. We here in the
House of Representatives need to make decisions to help balance the
budget and move toward a balanced budget sooner rather than later.
Now, if balancing the budget starts at home, it certainly should
start in the House of Representatives here with our own accounts.
What this amendment simply does, it simply says that when you make
some of those tough choices and those tough decisions in your own
office to save money, do not let money be respent and go toward
somebody else's office where they are spending more money on their
office or on mail.
Last year we were able to pass this amendment 403 to 21. The
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] and myself and the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp]
and a host of other people, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge],
helped pass this amendment and say for the first time that when you are
fiscally responsible as a Member of Congress, you are going to
contribute to deficit reduction and not contribute to somebody else's
office funds where they are spending too much of those funds on mail or
staff or some other thing.
Let me say too, Mr. Chairman, that this language is identical to my
bill, which is H.R. 26. I have 126 cosponsors on this legislation, both
Republicans and Democrats, working together to find new innovative ways
to help balance the budget and reduce the deficit that Congress and the
Presidents have created over the past 20 years.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an innovative approach. It
certainly is an approach where we say balancing the budget must start
inside the Beltway. It must cut Washington, DC, spending first. It must
say that it starts in the home, which is the House of Representatives.
And it says, I think in a bipartisan way, the support of bipartisanship
that so many people in this country want to see that, we have come up
with a new idea, a new way to balance the budget.
Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be an original sponsor and the
sponsor of the bill H.R. 26. I am very, very happy to work with the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] and others.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana for his leadership in this
bipartisan effort and would like to state that certainly the amendment
is acceptable to the minority. As the chairman has stated, it is
acceptable to the majority. I hope that we will be able to get a good
vote on this for the gentleman.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is not a giant step in the way we are changing
business in the United States Congress. Maybe it could be akin to the
baby step forward. But still, if every Member of Congress knows how
much they are spending for the carts, for the computers, for everything
they buy in that office, and we start running our offices like a
business, it will help save tazpayer dollars.
Last year, for the first time in history, we had made a decision in
this Congress to return this money to Treasury to go toward deficit
reduction. That is our goal. Balancing the budget needs to be ever on
our minds as we strive to make sure that our economy and jobs expand. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say in concluding my remarks, because we
were hopeful that a number of the cosponsors such as the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Klug], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Browder] might show up to speak, but I know a number of
Members have commitments and hearings and markups and so forth.
But, again, Mr. Chairman, the strong vote last time by the House, by
the entire body here who controls how we spend our money and how we
save our money, 403 to 21; 403 Democrats and Republicans coming up with
a new idea, saying to this body and to taxpayers across the country, we
will save money in our office accounts, tighten our own belts and
contribute that money to reducing the deficit. That is a positive step
forward, I think.
I do not know whether the gentleman from Michigan intends to call for
a rollcall vote. Certainly, with the bipartisan support from the
Republican and Democratic sides, I will not call for a vote, especially
in light of the strong vote that we had last time, but I would continue
to urge Members to support this measure when they are talking to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentlemen from Arkansas
[Mr. Thornton], and that we may also look next year at including the
leadership funds into this package of savings as well, so that
everybody across the board contributes to deficit reduction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Roemer] and I have both offered freestanding bills on this. I hope we
can move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Camp].
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding and I want to commend my colleague from Indiana for working on
this matter for a number of years, and I appreciate my colleague from
Michigan's support on this as well. I think this is a positive
amendment and I would urge my colleagues to vote for it. This would
allow Members to return unspent office funds to the Treasury. It would
allow them to use those funds returned for specifically deficit
reduction and I urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the 104th Congress has led a historic effort to reduce
the deficit and incorporate fiscal responsibility into Federal
spending.
Today, we again have the opportunity to lead by example. This
amendment would allow Members to return unspent office funds to the
U.S. Treasury for the specific purpose of deficit reduction. It would
reaffirm our commitment to eliminating the Federal debt.
It is important that fiscal responsibility start at home. Since being
elected to Congress in 1991, I have not spent over $565,000 of my
office funds. Like most Americans, I have spent wisely and made do with
what I had.
Naysayers claim that money can't be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
Many Members, however, save taxpayer money by spending

[[Page H7190]]

less. These Members should be recognized for their efforts and
taxpayers should be rewarded by allowing them to use unspent funds to
reduce the deficit.
We should not abandon this effort because it requires some changes.
This Congress has changed many things, and if need be, we can change to
allow Members to contribute savings to deficit reduction.
By adopting this amendment we reaffirm our commitment to deficit
reduction and fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in this bill, there is $363 million appropriated for
legislative representative office expenses. Let us make a commitment
today, now, that we are going to manage and safeguard those funds to
the greatest extent of our managerial ability to make sure that
taxpayers get their money's worth from the operations of our individual
offices.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed
in House Report 104-664.

Amendment No. 6, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Campbell

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

Amendment No. 6, as modified, offered by Mr. Campbell:
Before the short title at the end of the bill, add the
following new section:
Sec. 312. (a) In addition to any other estimates the
Director is required to make pursuant to the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 and the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office shall, upon the request of the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives
(after consultation with the ranking minority member of that
committee), prepare an estimate for any major spending
legislation, as designated by the majority leader of the
House of Representatives (after consultation with the
minority leader of the House), of the change in spending and
revenues resulting from the legislation on the basis of
assumptions that estimate the probable dynamic macroeconomic
feedback effects of such legislation, and shall include a
statement identifying those assumptions. Such estimates shall
be submitted to the chairmen and ranking minority members of
the Committee on the Budget and of the committees of subject-
matter jurisdiction, and, if timely submitted, shall be
included in the reports on such legislation.
(b) In addition to any other estimates the Chief of Staff
is required to make pursuant to the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Chief of Staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation shall, upon the request of the chairman
of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives (after consultation with the ranking minority
member of that committee), prepare an analysis of any major
tax legislation, as designated by the majority of the House
of Representatives (after consultation with the minority
leader of the House), of the change in spending and revenues
resulting from that legislation on the basis of assumptions
that estimate the probable dynamic macroeconomic feedback
effects of such legislation, and shall include a statement
identifying those assumptions. Such analyses shall be
submitted to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the
Committee on Ways and Means and of the committees of subject-
matter jurisdiction, and if timely submitted, shall be
included in the reports on such legislation.
(c) Estimates and analyses made pursuant to this section
are to be used for informational purposes only.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 473, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Campbell] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a
Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] oppose the amendment?
Mr. SABO. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will be
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. The amendment that I offer would permit an additional form of
understanding and analysis of the economic effect of legislation that
we pass here.
I begin by emphasizing the amendment does not replace any existing
method at all. But in addition to existing methods, occasionally it is
appropriate to consider what is called a dynamic economic model, and
this has application on the tax side as well as on the expenditure
side. Most of the literature in the academic world of economics has
dealt with the dynamic effects on taxes or tax cuts, but I have been
careful in this amendment to specify that this additional method shall
apply to the dynamic effect of expenditures as well.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it is important that we have that kind of
information available. This amendment allows that the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget can request CBO, in addition to all the other
means of analysis of a fiscal spending bill, to perform a dynamic
economic analysis as well; the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, similarly, in addition to all other forms of economic analysis,
can request dynamic economic modeling on tax bills as well.
In each case the Chair is required to consult with the ranking
minority member. I would point out that this methodology is used
already in several of the United States, specifically I know of the one
in my own State of California. That it is actually a more difficult
process for a State because the leakage, if you will, from a State
economy is a greater problem to estimate than the leakage from the U.S.
economy. And yet dynamic economic modeling is being practiced and
offering value in the analysis of the States of Massachusetts and
California.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude my opening remarks by observing that this
amendment to the bill will provide additional information and does not
supplant any other existing information. I cannot see how it would do
anything but help our analysis and the job that we do on behalf of the
citizens we represent. And I note in conclusion that the academic-
economic research institutes that are engaged in this process so far
include the National Bureau of Economic Research, which has offices at
Harvard University and Stanford University, UCLA; the University of
California at Berkeley, and the University of Michigan.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This
amendment does authorize the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint
Committee on Taxation to use the dynamic scoring model on spending and
tax legislation for informational purposes only.
This is an issue that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
the Budget and the Joint Committee on Taxation, and I understand that
it has been approved and has received agreement of the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, as well
as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Joint
Committee on Taxation. And with that approval, I have no objections and
would be more than pleased to accept the amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, might
I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. There are 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the gentleman from
California [Mr. Campbell] for the extremely diligent and hard work that
he has done in bringing this amendment to the floor. I think it is of
great importance, and I guess from the Joint Economic Committee point
of view, the best I think to say is very simply that we talk about
growth policy in taxes, and we talk about the negative aspects or the
negative effects of high taxes, and I think on both sides of the aisle
we share the belief that there is a stimulus that can be gained if we
are smart about tax policy. And we also recognize, I think on both
sides of the aisle, that bad tax policy can work as a wet blanket on
the economy, a wet blanket on our revenue. And yet the rules that we
operate under deny any of that takes place.

[[Page H7191]]

And so, the gentleman's amendment gives the chairman of the committee
the opportunity, the choice to make as to whether or not they want to
treat a particular item of tax policy and score it and figure out what
is going to happen in terms of our revenue from a dynamic model,
meaning that we accept the fact that there will be some changes
positive or negative, and that that can be factored into the equation.
One of the things that happens around here to all of us in Congress
is that people do not think that we know what we are doing. And I think
sometimes that happens with good cause. If we, on the one hand, say
that we are going to pass a certain tax because we want to make the
economy grow and hence enhance our revenue stream, and yet our rules
tell us that that cannot happen and we cannot consider those facts,
then, in fact, the public is certainly entitled to think we do not know
what we are doing.
Mr. Chairman, I was fishing the other day in the rain. This is a
story that goes along with this static model, I think. I was fishing in
the rain the other day and I got off the boat after having a wonderful
day fishing and the skipper said, How did you like it? I said, it was
wonderful, we caught fish, the company was good, but the only thing is
my glasses kept fogging up because it was raining. And he said, You
should be used to that; you are from Washington.
And this static rule is one of the things around here that
perpetuates the knowledge, the belief among the American public, that
we do not know what we are doing and that our glasses are, in fact,
foggy.
So, Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from California will
go a long way, in my view, toward unfogging our glasses and letting us
know ahead of time what it is that our policy will produce.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1415

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this bizarre amendment in some ways yields incredible
powers to the majority leader. Second, I would remind Members who
eventually decides how things are scored here is the Committee on the
Budget. CBO is advisory. This provides the option for the Committee on
the Budget to use new, crazy, funny numbers to score a variety of
proposals, either on the tax or the spending side. Lots of folks I have
heard on my side of the aisle over the years come with proposals on the
spending side that say, if we do this, this will save all this money in
outyears. We have not followed that.
Mr. Chairman, this is another of those sort of ideological proposals.
Part of it has had hearings. The hearings that relate to the tax side
were held in January of 1995. There have not been any hearings on the
spending side of this proposal. But those hearings were overwhelmingly
against moving to this type of dynamic scoring.
Let us be clear, the current system is not pure static. Members do
look at the impact of legislation. But let me read what Federal Reserve
Board Chairman Alan Greenspan had to say before the Committee on the
Budget of Congress on January 10, 1995, and I know my friend from
California was not here then. Let me quote:

Can we effectively create an econometric model which fully
captures all the effects of a specific policy action? I would
say to you, not in our lifetime.

Let me continue with another one:

We should be especially cautious about adopting technical
scoring procedures that might be susceptible to overly
optimistic assessments.

Third quote:

Should financial markets lose confidence in the integrity
of our budget scoring procedures, the rise in inflation
premiums and interest rates could more than offset any
statistical difference between so-called static and more
dynamic scoring.

This is an amendment that should not be adopted.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
It may be that my good friend and colleague has been referring to an
earlier version of the bill because the majority leader is not in this
bill at all. So the gentleman's opening comment worrying about the
delegation of authority to the majority leader is not in this bill or
in this amendment.
Let me repeat what the amendment does. It supplements, it never
replaces. And regarding Alan Greenspan's testimony, what he was saying
is absolutely right. Never in our lifetime will we know everything. But
as a supplement to what we now do as opposed to a replacement for it, I
do not believe he was speaking against this proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Let me apologize. The version of the amendment that I saw had
majority leader. Let me also indicate to the gentleman that it is the
Committee on the Budget that eventually scores budgets and that adopts
assumptions around here. This provides a mechanism for them to use this
new untested and unproven method for purposes of both budgets and
scoring bills.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
[Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I participated in
hearings on the concept of dynamic scoring and acknowledge to the
amendment's sponsor that, as a hypothetical matter, the dynamic impact
of public policy decisions made by Congress in the spending and tax
areas certainly has legitimacy. In fact, presently the CBO does
contemplate changes in resulting behavior.
If my colleagues look at, for example, the varying CBO estimates on
health policy expenditures, they see that there is a small element of
dynamic scoring presently at play in CBO assumptions. The larger
question though is, Does the methodology exist that allows dynamic
scoring to proceed with a degree of legitimacy that would play in
public policy debate?
On this exact question I put to Mr. Greenspan when he was before us,
my question from the transcript: Reading your testimony, it seems to me
to indicate, while there may be a conceptual legitimacy to concepts of
a more dynamic approach in scoring, we simply do not have the tools,
the ability at the present time to reasonably quantify in a way that
would give anyone the certainty required under this deficit picture
that we should move toward a more dynamic process; is that correct?
Mr. Greenspan's response: On the broader question of can we
effectively create an economic model which fully captures all the
effects of a specific policy action, I would say to you, not in our
lifetime.
Now, what is so important here is that, literally, these dynamic
assumptions, we would be asking Congress literally to bet the ranch on
their legitimacy. Both parties have members that say, we cut taxes, we
are going to make more money, or we increase spending and we will
actually reduce government outlays. Of course, those very concepts are
antithetical. Yet, on the other hand, using a dynamic scoring model, we
may have some very erroneous partisan-driven assumptions placed on a
dynamic model, and it would, I think, jeopardize seriously the budget
debates of this Congress.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment as a member of
the Committee on the Budget. In some of the debates we have already
heard today, it needs to be pointed out to the House we already have
dynamic scoring. That is already, when it is supportable it is used.
That is the way it ought to be. The idea that CBO uses only static
scoring is erroneous. If dynamic scoring is a good thing, it should be
a good thing in all instances, not just when the Committee on the
Budget chairman finds that it will serve his purpose to use it in
consultation with the ranking minority.
Saying that the dynamic scoring is only informational ignores the
fact that all CBO scoring is informational. It is the Committee on the
Budget which ultimately decides which assumptions to use. And therein I
want to close by again repeating the words that we should heed, those
words of Alan Greenspan, when he testified earlier this year in the
Committee on the

[[Page H7192]]

Budget. He stated, clearly, our political process has a bias to words
deficit spending, a bias toward deficit spending. Accordingly, we
should be especially cautious about adopting technical scoring
procedures that might, might be susceptible to overly optimistic
assessments of the budgetary consequences of fiscal actions. We must
avoid resting key legislative decisions on controversial estimates of
revenue and outlays. Should financial markets lose confidence in the
integrity of our budget scoring procedure, the rise in inflation
premiums and interest rates could more than offset any statistical
difference between so-called static and more dynamic scoring.
We should oppose this amendment today. It does not serve a helpful
purpose. At a time in which we clearly are needy, have got the deficit
heading in the right direction. This is not a time to be experimenting
with somebody's philosophical beliefs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cox].
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, is it the case that because we
cannot know everything, which was the burden of Alan Greenspan's
comment, we must, therefore, know nothing? This is a very sound
amendment. It would permit us some additional information only. Are we
so frightened of information that we do not wish to know it?
Right now under our current arrangements, the Congressional Budget
Office makes macroeconomic estimates of gross domestic product,
unemployment, interest rates. And then the Joint Committee on Taxation,
when it takes a look at our revenue legislation, finds that these
things are fixed and immutable like the old stars in an Aristotelian
firmament. Nothing that we do with revenues can affect unemployment.
Nothing that we do with tax legislation can affect interest rates or
gross domestic product. Those things are fixed.
Yes, we can take behavior into account, but only within this box that
is already fixed in advance by CBO. We know this does not work. We know
it produces false results.
When I was on the Committee on the Budget, I had a chance to ask the
director of CBO, Robert Reischauer why it was that on average CBO's
estimate of the deficit were in error by over 100 percent. That kind of
estimating error would get you fired anywhere in the private sector.
His answer was, we are not as far off as OMB, as the White House budget
estimators. There is no way in the world that anyone can say that what
presently we do makes sense or appreciates reality.
When we increased the rate of tax on capital gains by 40 percent in
1986, revenues to the Treasury dropped by a third. But CBO, using this
model, and joint tax, using this model, told us that revenues were
going to go up but we increased that stated rate.
We have a lot of real world evidence that tells us that the flat
earth econometric model, if we can call it an econometric model, simply
does not work as in use around here.
So what my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell],
is telling us is, let us experiment, yes, by looking at this for
informational purposes only. We will not use it. It will not supplant
our current scoring system, but we can have the information. If Members
want to bury their heads in the sand and follow flat earth economics
forever into the future, vote no. But if they want an honest evaluation
and new information, vote yes on this very sound amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
(Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from
my friend, the gentleman from California. We have heard the technical
reasons why to oppose this amendment. We have heard Dr. Greenspan
quoted.
I recall the Committee on the Budget, Joint Committee on the Budget
hearing we held early in the session with House and Senate Members. The
conclusion broadly from every economist was that to the extent that we
need dynamic scoring, they already can do it. But to suggest additional
rosy scenarios be injected into it was a huge mistake.
Before we make this mistake again, let us just look back at the
historical record. This amendment says that CBO should consider other
impacts which would increase revenue projections, dynamic scoring of
revenue provisions, beyond just the revenue coming in and so on.
Let us look at the record of CBO over the last 15 years. Look, every
line above this median is a year in which the CBO underestimated the
deficit. About half of each of these underestimates are they assumed
that we would spend less than we actually did, but the other half is
they assumed we would generate more revenues than we did.
The previous speaker said that in 1981, we made these changes. In
1986, we made tax changes. And if we had been able to dynamically score
and increase the rosy scenario even greater, we would have suggested
even more revenue come in.
Look at what happened right after 1981, when we assumed that all of
these tax reductions would increase revenue. They overestimated
revenues.
I submit that the facts suggest that CBO already overestimates. Let
us not create even more rosy scenarios. I urge the defeat of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, offered by the
distinguished gentleman from California.
I leave others to point out the technical reasons why this amendment
should be opposed. I would like to focus on the practical impact.
The clear intent of this amendment is to encourage more optimistic
assumptions about Federal revenues and expenditures, in the projections
made by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget
Office.
Before we do so, let us look at the historical record. Over the last
15 years, we have seen our national debt soar from $1 to $5 billion.
Annual deficits have been out of control.
Let us look at the accuracy of our projections by CBO over this
period. With the exception of the last few years, the CBO has
consistently and dramatically underestimated budget deficits. In fact,
it did so for 13 consecutive years, with an average underestimate of
$42 billion.
Some years, the difference was astounding. In 1990, CBO projections
underestimated the deficit by $119 billion. In 1983, the underestimate
was $91 billion. As CBO's annual Budget Outlook shows, these
underestimates reflect both a consistent underestimate of spending and
an overestimate of revenues.
Thus, in a period in which deficits have skyrocketed, and which CBO
has chronically underestimated our deficits, we are contemplating an
amendment which would exaggerate CBO's tendency to use overly rosy
projections.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent
several months last year extolling the virtues of CBO projections, of
using conservative estimates. They strongly attacked the administration
for using less conservative assumptions.
Now, in a remarkable about face, we are considering a proposal to use
less conservatives, less reliable projections of Federal spending and
revenues. Budget expert after budget expert have criticized this
approach.
With month's passage of a budget that actually increases the deficit
each of the next 2 years, it is clear that we are retreating from a
policy of fiscal discipline. Let us not turn this retreat into a rout.
Vote down the Campbell amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
To my friend from Utah, is it his statement, is the gentleman
informing the body that CBO, under present estimation techniques, has
gotten it wrong in every year that he has for us on the chart?
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. ORTON. What this chart shows is that in each year, the CBO has
underestimated deficits up until 1993, which they overestimated the
deficit. About half, look at 1990, they underestimated the deficit by
$119 billion. Half of that was revenue.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, is not the point of the gentleman's chart
that under present methods of estimation, CBO has it wrong every year
that he shows us?
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, CBO
has it wrong, but under the gentleman's proposal CBO would have it even
more wrong and we would have even higher deficits.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, we are adding to the information store.
There is no way we can do harm by providing additional sources of
information.

[[Page H7193]]

As my good friend from Utah just admitted, the present system is so
bad we have been estimating wrongly every time. In order to take
account of both sides in this debate, this dynamic method is applicable
to fiscal as well as tax policy. It is being used in three States.

{time} 1430

The errors in the observations that have been made in opposition to
this amendment are simply these. We cannot do worse by getting more
information. We are not substituting dynamic modeling for the present
system, and I have no better criticism of the present system than the
words my colleague from Utah made clear to all of us: The present
system has got it wrong every year we can measure.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes, the balance of my time, to
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what this is about is very simple. It is
about giving away goodies without having found a way to pay for them.
We have seen time and time again that our Republican friends in this
Congress want to propose to cut taxes for the wealthy and for special
interests. It has been their No. 1 priority. The problem is that they
keep running into a situation in which the commonsense budget rules
require them to pay for any tax reductions that they provide.
We saw last year how the Republicans would like to pay for those tax
breaks. They wanted to cut Medicare, they wanted to cut education, they
wanted to cut school lunches; the American people objected. And so now
what are we back to? We are back to the resurrection of the David
Stockman rosy scenario business.
I would remind my colleagues what happened the last time the country
used dynamic scoring. We were promised by David Stockman, who ran the
budget office for President Reagan, that if we passed his magic budget
which cut taxes and raised defense spending, we would cut our deficit
from $55 billion to zero within 4 years. Instead, using his dynamic
scoring, that deficit went up from $55 billion to $208 billion, and
finally they shaved it a bit to $185 billion.
I would simply suggest, if we were not paying for the added deficits
that were added during those Reagan years, this budget would be in
balance right now. That is the broblem, that is the problem, and this
amendment will simply take us back to those good old rosy scenario days
when we use phony estimates on revenue, and that allows us to spend
more money on other things. We dare not do that if we want to remain
fiscally responsible or even retain a pretension at fiscal
responsibility.
I would simply say experience, as my colleagues know, is that quality
which enables us to recognize a mistake when we make it again, and, if
passed, this amendment today will be making the same mistakle again. I
urge my colleagues not to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Campbell].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Campbell] will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House
Report 104-663.

Amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT. 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. Gutknecht: Page 35 after line 22,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 310. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1.9 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
Is there a Member seeking time in opposition?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek that 10 minutes, and
I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield 5 minutes of that
time to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, earlier today we heard a powerful speech from the new
prime minister from Israel, Mr. Netanyahu. In it he said that real
democracy allows dissent and honest debate, and we are here today to
offer some dissent and honest debate. A few months ago, when we were
adopting, in fact about a month ago when we were adopting, the budget
resolution, we were rightly criticized by Members and leadership on the
other side of the aisle for allowing the deficit to go up, and as one
of the freshmen who came here promising to do what we could to balance
this budget, to balance the people's budget, I was one who really felt
we made a terrible mistake by allowing spending to go up more this year
than we had agreed we would do just last year, and so, as a result, I
and some of my freshmen colleagues sat down and said, well, what can we
do? It is not enough just to vote no. We ought to have a constructive
plan to help recover that fumble.
By our calculations what really happened is we have allowed ourselves
to agree to spending levels that are about $4.1 billion more than we
agreed to last year in our 7-year budget plan. What I am offering today
is the same amendment that we have offered to virtually every
appropriation bill since the adoption of the conference committee
report on the budget resolution, and that is to reduce overall spending
across the board 1.9 percent.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is less than one notch in a belt. In fact, if
I compare that to a haircut, and what we are asking the legislature to
do is to reduce its expenditures by 1.9 percent, if we compare to that
a haircut, that is a haircut of less than \1/8\ of an inch.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, that is not much of haircut, and I think we
should lead by example, and I would hope that we can get this amendment
agreed to and that we can all agree to make at least some sacrifice in
terms of balancing the people's books.
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 rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
If this subcommittee had not done its job effectively, I could
probably agree to this amendment. But there is no subcommittee on
appropriations that has done a better job of cutting itself and all the
agencies that it represents better than this subcommittee. We have cut
ourselves, the legislative branch of Government, almost 12 percent
between last year and this year. We have gone far beyond what the
intent of the author of this amendment would have asked us to do last
year and this year, and to ask us now to absorb another 2 or almost 2
percent cut across the board I think would cut deeply into programs and
agencies that simply the Congress would be ill advised to cut.
I think the first point I would like to make is that an across-the-
board cut is not a good way to prioritize our spending programs. It is
a lousy way to prioritize, frankly. But we have not used that as our
procedure. We have funded those programs in this bill that ought to be
funded at level funding. We have cut those programs that ought to be
cut, and we have done a very responsible job, I believe, in doing it in
an orderly way.
But this would cut the Library of Congress in ways we would have to
have a hundred library employees fired. We have asked the library to
cut back in their staffing, and they have done so, but they have done
it in an orderly way, and this would eliminate the ability to fund the
increases, the mandatory increases, for staff COLA's in our offices and
in all of the agencies that

[[Page H7194]]

we represent in this bill. Some 28,000 copyrights would not be
registered, and that would be unconscionable, I think, in the Library
of Congress; 2,800 Braille books and 88,000 sound recordings would not
be made available to the blind and handicapped patrons of the library.
The House Appropriation Committee has already eliminated unnecessary
legislative funding and programs. We have cut ourselves $262 million
over the past 2 years. I do not know why they are asking us to make
further cuts when we are the model of cutting in the entire
appropriating process.
I would hope that the House would reject this amendment. It will
have, I think, personal effects upon our own offices and our staffs,
but more importantly it will eliminate programs and cut programs deeper
than what we feel is necessary and useful.
Incidentally, our bill comes in at 18 percent below the 602(b) outlay
target and 23 percent below the 602(b) budget authority target, Senate
items excluded. How can our colleagues ask us to do any better than
that?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I join the chairman of the committee in vigorous
opposition to this amendment which transforms what is a studied,
careful, and heavy reduction in appropriations into one which can have
a very detrimental effect.
I am an airplane pilot, and I know that when I get up into the air in
an airplane I pull back gently on the mixture control in order to get
an efficient, good-running hot engine to pull me through the air while
using the least amount of fuel. But there comes a point, Mr. Chairman,
where by pulling that mixture control back just a little too far, there
is silence--when the engine stops running because the fuel has been cut
too much. We do not need to take that drastic measure with regard to
the very important functioning of the legislative branch of Government.
We have cut this branch by over 20 percent in numbers of employees
over the past 5 years. It is exemplary of what we should be doing
throughout the Government, and the reason that we are upon this path of
a balanced budget is because the legislative branch is doing its duty
under the Constitution. We do not need to make across-the-board cuts
which cut funds for books for the blind, which cut funds for COLA
increases for valuable employees of the legislative branch of
Government. This amendment would impose radical cuts across the board
instead of singling out particular cuts that should be made.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], my freshman colleague.
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. As my colleagues know, it is interesting. The gentleman
from California [Mr. Packard] and his committee have done a good job.
This debate is not about whether or not they have done a good job. It
is whether or not we can let us not do a better job.
We have the greatest respect for what the gentleman from California
and his committee have done. But as my colleagues know, it is these 2
pennies. It is can we save 2 pennies? Can we be 2 percent more
efficient? Can we do more?
I have been in Washington 19 months, and what I have heard is
``can't.'' The fact is that the debt that our children, our children
and grandchildren, are going to get to pay back is rising at the rate
of $2.785 billion a day, and what we are saying is: 2 percent. Now, if
we were at war right now and we got together as a country and said we
have an objective, the objective is to defeat the enemy, well, we have
an enemy in front of us as a Nation, and that enemy is our deficit and
our debt.
Two percent, 1.9 percent; 2 pennies out of every dollar to preserve
opportunity for our children; it is not too much to ask. The two
gentlemen that are speaking in favor of this amendment ran their
offices for $100,000 less than the Congressmen before them in spite of
the fact this past year, in spite of the fact that we had a reduction
in the opportunity for more. So the point, I would say, is we can
effectively represent our districts, we can effectively accomplish what
we need to accomplish by being 2 percent more efficient.
The fact is in this bill spending goes up about 1.9 percent over last
year, and what we are asking is to freeze the spending, essentially a
2-percent cut in the bill, pulling things down so that our children and
our children's children will not be enslaved by debt. $2.785 billion a
day because this Congress will not live within its limits of the money
that comes to it.
When I leave this place, I want to be able to say that I did
everything that I could to ensure opportunity and preserve opportunity
for my children and the children that are from my district.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I think I need to correct one
misunderstanding that apparently the gentleman has got in this
amendment. We are cutting this year 2.2 percent in addition to last
year's cuts of 9.5 percent. We are not increasing 1-point-something
percent at all. In fact, we are cutting this bill. If every committee
and every program in the Government cut to the extent this bill cuts,
the Federal budget would be in balance this year and there would be a
$100 billion surplus.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, that would be a great thing.

{time} 1445

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Bob Livingston, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding time
to me, and I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The fact
is that this bill does cut 2.2 percent or $37.4 million already. We can
pick up a pocket of change and say all we are talking about is 1
percent, 2 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent, it does not mean anything.
When we look in terms of whether or not it is Library of Congress jobs,
or jobs on the staff of your office or, in other bills it is Indian
reservation jobs, or in other bills water project jobs, the fact is
that we are talking about real and meaningful people who are going to
be cut here. The question is, can we do the job?
Look, the U.S. Congress is paring down the discretionary budget in
all 13 appropriations bills for the first time in modern times. We have
saved $20 billion in fiscal year 1995, $23 billion in fiscal year 1996,
and we are on the way to saving $15 billion to $20 billion in fiscal
year 1997. If we look at where the President would have had us, if he
had a Congress like he had 2 years ago, we are saving about $80 billion
in the discretionary budget.
I heard the argument of the gentleman from Oklahoma. He is not
concerned about the discretionary budget. We are doing the job. The
problem is in the mandatory side of the equation. We have not done the
first thing on mandatory. That is the problem. If Members want to do
something constructive for their constituents, go back and tell them
how we can figure out how to save our citizens, to save our children
and the economy of this country by restraining the mandatory spending
of this Government.
We are already doing the job here. For that reason, I urge the defeat
of this amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my freshman
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to commend this subcommittee, as well as
the full Committee on Appropriations, on their efforts on
discretionary. It is indeed unfortunate that we are not dealing with
the mandatory spending. But

[[Page H7195]]

the fact is that unless something miraculous happens, we are not going
to deal with the mandatory spending, so we are forced to deal with the
discretionary spending.
In the budget resolution many of us were concerned that there was a
bump-up in the second year, so 1.9 percent off of all the
appropriations bills would eliminate that bump-up. This is not aimed at
any particular committee. It is very easy to demagog on House
expenditures. Probably if we put this to a vote in the general public,
they would cut us 80 percent.
At the same time, the truth is that there needs to be functions here,
and 1.9 percent will not devastate our ability to communicate to our
constituents, it will not devastate our ability to convert to
computers. We are spending $211 million on that, 12 percent of the full
funding. A 1.9-percent change there would not devastate our ability to
do what we need to do, which is to be able to move into the age of the
computer communications, the Internet.
We can deal with this. If we can deal with 1.9 percent changes and
bigger changes in social spending, if we can deal with those 1.9
percent cuts in other areas, we can deal with it in legislative
appropriations. It is inconsistent for this Congress to say that we
will cut everybody else and we will put the pressure on everybody else,
but we will not put that much on ourselves. A 2.2-percent cut is
commendable and better than we have done in the past, but we can do
more than that, and we need to be willing to sacrifice if we are going
to eliminate the budget deficit.
In Indiana, they do not understand why it has taken us 7 years. We
should be able to balance our budget in a lot shorter than that. To
deal with that, unless we deal with mandatory, we have to do more out
of discretionary. I do not believe 1.9 percent will devastate our
ability to communicate.
I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota, who has been
persistent in spite of pressures with this. Persistence is one of the
traits that Minnesotans develop because of the cold weather. I think
the persistence in SPAN, which is in his district, are the two things
which gave him that special courage.
We are going to continue to do this because we believe it is critical
to our children and to this Nation to a move to a balanced budget. It
is important that we in the legislative branch take the initiative.
This 1.9 percent plus 2.2 is a 4.1 percent reduction. That is not going
to cripple our ability to communicate, to do committees, or our
personal work.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. I do so
reluctantly, because I feel I am a very strong fiscal conservative. I
think my record, both on the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on the Budget, will demonstrate that. But this is not the way
to do it.
Across-the-board cuts did not work when we had Gramm-Rudman. We need
to make the tough choices. That is what we are doing in the Committee
on Appropriations, making tough choices in all the appropriations
bills. We have made those tough choices. Going across the board in
addition is not the way to go, especially for this specific
appropriation bill, because in this appropriation bill we have cut over
10 percent from the 1995 numbers. We have cut in real dollars, not
baseline cutting, but real dollar cuts. So to cut more, are we going to
cut security in the Capitol? We have made those tough choices and
decided how many security we are going to need. We do not need to have
additional cuts like this. I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida just referred
to Gramm-Rudman. I think that is a great example. That is an example of
a plan that did not work. The reason it did not work is because
Congress did not have the courage to stay with the plan. What this
amendment is about and what all the amendments we have offered to all
the other appropriations bills is about is keeping faith with the plan
we offered last year.
The gentleman from California is absolutely right, they have done a
good job. We are actually reducing the cost of operating this Congress.
But the truth is that we are still increasing the amount we are going
to spend on ourselves by 1.9 percent over what we said we were going to
spend last year. This amendment is a good faith amendment. It is about
keeping faith with the people of this country. It is about keeping
faith with our kids.
Mr. Chairman, 1.9 percent, as I said earlier, is like getting a
haircut of one-eighth of a inch. You would not even notice it. We would
not notice it in this bill, frankly. We may have to buy less computers.
Many of us are operating our budgets at $100,000 less than we were
authorized to earlier.
I talked about Prime Minister Netanyahu. I do not always remember who
gave this quote. I want to close with this quote. I do not remember who
said it. He said, if you want to change the world, you have to first
change your neighborhood. If you cannot change your neighborhood, at
least you ought to be a good example.
This is about setting a good example. If we are serious about
balancing the books of the people of the United States of America, if
we are serious about saving the future and the American dream for our
kids, then we have to be willing to tighten our belts. This is about
setting a good example with the Congress itself, with our own
legislative appropriation. It is only 1.9 percent, and I believe there
is not a Member in this body who does not believe we cannot tighten our
belts that small fraction.
Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped we would have had bipartisan support
on this. I think this is a good example. I hope all Members will join
us in supporting this simple and very, very innocuous amendment.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield my 1
remaining minute 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 rise very reluctantly in opposition to
the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota. I do not know
about the other areas of the appropriations package. I do know about
the legislative branch. I worked very, very closely with the gentleman
from California, and look at where we have gone.
I do want to correct slightly the gentleman's numbers. In fiscal year
1995 it was $1.9 billion. Last year it was $1.72 billion. This year it
is $1.68. Those are declining real numbers every year. Last year,
because it was larger, we cut $154 million. We cut the committees by
one-third when we came in, saving $67 million. This year,
notwithstanding one-third of a cut in committees, the gentleman from
California sharpened his pencil and came up with an another $37.4
million reduction over last year. We are talking about real reductions
over last year, not reducing the increase. We do not play that game.
This is a new majority. It is an absolute reduction. It is not a
mindless across the board. It was focused on where we could cut. I
support the gentleman generally, but not in this particular instance.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], the former
president of the freshman class, and also a very, very dedicated and
useful member of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] I
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
although it is well intended. The legislative subcommittee has already
done its work. The gentleman from Oklahoma held up two pennies and
said, ``We are just asking for about a 2-percent cut.'' Mr. Chairman,
we have made that 2 percent cut. As a matter of fact, this bill
represents a 2.2-percent cut from last year's level as the gentleman
from California pointed out, that is not a cut in the rate of increase
or a cut in the percentage in which we are spending extra money, that
is a real cut,

[[Page H7196]]

$37.4 million in reductions. The gentleman who offers this amendment
does so because the budget allocation was higher across the board than
he wanted. I would simply point out to the gentleman that in our
subcommittee, we have reduced the budget outlay by 20 percent below the
budget allocation for this bill. This Congress is leading by example.
We have done the work. We have saved the money. I urge defeat of the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 473,
further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] will be postponed.
The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Castle) assumed the Chair.

____________________