[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7196-H7206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed 
in House Report 104-663.


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CASTLE

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Castle: Page 35, after line 
     22, insert the following new section.
       Sec. 310. (a) Each mass mailing sent by a Member of the 
     House of Representatives shall bear in a prominent place on 
     its face, or on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper in 
     which the mail matter is sent, the following notice: ``THIS 
     MAILING WAS PREPARED, PUBLISHED, AND MAILED AT TAXPAYER 
     EXPENSE.'', or a notice to the same effect in words which may 
     be prescribed under subsection (c). The notice shall be 
     printed in a type size not smaller than 7-point.
       (b)(1) There shall be published in the itemized report of 
     disbursements of the House of Representatives as required by 
     law, a summary tabulation setting forth, for the office of 
     each Member of the House of Representatives, the total number 
     of pieces of mass mail mailed during the period involved and 
     the total cost of those mass mailings.
       (2) Each such tabulation shall also include--
       (A) the total cost (as referred to in paragraph (1)) 
     divided by the number (as determined by the Postmaster 
     General) of addresses (other than business possible delivery 
     stops) in the Congressional district from which the Member 
     was elected (as such addresses are described in section 
     3210(d)(7)(B) of title 39, United States Code); and
       (B) the total number of pieces of mass mail (as referred to 
     in paragraph (1)) divided by the number (as determined by the 
     Postmaster General) of addresses (other than business 
     possible delivery stops) in the Congressional district from 
     which the Member was elected (as such addresses are described 
     in section 3210(d)(7)(B) of title 39, United States Code).
       (c) The Committee on House Oversight shall prescribe such 
     rules and regulations and shall take such other action as the 
     Committee considers necessary and proper for Members to 
     conform to the provisions of this subsection and applicable 
     rules and regulations.
       (d) For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' 
     means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to, the Congress; and
       (2) the term ``mass mailing'' has the meaning given such 
     term by section 3210(a)(6)(E) of title 39, United States 
     Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the House Resolution 473, the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and a Member opposed will each control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to start my congratulating the chairman for what 
I think has been an excellent job of trimming the legislative 
appropriations, and particularly in the area that I am going to talk 
about, which is the taxpayer funding of franked mail.
  The fiscal year 1997 level of funding will be 40 percent lower than 
the 1996 level of funding. That is an impressive reduction. I do not 
even know if the chairman is aware of the reductions over the course of 
years, but starting in the year I was first elected to this body, 
before I came here in 1992, it was $59 million. In 1993 it went to 
$47,711,000. In 1994 it went to $40 million, in 1995 to $31 million, in 
1996 it went up to $35,630,000, and this year is an appropriation of 
$20 million, so it really is an extraordinary job that the chairman has 
done and that the Committee on House Oversight has done in addressing 
this particular situation.
  In recognition of that, I do not intend, as I have in the past, to 
introduce an amendment to try to further reduce that funding. I think 
there are a couple of areas for which there is still room for 
improvement. Too often the franking privilege is not treated as a 
privilege and is abused. For example, the volume of outgoing franked 
mail vastly outpaces the volume of incoming mail.
  In 1995, the House sent out four times more mail than it received. If 
the House had responded only to letters it received, franked mail costs 
would have been only $12.4 million, saving $18.6 million or 60 percent 
from actual mail costs. Also, use of the frank increases cyclically 
during every election year. During the 102d Congress, the House spent 
$31 million in 1991 and $54 million in 1992, and during the 103d 
Congress, $24 million in 1993, and $42 million in 1994.

                              {time}  1500

  The 104th Congress again has addressed and narrowed this gap in total 
spending, but the irresistible temptation for individual Members facing 
tough reelection campaigns to use their franking perk extensively in 
election years remains.
  I think Members have a legitimate need to respond to the increasing 
concerns of their constituents and the franking privilege does 
facilitate this. I think the public understands this and would support 
that use of taxpayer dollars.
  Unsolicited mass mail from Members, however, I think fails into a 
different category. I believe that most Americans do not want to 
receive all the unsolicited mail they get from Congress, particularly 
if they are aware of the fact that they as taxpayers pay for it 
themselves. Some Members here, I am certain, would disagree and would 
argue that the newsletter contains valuable and useful information. I 
am not trying to prevent that from being used. But I think we should 
give the public the information it needs to make the determination.
  This is what the amendment, the taxpayer's right to know amendment, 
will do.
  It has two components, both of which are based on procedures which 
the Senate already follows. The first component would require all mass 
mailings to contain the disclaimer, ``This mailing was prepared, 
published, and mailed at taxpayer expense.'' This will encourage 
Members to be more judicious in the mass mailing they send to their 
constituents, and it is entirely consistent with this Congress's 
attempt to let sunshine disinfect the policy process.
  The second part of the amendment would require the CAO's quarterly 
Statement of Disbursements to publish to total number of pieces of mass 
mail mailed during the period involved and the total cost of those mass 
mailings on a per-residential-address basis. Currently there is no way 
for the public to get information about the amount Members spend on 
unsolicited mass mailings versus constituent response mail. My 
amendment will allow this comparison to take place and I think the 
public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent.
  The bottom line here is that this simple amendment will provide 
information to taxpayers about franked mass mail. It does not ban mass 
mailings or change the definition from current law. It simply requires 
public disclosure about the use of frank for mass mail.
  I urge Members to pass this amendment.

[[Page H7197]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to compliment the gentleman for his amendment.
  His amendment follows a long line of positive amendments offered on 
both sides of the aisle, and as a matter of fact originally in a 
bipartisan effort by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the 
then gentleman, still gentleman, but member of the House from 
Minnesota, Mr. Frenzel, to begin to separate the cost of franked mail 
from the general fund category. We have not yet reached the Senate 
stage. The gentleman from Delaware indicated that it puts us in the 
same position as the Senate, and I know he is aware that the Senate 
actually separates the unsolicited mass mail from the other franked 
mail. We do not do that. But what the gentleman's amendment does is in 
essence do it in the report so that people can see not only the amount 
but the number of addresses to which the franked mail has been sent.
  The gentleman alluded to the way in which this Congress continues to 
make changes. He of course is aware that at the beginning of the 104th 
Congress we cut franked mail by yet another one-third of the total 
amount and that we moved up the statutorily required 60-day ban to a 
voluntary 90-day ban.
  Once again I want to compliment the gentleman. His addition of a 
required statement that it is at taxpayer expense is a good, positive 
notifier of where the money is coming from. It also perhaps might be 
somewhat of a conscience conditioner in terms of whether you mail it 
out or not, and by giving it a separate report, we do move closer to 
the Senate, separating the response mail from the unsolicited mass 
mailing. I compliment the gentleman on his amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank 
the head of the Committee on House Oversight for what I think is an 
extraordinary job of dealing with this issue of franked mail. I think 
we really have in a bipartisan way responsible addressed this 
particular issue in this Congress and he is absolutely right on some of 
the numbers. We are just trying to refine this at the end.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate this amendment and I am very 
much grateful that the gentleman has worked it out to the satisfaction 
of the authorizing committee chairman, Mr. Thomas. With that agreement, 
I will be more than pleased to accept the amendment.
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, the minority has no objection to the 
amendment. I congratulate the gentleman on working it out and bringing 
it to the floor.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 104-663.


              amendment offered by mr. fazio of california

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 3, 
     after line 3, insert the following caption: ``(including 
     transfer of funds)''.
       Page 3, line 6, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ; and, in addition, $4,000,000, which shall be 
     derived by transfer from the amount provided in this Act for 
     ``Office of the Chief Administrative Officer'' under the 
     heading ``Salaries, officers and employees'' and shall be 
     available for obligation only by members for initiatives to 
     promote the increased use of computers and other electronic 
     technologies funded by this Act to carry out legislative 
     activities.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee report says that $211 million is provided 
in this bill for computer and telecommunications investments and that 
there is quote, ``an inexorable movement toward CyberCongress.'' But, 
quite simply, we are not yet there. My amendment would be a referendum 
on whether the CAO and HIR are giving us what we pay for.
  We have provided generous resources to the Chief Administrative 
Officer and to our computer agency over the past 2 years, $16.5 million 
in this bill for operating expenses, $8.2 million for 
telecommunications projects, a doubling over last year. That does not 
count the $6 million in reimbursements and the $11.7 million in 
chargebacks that our offices pay for services to the HIR agency.
  With Chairman Packard, I approved a $20.5 million reprogramming at 
the end of the fiscal year 1995 for telecommunications and computer 
investments.
  The CAO and HIR have requested $85 million over the next 5 years for 
computer and telecommunications investment. But, notwithstanding the 
New York Times, which wrote a glowing piece on the CAO, there is 
evidence that our computer support is falling short.
  First of all, I, along with Vern Ehlers, have been part of an effort 
to identify a new House-wide messaging system, and we are making steady 
if slow progress on that project. But, in the meantime, our existing 
House e-mail has been so unreliable and so slow that many users have 
just abandoned it for daily use.
  The Financial Management System was finally switched over to a new 
system on June 4, 5 months later than a House Oversight deadline and 8 
months later than the CAO had originally promised the Members. Your 
June district office rent payments, which are supposed to be sent in in 
a timely way so that your landlords in your districts can receive them 
on the 1st day of each month, still have not left the Finance Office, 
and I think it is, if I am correct, the 10th of July. This is frankly 
unprecedented. It has never happened before.
  The heralded Office 2000 project, whose purpose is to automate some 
of the day-to-day functions in our offices, will not have a single 
operational function available prior to next year.
  At the time of our hearings, HIR was 20 percent understaffed, and the 
CAO admitted that the terminations, pay cuts, and reassignments of his 
reorganization played a role. Our offices have felt that lack of 
support every day.

  In addition, the office accounting software provided to your offices 
by HIR in January contained numerous bugs. Because of the CAO's 
personnel procedures, it took HIR over 7 months to hire a full-time 
receptionist, and it took over 6 months to hire a security officer, at 
a time when the inspector general told us our computer systems were 
susceptible to outside entry.
  In short, I have to wonder if we are getting what we pay for. The CAO 
and HIR have received considerable credit for so-called CyberCongress 
initiatives. But while the CAO talks a good game about CyberCongress 
and desk top video conferencing and the like, I believe the performance 
in tasks affecting Members' offices directly has not lived up to the 
billing.
  We are all getting our ``free'' computers, in quotes, but HIR has 
nothing new to show us, which was the whole point of the mass computer 
buy in the first place. The lack of progress is not because of any lack 
of resources, and the CAO is not shy about asking for more. The CAO's 
request this year was for a 32-percent overall increase, primarily for 
computers and telecommunications. The Committee on Appropriations has 
provided generous resources, including, I might add, the $20.5 million 
I mentioned earlier, yet the CAO cannot seem to invest it. Another $8

[[Page H7198]]

million in unobligated balances is already being predicted for the 
current fiscal year, 1996.
  My amendment would take $4 million out of the fiscal year 1997 funds 
in the bill, half of HIR's increase for telecommunications--which is, 
by the way, a doubling of last year's amount--and allow the use of such 
funds only if approved by Members, and only for technology already 
funded in this bill. My amendment is the ultimate in TQM, total quality 
management, and customer satisfaction that the CAO is so publicly 
embracing.
  It is simple. If you think the CAO is spending money well and wisely, 
vote against my amendment. If you think your office can do a better 
job, then vote for my amendment.
  I think we can send the CAO an important message: that we demand 
results for the money we hand out, and results that will help us serve 
our constituents now, as well as in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the Members' attention another 
related matter, related in the sense that it is directly a policy which 
we will all be adhering to as part of an Internet policy agreement 
which has largely been forged within the Committee on House Oversight. 
The amendment I had intended to offer to the body as a whole concerns 
an Internet policy set by that committee on the 23d of May. The 
amendment would have prevented funds from being spent to implement this 
policy.
  Some would say, leave this to the Oversight Committee. But I believe 
it is a policy of sufficient importance that it needs to be reevaluated 
as we consider funding for House operations, as we are in the amendment 
I have offered.
  The policy was originally negotiated by the majority and minority 
staff in good faith, and there are good reasons for Web site policy and 
important elements to the policy. For example, it entitles minorities 
and subcommittees to a Web page site; it ensures that the maintenance 
of Web page sites is done behind an official fire wall for security 
purposes; and it ensures that House Web page sites are 
clearly identified. The committee's jurisdiction, I believe, is 
appropriate and I support it.

  The problem came literally the morning of the hearing when we thought 
we had negotiated a policy successfully with the committee staff on 
both sides of the aisle. It was overruled. After a partisan debate, the 
Republicans ignored our objections and we were voted down, and so I 
went to the Committee on Appropriations seeking to bring the matter to 
the attention of the floor.
  I withdrew the amendment in the full committee after Chairman 
Livingston agreed to help facilitate some sort of settlement on a new 
leadership Internet policy and, failing that, to support floor 
consideration of my amendment under this rule.
  That resulted, of course, in further Oversight Committee staff 
discussions and a clarification of one of the two purposes of my 
amendment. That clarification was that the majority determined that it 
never intended to prevent a process called bookmarking, which allows 
people to go back on a regular basis to an item which they wish to 
reference on a regular basis at the Web site, part of the Internet.
  However, the main issue remains unresolved. The policy as issued 
prevents access to a Democratic Web page site, or I should say minority 
web page site, unless a user first goes to the majority or, in this 
case, the Republican site first. Our constituents will still have to 
troll through screens of majority information to even discover that the 
minority, in this case, the Democrats, have a Web site.
  In fact, my colleague and friend from California, Mr. Thomas, made it 
clear at the hearing that if a committee chair did not want a minority 
Web page at all, he could just refuse to have a Web page for the 
majority as well.
  To add insult to injury, the HIR has been instructed to make the 
technical changes that prevent users who may have stumbled across the 
site from bookmarking it, though, as I mentioned earlier, the majority 
claims that it never intended to prevent that bookmarking process from 
being available to anyone who browses the Internet.
  We are talking about access to information, electronic information, 
but just information in a different form; information, like any others, 
that ought to flow freely in this process, certainly as part of an 
institution which is fundamental to our form of democracy. It is, pure 
and simple, a restriction on access to information.
  The effect of this policy is that users of the Internet and the World 
Wide Web, our constituents, cannot readily get to the information they 
want. It is ironic to me that the GOP which has gotten so much credit 
for the CyberCongress would make the first policy about Web pages a 
restrictive one. This is an important matter and I believe it is one we 
should elevate to floor consideration no matter what happens on my 
amendment today. This gives us an opportunity to discuss what I think 
is a bad policy, even though my amendment will not go directly to the 
point I am concerned about as I discuss the other amendment I had hoped 
to offer today.

                              {time}  1515

  It flies in the face, this policy, of an open Congress. It perverts 
the whole idea behind the free flow of electronic information that is 
inherent in the idea behind the Internet and the World Wide Web.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a number of communications, 
particularly one from the American Library Association that agrees that 
access to congressional information should not be a partisan issue.
  The information referred to follows:

                                 American Library Association,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 1996.
     Hon. Vic Fazio,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Fazio: In response to your inquiry, the American 
     Library Association agrees that access to Congressional 
     information should not be a partisan issue. Recent press 
     reports have described a controversy about access to 
     Congressional committee pages on the World Wide Web. For the 
     past 18 months, citizens have been able to access majority 
     Web pages from a central menu. Under a recently adopted 
     policy, the House of Representatives Committee Office Web 
     Services menu lists Web pages of only the committee majority 
     with access to the minority's page only through the 
     majority's page.
       ALA is concerned about this policy and the effect it would 
     have on an informed electorate. This policy would concern us 
     no matter which party was in the majority during any given 
     Congress.
       ALA reaffirms its long-standing conviction that open 
     government is vital to a democracy. Of the many issues raised 
     by this policy, I would like to highlight two:
       There should be equal and ready access to data collected, 
     compiled, produced, and published in any format by the 
     government of the United States. In the interest of equity, 
     the majority and minority of House committees should have 
     equal access at the same level to the World Wide Web, a 
     dynamic means of communicating with the American electorate; 
     and
       The free flow of information between Congress and the 
     American people should be encouraged. Majority and minority 
     viewpoints should be available without either one being 
     dependent on the other.
       The American Library Association is a nonprofit educational 
     organization of 58,000 librarians, library trustees, and 
     other friends of libraries dedicated to promoting the public 
     interest in a free and open information society.
           Sincerely,

                                           Carol C. Henderson,

                                               Executive Director,
     ALA Washington Office.
                                                                    ____


                               Muckraker

                          (By Brock N. Meeks)


                      thomas builds a one-way web

       In the House of Representatives, all Web sites are created 
     equal. But the Republicans couldn't stomach that thought, so 
     they rewrote the rules.
       All seemed fair in the wake of amicable but protracted 
     negotiations to revise the rules governing Internet use for 
     House committees and subcommittees. Each committee and 
     subcommittee--on both the majority (Republican) and minority 
     (Democrat) sides--was allocated a separate but equal amount 
     of server space to create a Web page if they so desired. 
     Under the negotiated plan, Democrats could independently set 
     up their own sites, to post whatever committee information 
     they deemed appropriate.
       But that rule didn't sit right with Representative Bill 
     Thomas (R-California), chairman of the House Oversight 
     Committee, which writes the guidelines governing Internet 
     use. He figured it gave the Dems too much freedom and would 
     allow Web surfers simply to bypass any Republican-controlled 
     Web sites. So he rewrote the regulations and rammed the 
     changes through by exploiting his power as committee 
     chairman.
       Under the new rules, all subcommittees can have separate 
     pages, but those pages must be ``linked to, and accessible 
     only from the committee's page.'' While a Republican

[[Page H7199]]

     subcommittee chair might be able to brook that overlord 
     mentality, the ranking minority members who would control the 
     committee's opposing Web pages might be a little ticked off.
       If you've begun to smell a rat, you're not alone. ``This 
     means that any time someone wants to see an issue from the 
     Democrat's side of things, they first have to wade through 
     the Republican rhetoric,'' said a minority committee staffer.
       The rules go further, according to another minority 
     staffer. ``The committee chairman must approve all content on 
     the Web sites. I have to ask whatever happened to the First 
     Amendment on Capitol Hill.''
       The rules on this issue are vague, and I could only get my 
     hands on a draft copy. Staffers at the meeting at which 
     Thomas ordered the changes swear he made it clear that all 
     information needed to be ``approved'' by the committee chair 
     before posting.
       That account is disputed by Bill Pierce, Thomas's press 
     secretary. ``Whatever language you had regarding [content] 
     approval, it's not the case,'' he said. The rule change is 
     ``about process and not about content at all.'' Pierce noted, 
     for example, that the minority doesn't have separate 
     stationary. And this rule change simply makes net resource 
     allocation ``consistent'' with non-Net resources.
       But for Representative Vic Fazio (D-California), ranking 
     minority member of the House Rules Committee, the issue isn't 
     that cut and dried. ``What we're talking about is an attempt 
     to control the minority's communication with the American 
     people.'' Although the content approval issue is murky, 
     Fazio put a hard edge on how a committee chair could wield 
     the ultimate censorship hammer: ``If a chairman doesn't 
     like the contents of the minority's Web page, he could 
     simply decide not to have a Web page at all.''
       And according to the rules, if the committee chair decides 
     not to have a page, it means the minority's net voice is 
     rendered mute. No argument, no debate. It's de facto 
     censorship and to hell with free speech, even on Capitol 
     Hill.
       Fazio also points out that a committee's majority doesn't 
     ``have access to or control over the content of press 
     releases or correspondence produced by the minority.'' Since 
     the Net is simply another way to communicate, and one that 
     ``is taking on greater importance,'' it should be treated as 
     such, Fazio said, ``There is absolutely no reason that the 
     majority should control information freely disseminated over 
     the Internet.''
       Thomas's reasoning is beyond me. The Republicans stand a 
     good chance of losing control of the House in the coming 
     elections. If they do, and power returns to the Democrats, 
     then Thomas has just ------ his own party. The Democrats will 
     be in power and their committee chair will hold the power to 
     approve content on the Republican committee Web pages.
       At first blush, such a power trip seems bent from all 
     angles. All one would have to do is bookmark the minority 
     page URL and thus bypass the majority homepage. But according 
     to a House Rules Committee majority staffer, each committee's 
     homepage would be generated with a CGI script to prevent 
     bookmarking. Seems they've thought of everything. I know the 
     Republican ``revolution'' has hit on tough times, but this is 
     nothing short of a desperate act, bordering on extreme.
       Congress is infamous for its ``sausage-making'' approach to 
     drafting legislation. Sadly, it appears they are no less 
     enlightened when it comes to drafting rules for the Internet. 
     Bratwurst.gov, anyone?
           Meeks out . . .
     Brock M. Marks.
                                                                    ____


       [From the Office of the Democratic Leader, June 4, 1996.]

       Republican Policy Restricts Internet Access for Opposition

                           (By Laura Meckler)

       Washington.--If you want to find certain Democratic views 
     on the World Wide Web, you'll have to go through Republican 
     territory.
       Until now, Web pages produced by the Republican and the 
     Democratic staffs of House committees were all accessible 
     from the main menu on the House's Web page.
       No more. Under a new policy that has Democrats crying foul, 
     users will find Democratic committee pages listed only on the 
     committee's main page, which like the committees themselves 
     are controlled by Republicans.
       ``What we're talking about is an attempt to control the 
     minority's communications with the American people,'' said 
     Rep. Vic Fazio, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Oversight 
     Committee.
       ``There is absolutely no reason that the majority should 
     control information freely disseminated over the Internet.''
       Fazio and others complain that to access Democratic views, 
     Web surfers may have to scroll through Republican rhetoric 
     and a large photograph of the Republican chairman.
       In addition, if Republicans on a particular committee 
     decide not to have a Web site at all, Democrats can't have 
     one either.
       ``If a chairman doesn't like the contents of the minority's 
     Web page, he could simply decide not to have a Web page at 
     all,'' Fazio said.
       A few committees currently have Democratic pages but no 
     Republican pages. If a committee chairman wants to, he could 
     kill the Democratic page until there's a GOP counterpart, 
     said Bill Pierce, spokesman for the Oversight Committee.
       The old policy gave each side disk space to produce Web 
     pages but did not regulate how they are accessed.
       Republicans explain that the party in power controls all 
     committee activities and should control this as well. They 
     note that all members use the same committee stationery, 
     which highlight Republicans.
       ``We are not going to enter a whole new relationship with 
     the Internet, which is simply an additional way of 
     communicating,'' said Oversight Chairman Bill Thomas, R-
     Calif., according to minutes of a May 23 meeting where this 
     was discussed. ``Committee activities are under the 
     control of the chairman of the committee.''
       Democrats say the Internet is more like a press release, 
     which they can distribute on their own.
       Their deepest concern is that this is a first step toward 
     Republican control of content.
       ``It is even possible that committee chairmen may interpret 
     the new policy to mean that they have direct control or veto 
     power over the information that the minority chooses to post 
     on its Web page,'' Martha Coven of the House Democratic 
     Policy Committee wrote in a May 28 memo.
       There's no chance of that, said Pierce, the Oversight 
     Committee spokesman. ``It has nothing to do with content.''
       In practice, there are many more Republican committee pages 
     than Democratic ones. Democrats on the Banking and Financial 
     Services Committee have a page while the Republican do not, 
     but a committee spokesman said the GOP page should be up and 
     running this week.
       In addition, Thomas noted that the new policy guarantees 
     Democrats they will have an opportunity to have a Web page.
       ``What we have in front of us is a progressive policy that 
     opens up opportunities for the minority,'' Thomas said, 
     according to the minutes. ``It doesn't close them down.''
       The House of Representatives Web page is located at http://
www.house.gov/
____


                     [From Roll Call, May 27, 1996]

                 Pre-Election Messages Banned by House

                (By Juliet Eilperin and John E. Morrin)

       In its ongoing attempt to adjust to a brave new 
     technological world, Congressional panels last week adopted 
     several policy changes--including a ban on pre-election mass 
     communications--and also experimented with new interactive 
     formats.
       But the decisions were not free of controversy or technical 
     foul-ups.
       On Thursday, for example,the House Oversight Committee 
     voted unanimously to ban unsolicited mass communications 90 
     days before a primary of general election. In doing so, it 
     applied previously established House franking rules to 
     several mediums beyond newsletters, including radio and 
     newspaper ads; announcing town meetings; the purchase of 
     broadcast time; production and communication costs for video 
     and audio services; e-mail messages; and faxes.
       ``With communication technology developing at an 
     increasingly rapid pace, it is critical that the House 
     develop rules consistent with 21st century technology.'' 
     House Oversight chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) announced in 
     a statement after the hearing.
       The role of technology in town meetings first came under 
     intense scrutiny last month, when Rep. Steve Stockman (R-
     Texas) purchased radio time to hold a town meeting. House 
     Oversight ranking member Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) sharply 
     criticized the use of official House resources for an event 
     he likened to a political ad. Thomas, by contrast, argued 
     that no rules prohibited members from holding town meetings 
     on the air and such techniques could make lawmakers more 
     accessible to voters.
       Other Members have also come under fire for buying radio 
     time to announce town meeting, during which they have the 
     opportunity to toot their own legislative record. While all 
     the scripts were approved by the bipartisan Franking 
     Commission, critics said they give incumbents an improper 
     advantage (Roll Call, April 29).
       National Taxpayers Union executive vice president David 
     Keating, who had asked House Oversight to reimpose its ban on 
     radio ads, said Thursday's vote constituted ``a good first 
     step.'' He argued, however, that the funds for radio ads 
     should be deducted from Members' mailing allowances and the 
     House ``should strictly limit the content so it sounds more 
     like a public announcement instead of a campaign ad.''
       ``Members can still spend literally hundreds of thousands 
     of dollars in radio spots,'' he said. ``I hope they don't 
     take advantage of it.''
       While the banking reform and the overall adoption of a new 
     committee handbook enjoyed bipartisan support, Democratic 
     Members were less happy with the GOP's new committee Internet 
     policy. Under the policy, which was adopted by voice vote, a 
     minority committee's Web page can only be accessed through 
     the majority's Web page.
       Under this scenario, one Democratic leadership aide argued, 
     a voter might have to scroll down through endless pictures of 
     Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-Va) and text 
     describing the GOP's recent accomplishments before linking up 
     to the minority's site.

[[Page H7200]]

       ``We view it as a suppression of free speech,'' the staffer 
     said. ``It's suppressing the minority's right to offer 
     another perspective.''
       Currently, the Democrats on the Banking, Budget, and 
     Science Committees all have separate Web sites. Under the new 
     policy, the minority is guaranteed a site only if the 
     chairman of the panel chooses to establish one.
       But the Republicans argue that the Internet, like other 
     forms of communications, remains under the auspices of the 
     chairman. In the meeting, Thomas compared the Web page to the 
     minority's committee stationery, which still includes the 
     chairman's name at the top.
       ``They have to right to communicate and state their views, 
     but under the banner of the full committee,'' a GOP aides 
     said of the minority.
       While House Oversight members grappled over how to 
     communicate with constituents on Thursday, the House Rules 
     subcommittee on rules and organization of the House spent the 
     next morning analyzing how technology would affect 
     communication between Members.
       In the hearing--which featured video links with both a 
     panel member and a witness--Members debated whether technical 
     advances would undermine the thoughtful nature of lawmaking.
       House Oversight member, Vern Ehlers (R-Mich) called for 
     several reforms to ease this high-tech transition: a common 
     format and language for Congressional documents; a set 
     standard for the creation, maintenance, and purging of 
     online documents; and legislation allowing Congressional 
     Research Service reports to be placed online.
       He also predicted the technological revolution would reduce 
     the use of paper, allow citizens to print GPO documents on 
     demand, and bring video conferencing capability to every 
     Congressional desk.
       These advances, subcommittee Chairman David Dreier (R-
     Calif) insisted, should not lead to short cuts like proxy 
     voting.
       ``If there is a concern that Members are unduly influenced 
     by lobbyists waiting in the halls of the Capitol,'' Dreier 
     said, ``how concerned should we be when they have to vote on 
     a controversial bill from their district offices with 
     protesters demonstrating outside?''
       Ranking member Tony Beilenson (D-Calif) said he was worried 
     that the ``essence of communication'' between Members would 
     be negatively affected by video conferencing.
       But committee member Scott McInnis (R-Colo), speaking via 
     satellite from his district, responded that the technology 
     will enable him to give greater access to the constituents of 
     his rural district and allow them greater participation in 
     the political process.
       Beilenson cautioned against embracing technology too 
     quickly.
       ``We don't need more information, we need understanding and 
     wisdom,'' he said. ``Our job is simple--either push the yes 
     or no button. We shouldn't act immediately.''
       Dreier attempted to strike a middle ground between his 
     colleagues, explaining, ``We need to get information more 
     efficiently without upsetting the deliberative nature of 
     Congress.''
       While the hearing heralded ``the Third Wave information 
     age,'' it also underscored the pitfalls of the new era. 
     Several technical difficulties marred the event, most notably 
     the absence of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) due to a video 
     conferencing system malfunction. The special Web site 
     established for the event also failed to work.
                                                                    ____


         News Release From Congressman Vic Fazio, May 28, 1996

       The following is a statement from Rep. Vic Fazio about the 
     House Oversight Committee's action on committee web pages:
       ``What we're talking about is an attempt to control the 
     minority's communication with the American people. If a 
     chairman doesn't like the contents of the minority's Web 
     page, he could simply decides not to have a Web page at all.
       ``The committee's majority doesn't have access to or 
     control over the content of press releases and correspondence 
     produced by the minority. The Internet is another way to 
     communicate--an electronic form that is taking on greater 
     importance in American life and society--and should be 
     treated as such. There is absolutely no reason that the 
     majority should control information freely disseminated over 
     the Internet.''

  Mr. FAZIO of California. 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 want to thank the chairman, and I strongly oppose 
this amendment. This amendment would transfer $4 million from the Chief 
Administrative Officer of the House to the Members' representational 
allowance. The Chief Administrative Officer asked this year, and felt 
justified that he needed, a $17 million increase simply to be able to 
accomplish the things that the House has asked him to do and his office 
to do. This would literally cut them $2.5 million below current levels. 
We did not give them the $17 million he asked for. We gave them $1.6 
million, and that was barely enough to cover the mandatories; in other 
words, the COLA's for staff and the staff benefit packages, which are 
mandated by the Government. We had to fund that, but we gave him no 
more than that.
  We have asked them actually to cut back on their employment levels by 
13 positions in this year's bill. To take $4 million out of their 
existing levels in this bill would require them to fire about 90 
additional staff members of the House. We think that would be 
unconscionable.
  The bill provides $8 million for the CAO's budget for 
telecommunications. The telecommunications, incidentally, is for 
computers and telecommunication systems that benefit each of the 
Members' offices. Over $1.5 million is for local and district office 
telephones that connect directly with our Washington offices, again 
directly benefiting our communications within each of our offices.
  But the biggest problem of this amendment is not what it does to the 
CAO's office but it is what it does in reversing a policy that the 
maker of the amendment [Mr. Fazio] was strongly supportive of last year 
and really gave us a great deal of help in getting it passed in our 
bill last year, and that was the reforms that we wanted to bring about 
in Congress. Those reforms are absolutely crucial to the effective 
operation of each Member's office. That was in all of the allocations 
in budget categories that are allowed for each Member's office. We 
consolidated those into one account with the help of the gentleman from 
California, and we gave the Members of Congress individually some 
flexibility, not some but almost total flexibility, in the use of those 
accounts. That was a good move. I think moving toward a consolidated 
bill that we had last year was a very good move, and I personally want 
to thank the gentleman from California for helping us to do that.
  In my judgment, this is a reversal of that process. This takes us 
back to where we were before, and I think that would not be a move in 
the right direction; a step backward, I think.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I concur. I think this is a 1-
year effort to surround this funding for purposes of Member investment 
in computerization, telecommunications, simply because I do not think 
the CAO has spent his money wisely.
  But I agree with the gentleman and with the chairman of the Committee 
on House Oversight that, as a general rule, we ought to give complete 
license to the Members.
  Mr. PACKARD. Reclaiming my time, I think that this is just the first 
step, though, in reversing that process and the next step would be some 
Member of the Congress would want to put controls on E-mail, travel and 
everything else that Members now have some flexibility in.
  So I would hope and I would urge the Members of the House to resist 
this amendment that would be, in my judgment, regressive from the 
policies that we have established in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the amendment which he has 
put before us with regard to the transfer of the $4 million from the 
CAO to the Members' allowance.
  But I would like to use a minute or so to discuss the other item 
which the gentleman from California referred to, and that is the policy 
with regard to minority access to the Internet through the majority. 
This was the subject of a rather extensive article in the Washington 
Post on July 1 which is headlined ``House Web server leaving minority 
off the menu.'' While that may be a slight exaggeration, I think it is 
true that what this does is put an additional roadblock in the way of 
our Representatives throughout the United States having access to the 
material emanating from the minority in the Congress.

[[Page H7201]]

  Now, in an ideal world, of course, the majority would contend, and it 
might be true, that this was not a roadblock and that there was no 
effort to censor or in any other way restrict communication. This is 
not an ideal world, and I will tell Members that the very fact that we 
have to use access through the majority is going to be a block which 
many constituents will find insurmountable because it will take an 
additional 1 or 2 minutes on their computer if they have a slow 
computer to scroll through and find out where the minority actually is 
within this vast network.
  It is for this reason that it is a roadblock when we should be trying 
to make it easier, not because I suspect that the majority would want 
to do anything to restrict our minority page that I think this is a 
poor policy. We are doing everything possible to make it easier for 
people to communicate, constituents to communicate with their 
Representatives. This goes in the opposite direction. It is poor 
policy, and I urge that something be done to correct this at the 
earliest possible date.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me rise to comment on the 
specific amendment which we are supposed to be dealing with during this 
time, and I do not know about the desire for Members to have a 
referendum on the CAO. I am concerned about the language of the 
amendment which the gentleman from California, who as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee has the ability 
to move freely between the two areas, and attempt to write policy from 
an authorizing committee position in the appropriation. We are supposed 
to have that be against the rules. It is legislating on an 
appropriations bill, but the Committee on Rules did make it in order, 
notwithstanding that.
  My problem is that it builds a fence around the $4 million. I would 
be less opposed to the amendment if he gave the $4 million to the House 
Committee on Oversight so that we could place it where the Members 
could get the best use out of it. This amendment places it where the 
gentleman from California thinks we can get the best use out of it.
  Where we are is the gentleman from California, notwithstanding the 
fact that he is in the minority, still wants to basically run the place 
and tell people what to do. I do not deny that that is a desirable 
position, it is just that I wanted 16 years to be in the same one and I 
would now like to exercise it. But the gentleman from California 
apparently does not want me to because he wants to tell me where to put 
the money.
  At the beginning of this Congress, we took the separate categories of 
the Members' representational account and put them into one so that 
Members would have freedom to choose between staff or computers or 
travel or a district office. The gentleman now wants to go back to the 
policies of old, that he has already repudiated by his vote in 
committee, to free up the ability to determine where the member spends 
his money.
  So on that particular amendment, I would ask for your opposition.
  Now the Internet. The gentleman from California said something that I 
agree with, and that is that the Internet is information in a different 
form. After that, I had a fairly fundamental disagreement with what he 
has had to say. I really believe the people who took the floor earlier 
and said this was a gag rule--the gentleman from Colorado said it was 
un-American, that this is censorship I think got a little carried away 
with their rhetoric.
  The reason I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
that this is information in a different form is that we really ought to 
look at that information in a different form so that we can understand 
what we are talking about. Committees give reports. They hold hearings. 
They write a report. Very often the minority dissents from the majority 
report, and so you have the majority report and the minority report. Is 
the minority report presented in a completely separate document 
available to those constituents who want to find out about the hearing? 
No. It is included in a package that says, ``Committee on House 
Oversight, House of Representatives, together with minority views.'' It 
is the majority and the minority combined.
  The gentleman, and I think he waxed eloquent in the Committee on 
Rules, said that it was possible that visitors would probably thumb 
through 120 electronic pages to be able to find the minority location.
  Every committee in the House except the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct and the Committee on Intelligence has a Web site. We 
might understand why those two prefer not to have a Web site: The 
Ethics one probably would be too full and the Intelligence one would be 
blank. But for the other committees, here is the Committee on 
Resources. First page, picture of the chairman, Democrats, minority of 
the committee. We do not have to thumb through pages; it's right there. 
It is on the front, just like the reports. Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, right up front. ``Welcome to the House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Greetings from Chairman 
Jim Leach;'' the Democrats' view, right up front. House Committee on 
the Budget, they even put a donkey so that those folks who have trouble 
with the cursive can locate the minority home page.

  The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] was complaining about the 
Committee on Science. We do have to go to the second page on the 
Committee on Science because the chairman decided ``Hot News'' would 
take up a third of the page. Current issues that affect both the 
majority and the minority would take up a portion of the first page; 
but right there, the Democrats.
  Let me talk about information in another form in another way. If we 
go to the House of Representatives telephone directory, we will find 
staff listed alphabetically. We will find staff listed by Members' 
offices, and we will find staff listed and Members listed by committee. 
On that page it says Committee on House Oversight, for example, just 
thumbing to that page, the majority, the minority, the majority staff, 
the minority staff, located by committee.
  What the gentleman from California and the others are really asking 
for is something that is unprecedented in the history of the House, a 
wedge, if you will, to open up the opportunity to create a distinct and 
separate structure for the minority.
  Now, if our colleagues had been in the majority for 40 years and now 
have to suffer under the yoke of being in the minority, our colleagues 
would not accept the fact that their colleagues share the page with the 
majority in the phone book or share the pages under the cover of 
committee reports or that they are second on the Internet page for the 
particular committee. Our colleagues would want their own distinct 
structure.
  Well, it has never been that way. They are trying to use this 
argument of censorship on the Internet as a wedge argument to begin to 
unravel the 40 years of history that they established as the majority.
  Now, the new majority is somewhat more conservative than the old and 
we probably would tend to hang on to those areas that worked well. One 
of the areas that worked well was to use the committee as the 
structure, underneath that, the majority and the minority. All we are 
doing is continuing that structure on the Internet as well.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the prior speaker, it 
occurred to me that perhaps he has not searched the Web extensively 
because I heard the analogy to committee reports. Now I am new to the 
Congress, but I read some committee reports and they tend to go through 
legislation, and there are pros and cons on each side, and they are 
bound together in one volume. I think that is just dandy. That is the 
way it ought to be. But if you take a look at Web sites, that is not 
what you find.

[[Page H7202]]

  For example, in the Committee on Resources Web site there is a 
picture of the chairman, along with articles like, ``The Republican 
Investment in the Environment,'' which is bookmarked under ``Humor'' on 
the Web, and there is a small link to Democrats buried under committee 
information. The Joint Economic Committee opens with, ``Welcome to the 
home page of Vice Chairman Saxton and House Republican members of the 
JEC.'' It then links to each Republican JEC House member and the JEC 
Republicans in the Senate, and provides the text of partisan Republican 
publications on the ``Contract With America'' and the ``Debt Limit 
Charade.''
  These are not like committee reports, and requiring the minority to 
be just a subset of the majority on Web sites is kind of like saying 
you can send out a press release, minority, but only if you staple it 
to the majority's press release, if they send one out. That is what I 
object to. I think it is what most Members who are speaking here object 
to.
  The fact is that under the House rules that we adopted, there is 10 
megabytes of space for the majority and there is 10 megabytes of space 
for the minority. That space should be used, hopefully prudently, 
honestly and usefully for the American public, by each side to speak 
the truth about what they know of issues of importance to America.
  A few hours ago I talked to a gentleman in high-tech who had heard 
the debate. He is an immigrant. He built his company from nothing and 
he said this is fascism. This immigrant said he has heard what is going 
on. He said that he comes from a place where he saw fascism arrive. 
``You leaders in America must stop fascism when it first surfaces, when 
you first see those signs,'' he said, ``and that is now. Please do not 
allow this to happen.''
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for allowing me 
to speak.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes for a response.
  Mr. Chairman, I really seriously object to the analogy that was just 
used, fascism.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that was not really 
the intent of the gentlewoman. The concern, obviously, is great, but I 
would not want to typify it as anything more than a disagreement on 
policy.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would appreciate the 
gentlewoman's response.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I was quoting an individual who spoke to 
me, not a Member of this body. And perhaps as a new Member I am not as 
aware of the rules as I might have been. If it offended or it was 
inappropriate, I would certainly withdraw the remark.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the 
association, though, to this body or to any Members of this body or 
either side of this body is an inappropriate association.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express one point, and that is that 
this amendment will cost money. The House information resources can 
negotiate a large volume of purchases and thus get volume buying and 
volume cost discounts for the entire cyber Congress initiative. Some 
440 individual contracts are negotiated by each Member, and that would 
lead to a lot of additional expense. It would lead to a lack of 
standardization of our equipment in each of our offices, and, overall, 
I think it would be chaotic.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, from today's issue of The New York Times 
I read where it says, ``For years, each lawmaker has decided which 
computer system, if any, they wished to buy and to install in their 
office. This has led to a congressional Tower of Babel that receives a 
total of 100,000 E-mail messages a week. Some messages arrive three 
days late on one of nine overlap systems.''
  So I really would oppose this amendment and feel, again, it would be 
regressive.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has 3 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I find it rather hypocritical to respond to the comment about fascism 
that ``I have done my homework and I know that it was a quote and, 
therefore, in quoting others on the floor that it is not a breach of 
the rules; however, since I am a new Member I may not be aware of the 
rules.''
  It seems to me we cannot have it both ways. The gentlewoman knew 
exactly what she was trying to do, and what she did was interject a 
level of hostility which is totally inappropriate on this particular 
subject. What she does not know, perhaps, is that there was never any 
intention not to provide the ordinary software procedures for moving to 
sites that one is returning to by those people who browse frequently.
  The problem arose when the ranking Member, using that unique 
authorizing and appropriations avenue that he has, moved to the 
appropriations route to try to meet his needs instead of sitting down 
with the chairman of the committee and working it out.
  As we move forward with this new technology, just as we have in every 
area, just as the letterhead says, chairman and minority, we will 
share. And we share far more than the other side ever shared when they 
were the majority. We are doing more in reaching out to the minority 
than they did, and we will continue that trend, despite the references.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time to simply say this amendment, of course, does not go to the 
Internet policy. It does, however, I think send a message to the CAO 
that we need to manage the cyber-Congress in a much more effective way.
  Just simply in reference to Internet policy, my only reason for 
bringing it this route is that, of course, our committee makes these 
decisions in and of itself. I do not mean to deny that that in most 
cases is appropriate. But this is a new policy. It ought to be a 
solidly compromised and accepted policy by all, on all sides of the 
debate, minority or majority, and I do think this is a worthy 
discussion for us to have. I would hope Members would err on the side 
of openness and equal access to the Internet.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and, in closing, I would like to emphasize that I do not believe we 
have ever had a time when there has been more willingness to cooperate 
than this majority has extended to this minority. We, I think, have 
bent over backwards to make equal access, equal opportunity and equal 
funding for virtually everything we do, and I think that the gentleman 
from California would admit to that.
  This amendment takes money away from our movement to the cyber-
Congress, to the electronic age for this body and for each of our 
offices, and all of which really benefits our communications and our 
operations. These investments will make us more efficient and more 
effective in our offices, both in our congressional districts and here 
in Washington. Instead, this amendment would free up additional money 
in our allowances for additional mailings and travel and a variety of 
other things that I think the public would really object to. I think 
that would be move in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  The amendment was rejected.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order: Amendment No. 6, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman

[[Page H7203]]

from California [Mr. Campbell], and amendment No. 7 offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair will reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the time for an electronic vote, if ordered, on 
the pending question following this vote.


            amendment, as modified, offered by mr. campbell

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Campbell], on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 181, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--239

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

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clay
     Dunn
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     Longley
     McDade
     Rangel
     Watt (NC)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1601

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Dunn of Washington for, with Mr. Clay against.
       Mr. Longley for, with Mr. Rangel against.

  Ms. FURSE, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, and Mr. MONTGOMERY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CHABOT and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   amendment offered by mr. gutknecht

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 248, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 296]

                               AYES--172

     Allard
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Blute
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry

[[Page H7204]]


     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Zimmer

                               NOES--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clay
     Dunn
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     Longley
     McDade
     Watt (NC)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1610

  Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. PORTMAN, McINTOSH, and BROWDER changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3754) making 
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 473, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gross.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         motion to recommit offered by mr. fazio of california

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, at the moment, I am.

                              {time}  1615

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Fazio of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     3754 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       On page 4, line 7, strike ``$22,577,000'' and insert 
     ``$22,427,000'' and
       On page 4, line 8, strike ``$16,577,000'' and insert 
     ``$16,427,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, the motion I am offering 
instructs the bill being reduced by $150,000 through the account of 
HIR. This is the amount that is necessary for the Republican majority 
to implement their new Internet policy which we believe denies 
Democrats our own independently accessed Web site. This amount of money 
is a relatively small amount.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] 
who could explain how this could easily be attained by more efficient 
policy procurement.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to recommit because 
its intent is to avoid a policy that I believe will have the effect of 
stifling voices of dissent, which will not serve this body or our 
country well.
  As the House is aware, every office will soon be getting a computer 
as part of our new CyberCongress initiative. I was interested on the 
details on it and did get the cost for the computer, which is 
$5,367.12. I took the specs for that computer and went to a normal 
vendor outside of the favorite inside vendor and asked them for an 
estimate. They came in with a cost that is $900 per computer, less for 
a better machine, 120 megahertz as compared to the 100 megahertz that 
the House has purchased. If that were expanded to all 435 offices, that 
would be nearly $400,000 that this House would save.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to do that whether or not the motion to 
recommit is approved, but clearly if this motion is approved, we can 
save at least $150,000 just by making a better purchase on the new 
computers for each House office.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, my motion 
concerns the Internet policy set by the Committee on House Oversight on 
May 23. It will prevent funds from being spent to implement this 
policy. But I believe it is a policy of sufficient importance that it 
needs to be reevaluated as we consider funding for House operations. 
This is the only opportunity allowed by the Committee on Rules.
  A restricted Internet policy is certainly one we are going to all 
have to explain to our constituents, so we should all have a chance 
here today to make a judgment on this policy, not simply majority of 
seven within the Committee on House Oversight, all Republicans.
  The policy, as issued, prevents access to Democratic pages, Web 
pages, unless a user goes to the Republican page first. As was said in 
the earlier debate, it is like requiring, when we put out a press 
release, that we staple on top of it a press release from the other 
point of view. Our constituents may have to scroll through literally 
hundreds of screens of Republican information to even discover that the 
Democrats have a Web site at all.
  In fact, when we made this policy, the chairman made it clear at the 
hearing that if a committee Chair unilaterally did not want a minority 
Web page at all, he or she could simply refuse to have a Web page for 
the majority. This is, pure and simple, a restriction on access to 
information. The effect of this policy is that users of the Internet 
and the World Wide Web, our constituents, cannot get the information 
they want.
  It would be similar to this analogy: The freshmen have a Web site; 
the Republican freshmen. Should the public have to access the 
Democratic freshmen Web site through the Republican

[[Page H7205]]

freshmen Web site? It would be, I think, ludicrous. Of course not. But 
it illustrates, I think, how ridiculous this policy can really be.
  It is a bad policy to restrict information for. It flies in the face 
of all the discussion of a vaunted open Congress. It perverts the whole 
idea behind the free flow of electronic information that is inherent in 
the idea behind the Internet and the World Wide Web itself.
  So I want to prevail upon the reason, the wisdom, the common sense of 
my colleagues and ask them to reject this policy, support this minimal 
reduction in the HIR budget, one we could easily make up with a tighter 
procurement policy, and strike a blow for open information regardless 
of whether one is with the minority or the majority.
  After all, we all must anticipate during our careers we will share 
the experience in both categories.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard] opposed to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. PACKARD. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, this is not a Republican Internet system. 
This is a bipartisan, bicameral system. The Members of the 
CyberCongress roster, the Internet Caucus roster, is made up of 50 
Members of the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle, and they 
strongly urge that we proceed forward with the Web page and the 
Internet system.
  This motion to recommit will mean that the team of computer experts 
who are helping individual Members, each of us, put their Web site on 
the Internet will be eliminated in this motion to recommit. This team 
not only helps the committees install their own Web pages, but it helps 
train our colleagues and their staff on how to use the Internet for 
their Web sites.
  Mr. Chairman, this recommittal will harm the House's ability to use 
the Internet and make information available to our constituents. This 
funding is for two or three people who support Members and committee 
staff to present material in a clear and relevant way to the American 
people.
  This is a policy issue, not an issue of funding, and should be dealt 
with in the policy forum, not through this bill. Currently 12 inquiries 
are received daily by HIR which reflect a growing demand on this 
service.
  I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to reject this motion to 
recommit because it will hurt our colleagues' individual offices as 
they move toward the Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], 
chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if anyone ever wondered what was meant by 
the old phrase, ``cut off your nose to spite your face,'' we have got 
exhibit A in front of us in this motion to recommit.
  The gentleman from California talked about the committee Web sites, 
that we have to go through hundreds of pages. Just a short time ago I 
showed our colleagues the pages. It is right on the front page. They 
even use an icon of a donkey for those who are not sure where they are 
supposed to go. We provide a book mark, go to that site once, and then 
in the software the return user can go directly to the minority site. 
Every committee has it except the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. What he 
proposes to do is cut out the employees in HIR that assist in the more 
than 180 Web sites.
  Democrats and Republicans, we heard speech after speech about wanting 
an open Congress, wanting a House that was more willing to work with 
people on the outside, and we were not willing to do that by having the 
committees with the majority and the minority tied together like it is 
everywhere else.
  I say to my colleagues, ``This amendment cuts off your nose to spite 
your face. You are going to deny support services to Democrats as well 
as Republicans, to groups like freshmen Democrats and freshmen 
Republicans so you can make a point backed up by facts that simply are 
not so.''
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. PACKARD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge on a 
bipartisan basis that we, for our own good and for the good of our 
CyberCongress and our individual offices, vote this motion to recommit 
down, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electonic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 230, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 297]

                               AYES--191

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

                               NOES--230

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook

[[Page H7206]]


     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clay
     Dunn
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     Longley
     McDade
     Watt (NC)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1644

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Linder with Mr. Longley against.
       Mr. Clay with Ms. Dunn of Washington against.

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 360, 
nays 58, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 298]

                               YEAS--360

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                                NAYS--58

     Andrews
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Danner
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Engel
     Fattah
     Ganske
     Green (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hilliard
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Markey
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moran
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Orton
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Roemer
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Slaughter
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Torricelli
     Volkmer
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Clay
     Dunn
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Hyde
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     Longley
     McDade
     Smith (TX)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1652

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________