[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H989-H1000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   PAPERWORK ELIMINATION ACT OF 1997

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 88 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H990]]

                               H. Res. 88

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 852) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United 
     States Code, popularly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
     to minimize the burden of Federal paperwork demands upon 
     small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, 
     Federal contractors, State and local governments, and other 
     persons through the sponsorship and use of alternative 
     information technologies. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Small Business. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Each section shall be considered as read. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 852, 
the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1997, under an open rule. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small 
Business.
  Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to 
their consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer 
their amendments, if otherwise consistent with House rules. Finally, 
the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  I am pleased that this bill will be considered under an open rule 
which was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules. While the 
chairman of the Committee on Small Business testified to the Committee 
on Rules that he did not expect any amendments, this rule will provide 
the entire House with sufficient time to offer amendments.
  The Paperwork Elimination Act will decrease the burden of Federal 
paperwork by requiring all Federal agencies to give small businesses, 
educational and nonprofit organizations, State and local governments 
the option of filing required information by means of electronic 
submission, such as e-mail, fax, and other means. This new ability will 
enable all of these organizations to save time and money, help ease the 
paperwork and regulatory burden on them and other taxpayers, and 
improve the efficiency and accuracy of Federal information collection.
  My colleagues may remember that we unanimously passed identical 
legislation in the 104th Congress. Unfortunately, it was never 
considered by the other body.
  I am glad we are again going to have the opportunity to free small 
businesses and other organizations from the shackles of oppressive, 
excessive Federal regulations. As a small business owner myself, I can 
say that too much time is spent filling out forms in order to comply 
with endless Federal regulation. Decreasing this burden will be very 
beneficial to all small business owners, as they will now be able spend 
their time and money on productive activities that will lead to the 
expansion of their business.
  Finally, the Paperwork Elimination Act is a much-needed continuation 
of the popular Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which the President 
signed into law on May 22, 1995. I was very supportive of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, which reduced the information collection burdens on the 
public and ensured a more efficient and productive administration of 
information resources.
  The legislation we will consider today builds upon that progress and 
paperwork reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] for yielding me the time.
  This is an open rule. It will allow for full and fair debate on H.R. 
852. It is a bill to reduce the burden of Federal paperwork 
requirements for small businesses, educational and nonprofit 
institutions, Federal contractors, State and local governments and 
others. The bill is virtually identical to the one, H.R. 2715, that was 
passed unanimously by the House last year. This measure is a 
continuation of Congress's effort to reduce the demands made on our 
citizens as a result of Federal regulation.
  As my colleague from North Carolina has described, this rule provides 
1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. Under 
this rule, amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule, the 
normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the 
aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments. No hearings were 
conducted on this bill during the 105th Congress. However, eliminating 
this step is appropriate because of the extensive legislative history 
of H.R. 2715 from the 104th Congress, and the agreement was worked out 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Small Business.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this open rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Myrick], a valuable new member of our Committee on 
Rules, for yielding me this time. I rise in full support of this rule 
and this bill. As my colleague has described, this is a very open rule. 
Any Member can be heard on any germane amendment to the bill at the 
appropriate time as long as it is consistent with the normal rules of 
the House.
  Bills reported from the Committee on Small Business have 
traditionally been considered under open rules and this is no 
exception. The Paperwork Elimination Act is a timely, straightforward 
effort to bring the Federal Government further into the information age 
while at the same time reducing the public cost of meeting government's 
information needs. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Federal 
Government is lagging behind the rest of the Nation in using new 
technology.
  As the report on H.R. 852 points out, many individuals today can send 
and receive mail, take care of their personal finances or even read a 
newspaper, all from a personal computer. Those same individuals should 
be able to conduct much of their business with the Federal Government 
electronically as well.
  That is what this legislation sets out to do. H.R. 852 will help 
minimize the burden of Federal paperwork demands on small businesses 
and other entities by requiring executive branch agencies to provide 
for optional use of electronic technology to meet the information needs 
of the Federal Government.
  The winners will not only be America's small businesses but also 
educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal contractors, State, and 
local governments and others who face a disproportionate share of the 
burden of complying with the myriad of Federal regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I knew the regulatory burden on small business was heavy 
to begin with, but I was amazed to learn that the amount of time and 
effort spent in meeting the Government's paperwork demands has a dollar 
value roughly equivalent to 9 percent of the Nation's gross domestic 
product. Congress must lighten this load. By enabling the Federal 
Government to take

[[Page H991]]

advantage of the information age, this legislation will enable small 
business owners across America to utilize smart technology available 
today to reduce those costs and to eliminate barriers to job creation 
and economic productivity. That means less time spent filing forms and 
more time innovating, expanding, and providing goods and services to 
our economy.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent], 
the chairman of the committee, for bringing this important legislation 
forward and for crafting a commonsense solution to what has become a 
serious regulatory headache for many of our small businesses.
  I urge adoption of this very fair and reasonable rule and this 
commonsense legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleague for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by complimenting the committee, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] and my Republican 
colleagues for bringing out this open rule and for bringing out this 
important piece of legislation which would reduce the paperwork that 
our constituents are burdened with in today's society.
  I come to the floor this afternoon in support of the substance of 
this bill, but I want to raise another issue. The issue I want to raise 
is the question of campaign finance reform. We set our priorities in 
this institution by press conference, by meetings, by bipartisan 
meetings, and what is painfully missing from our set of priorities is a 
scheduled time in which this institution, all of us participating, 
under an open rule, similar to what we will be debating this bill 
under, can discuss an issue that is burning within the country. That 
issue is how do we solve this crisis that we have with campaign finance 
reform?
  I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is much disagreement on 
either side of the aisle that the way we finance our political 
campaigns in this country is broken. We all know that. The American 
people are increasingly becoming aware that it is broken. Each and 
every election demonstrates that it is broken.
  In 1996 an estimated $2.7 billion, with a B, was spent on political 
campaigns. Now with recent court rulings, we know that the rules are 
wide open. We can spend what we want the way we want to spend it, 
virtually. We have got to do something to limit the influence of money 
in our campaigns. We need to fix the system. We need to limit the 
amount of money. We need to stop the negative advertising. We need to 
get on with voting again.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, my good friend has been a Member of this 
body for 20 years, longer than I have. He knows that rule XIV requires 
us to speak to the subject matter before us. His statement does not.
  I am not going to interfere if the gentleman is going to finish his 
statement in his allotted time, but if I see other people doing this, 
we are going to have to abide by the rules of the House. I would say 
that out of respect to the gentleman as the minority whip that he 
certainly could continue, but I would hope that he would use his 
influence to make sure that we do abide by the rest of the rules.
  I do thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BONIOR. The gentleman is welcome.
  Mr. Speaker, I am talking this afternoon about the priorities. While 
paperwork reduction is a priority, and it is a good one, it may not be 
Earth-shattering but it is important. As I listened carefully to what 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] had to say, it consumes 9 
percent, as I understand from her remarks, of the GNP in the country. 
That is a very big burden on this country. But it is also a burden on 
this country to be spending $2.7 billion on a system that we know is 
broke, that is eroding the confidence of the American people that this 
institution works, and I think that ought to be a priority as well.
  Let me just say to my friends and colleagues this afternoon, on the 
opening day of this Congress we on this side of the aisle offered a 
proposal that would bring campaign finance reform to the floor within 
the first 100 days of this Congress. That obviously does not look like 
it is going to happen.
  A few weeks ago, we had a bipartisan discussion to agree on a common 
agenda for this Congress. We did it over in the Senate. We did it with 
the President, Republicans, and Democrats, and this issue was not 
raised again.
  Last week the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] began a series 
of procedural votes to protest the failure to schedule a debate on 
campaign finance reform. Today, in conclusion, I might add to my friend 
from New York, we are going to be offering on the previous question a 
motion that will say basically we have to debate this issue in an open 
and full way by May 31, before the Memorial Day recess, so we can meet 
the goal of trying to finish this by the Fourth of July.
  We need a full and a fair debate on this proposal, as we are having 
and will have on the Paperwork Reduction Act. Every day that passes, 
the country becomes more and more disgusted with our failure to act. We 
need to get our people involved in the political process once again.
  I want, Mr. Speaker, the election day in this country to mean 
something. I want every citizen of this country to feel an urgency and 
a seriousness about voting. And, most important, I want our 
schoolchildren studying the Declaration of Independence or the 
Constitution today to feel the same excitement that the authors felt 
more than 200 years ago.
  So I urge my colleagues, vote today. It is not about a particular 
bill or a solution. I am not calling for any particular solution to 
this. What I am calling for is we set a time in which we can debate 
this. This is about setting up a process to debate the campaign finance 
reform bill, and I urge my colleagues, vote no on the previous question 
so that we can debate real campaign finance reform on the House floor 
before Memorial Day.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I too agree with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], the minority whip, who was just in the well, that this is 
about our priorities and this rule is about our priorities and the 
previous question will be about our priorities. One hundred and eleven 
Members of this Congress at the beginning of this year or even before 
the first of this year, on a bipartisan basis, wrote to the Speaker of 
the House and asked that we have campaign finance reform in the first 
100 days of this session of Congress. We are awaiting an answer from 
the Speaker on that issue. The silence is deafening.
  At the same time, we see the minority leader in the Senate, [Mr. 
Daschle], has made campaign finance reform the top issue in their 
agenda and has asked the majority leader to do the same. The gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], minority leader in this House, has asked 
that we consider this within the first 100 days. President Clinton has 
called for action by July 4. Yet we hear nothing from the Republican 
leadership about campaign finance reform. Again, the silence is not 
only deafening, it is paralyzing us and an ability to deal with a 
system that the American public has come to disrespect, to understand 
is corrosive, to understand is corrupting, and yet we see nothing from 
the Republican side of the aisle to deal with campaign finance reform.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Will the gentleman yield for an 
inquiry?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in order for us to determine whether debate being 
engaged in by the minority as an attempt to defeat the previous 
question is relevant to the pending rule and the legislation

[[Page H992]]

it makes in order, it is necessary for us to have a copy of the 
minority's proposed amendment to the rule, and I would just ask if the 
Chair has been provided with the amendment and, if so, could the Chair 
provide us with a copy? The minority has not provided our side with it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I may continue----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, is there a copy at the desk?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of an amendment.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] may proceed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from California yield for 
the parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Is it not in order to simply oppose the rule?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Sure. Absolutely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
may proceed.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think if the gentleman wants 
to discuss paperwork reduction, we can think of all of those 
corporations and all of those small businesses that are getting hit 
with subpoenas and interrogatories about whether or not they are a 
small business, whether or not they exist, whether or not the person 
that gave the money and their name is really a real person, whether the 
business is real or not.
  Mr. Speaker, the point is this: The top priority of this Congress 
ought to be to get its house in order, and the cancer that is spreading 
throughout this institution and is spreading throughout our Government 
is the lack of decent, open, and fair ways to finance our campaigns. 
The current system is broken, it is corrupting of this institution, it 
is corrosive of our democratic institutions.
  The American people deserve something better, and we deserve an 
answer from the Republicans as to a date certain when they will bring 
campaign finance reform to the floor of the House of Representatives so 
this House can work its will. There is no question but there is a 
majority of people on this floor to reform the existing system. We 
should not be denied an opportunity to do that, and we ought to 
rearrange the priorities of this Congress. We have been here now 3 
months and we have rarely been in session. Yet somehow we cannot find 
time to deal with this most urgent matter in terms of the preserve of 
the best of our democratic institutions, the integrity of this House 
and the freedom of the American people to have a fair election and a 
fair outcome.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the spirit of bipartisanship that we have heard much 
about over the course of the last few days is to be any more meaningful 
than ``I'll smile at you if you'll smile at me,'' then I think that a 
place to start with true bipartisanship is to allow the people, 
Republican and Democrat alike, who want to do something about the 
increasingly corrupting influence of money and politics at all levels 
of our Federal elections, to give them an opportunity to come forward 
and craft a bipartisan solution to this tremendous problem.
  Thoughts of bipartisanship and of campaign finance reform are hardly 
new to this institution. Indeed, in 1995 in New Hampshire, in the 
summer, in front of a senior citizens' group, we had many smiles from 
President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich looking at each other, shaking 
hands, being very bipartisan and collegial and friendly over the 
concept of campaign finance reform. And what happened after that? 
Absolutely nothing. It took from that summer until the next summer 
before we got something in this House called reform week, which ended 
up being a reform hour, which denied to us an opportunity to consider 
the bipartisan Clean Congress Act, a measure that by its very name had 
broad bipartisan support and was designed to do something about the 
influence of money in our campaigns.
  I believe the American people want us to address this problem. And so 
this afternoon, in the course of this particular bill, it is 
appropriate to talk about two things: priorities and paper.
  When it comes to paper, I would maintain that the type of paperwork 
reduction that the American people are most concerned about at this 
time, when they are hearing about the Lincoln bedroom, when they are 
hearing about Republicans down at Palm Beach meeting with people that 
gave $100,000 in soft money to the Republican Party, the kind of paper 
that we ought to be concerned about reducing is the kind that says pay 
to the order of, pay to the order of whichever candidate or political 
committee or whatever is involved. We ought to be concerned about 
reducing that.
  The only reason that we did not get a chance to address that issue in 
the last Congress and were cut off from a bipartisan opportunity to 
consider this national scandal, the only reason is because instead of 
paperwork reduction, our Speaker has been very candid in saying that he 
favors paperwork expansion. He does not think there is enough paper in 
the political process. He thinks we need more paper, we need more 
checks, we need to spend even more special interest money than is being 
expended at the current time in our political system.
  I believe we need to be concerned about real paperwork reduction, and 
that is to reduce the influence of special interest money in our 
campaigns.

                              {time}  1615

  Hundreds of millions of dollars of so-called soft money that gets 
outside of the course of the current campaign financing laws, as 
deficient as they are, are being expended by both parties. There is no 
one perfect solution to this problem, there is no one perfect 
Democratic or Republican solution. Rather, we ought to have the 
opportunity on the floor of this House to come together and offer our 
different ideas, to not be restricted to an hour, as we were 2 years 
ago, and denied the opportunity to consider the only bipartisan 
proposal that was advanced at that time. We ought to be able to come 
together, reason together, and work out a solution to this most 
critical paperwork problem.
  As my colleagues know, it is not for want of time that we have not 
considered this issue. We spent a week here last week whereby all we 
did was commend the Nicaraguans and Guatemalans, and I know that was a 
hard load for some, but I believe we can take on the harder jobs.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I would rather stand up 
here and talk about than what happened with the Lincoln bedroom, and 
what happened with economic espionage in this administration, what 
happened with the breaches of national security in this country by the 
administration. This is not the time to be discussing that, but I would 
be glad to take the well and discuss all of this at the appropriate 
time.
  My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Speaker: Under House Rule XIV, 
which requires that a Member must confine himself to the question under 
debate, is it relevant to the debate on either this rule or the bill it 
makes in order to engage in a discussion on the merits of campaign 
finance law?
  Would the Speaker please rule on that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would be happy to refer all 
Members to page 529 of the Rules of the House, which says that debate 
on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may range, 
and ``range'' is the appropriate word here, to the merits of a measure 
to be considered under that special order, but may not range to the 
merits of a bill, but should not range to the merits of a measure not 
to be considered.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, what you have just said is that we must 
confine our statements to the merits of the legislation before us, and 
I would

[[Page H993]]

just ask the Chair to please enforce the rules of the House.
  I have been informed by my good friend over here, and he is a good 
friend and trying to be congenial, but he now tells me he has a number 
of speakers that are going to pursue this issue that is not germane to 
the issue before us, and we just cannot have that. We have to abide by 
the rules of the House, and I would ask the Speaker to enforce the 
rules of the House from here on out.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question, and let me tell my colleagues why.
  As we rise today to take up another burning issue on the GOP agenda, 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, I ask my Republican colleagues to allow us 
to debate a more meaningful reduction of paper. Let us talk about how 
we reduce the amount of paper money that exists in political campaigns 
today.
  Our system of financing political campaigns is broken, and it is time 
for us to fix it. We may not all agree on the best way to fix the 
problem, but surely we can all agree on one thing, that there is too 
much paper money in political campaigns, it costs too much money to run 
for public office, we spend too much time raising money for our 
campaigns, and at the end of the day it takes our time away from the 
more important duties we are engaged in.
  I know it, my colleagues know it. Most importantly, the American 
people know it.
  Republicans in the House and Senate have asked for several million 
dollars to investigate campaign financing in the last election. Those 
investigations are important, and they should move forward, and they 
should not be used as an excuse to delay action on campaign finance 
reform.
  All the Democrats are asking is this: Give us an open, unrestricted 
debate on campaign finance reform by May 31, by Memorial Day. We can 
get money out of politics and pass meaningful campaign finance reform, 
but first we need an open and a fair debate. Only one person can 
schedule a vote on campaign finance reform, and that is the Speaker of 
this House.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop wasting time. Let us schedule a vote 
on campaign finance reform. Congress surely could stand a little 
paperwork reduction, but let us reduce the amount of money in politics.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I support the Paperwork Reduction Act, but 
I think it could be made better, and I think we can make it better and 
really reduce paperwork if we pass true, honest to goodness campaign 
finance reform. The American people want it, certainly my constituents 
want it, the President has asked for it. Why has the Republican 
leadership not made campaign finance reform a number one priority?
  The Paperwork Reduction Act before us today is all fine and nice, and 
as I said, I do support it, but is this really our number one priority? 
Is this the number one priority of this Nation?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leadership to bring campaign finance 
reform to the floor of this House by Memorial Day. Time is being lost, 
and the public disgust and skepticism is rising. We must act now on 
real campaign finance reform. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
previous question, and I urge the Republican leadership to please make 
campaign finance reform a number one priority.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on the debate on the rule on paperwork reduction. 
This is a debate that determines the procedures of the House, and this 
is the only way in which we can deal with the law that will come after 
this debate, the law on paperwork reduction. The only way we can get a 
debate on a new law is to schedule that debate on the floor, and I rise 
to the issue that this rule does not go far enough because it has not 
scheduled the real paperwork reduction in America, which is the 
reduction in the amount of money that flows into campaigns.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to be debating the law on campaign reform. It 
was asked for by the President, it was promised by the Speaker, and it 
is certainly in demand by Members who are here today on both sides of 
the aisle.
  We have bills before Congress. The work has been done on writing that 
law. There are many versions of it. But that law cannot reach the floor 
until the Committee on Rules sets the date, and the date ought to be 
before this country's next national birthday on July 4.
  If we did, indeed, deal with this rule, we would be talking about 
real reduction, we would be talking about reduction in the time it 
takes to raise money, time that could be better spent in managing this 
Nation's affairs. We would be spending less time, certainly less 
paperwork, because there would be less checks written to campaigns. 
There would be less money flowing into Washington. There would be less 
time fund-raising. There would be more time spent governing.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this rule because this 
rule does not go far enough, because this rule fails to bring what this 
Nation demands, and that is the real law of reform to this floor, which 
is campaign law reform.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, many of us worked very hard to 
bring to the American public the acknowledgment that we understood how 
hard they worked. The Paperwork Reduction Act simply says that we 
recognize that the business of America is to create jobs and not to be 
entangled with hostile paperwork and regulations, but yet we also 
recognize our responsibility in the U.S. Congress.
  I think it is disappointing that this rule has not had or given us 
the opportunity to confront the real question that the American people 
are asking us: Can we clean up our own House? Can we reduce the 
entanglement and regulations of a misdirected campaign finance 
structure that really does not allow those who come here to work to 
work without the shackles of confusion and the shackles of debate on 
how we raise money to make sure that the voices of all Americans are 
heard?
  I truly believe in the integrity of the Members of this House, that 
they come here, most of all, to represent their constituents and 
represent America, but until we get out in front and deal with the 
question of how we finance these elections, how we reemphasize the 
importance of making sure the average person has access to this U.S. 
Congress, I happen to be a supporter of the Farr bill. But what I think 
most of all is important in terms of campaign finance reform is that 
this House shows it means business and that it gets down to the 
business of both raising the question of campaign finance reform, 
debating the question of finance reform, and not hiding the ball.
  It is crucial that we, as Members of this House, acknowledge to the 
American people that we are not tied up by the interests of others 
other than the interests of them that bring us to this body.
  Mr. Speaker, it is so very important that this rule include campaign 
finance reform.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I was taken earlier by Speaker Gingrich and 
by Minority Leader Gephardt when they came to the floor and they talked 
about the need for comity in this body. But we are really being hard 
pressed here today. I know that this is Thursday, there is no session 
tomorrow, and Members do want to go home, but I feel moved to bring a 
point of order against the Members that are standing up talking about 
issues that are not germane to this issue, and certainly that would be 
upheld by the Chair because they are not germane. That of course would 
be subject to an appeal, if the minority saw fit to do. That would drag 
Members over here. That would prolong the

[[Page H994]]

measures again. It would probably cause all kinds of problems.
  So I am not going to press a point of order today. I am going to let 
my colleagues use up the balance of their time, but we just have to say 
out of courtesy to Members on both sides that we have to stick to the 
rules of the House. Rule 14 says that we must speak to the germaneness 
of the issues before us.
  So I just wanted Members to do that, and I hope Members have a nice 
weekend.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for his gentleness today. We are 
in the minority. We do not have a lot of control over the process here.
  This is really a fight over control. When we were in control in 1975-
76, we passed campaign finance reform. When I led the effort, we passed 
it twice, once vetoed by President Bush, and under our rules I am not 
allowed to name the Senator from Kentucky, but I can reference the 
gentleman from the other body in the majority party who has 
filibustered campaign reform to death in the past and threatens to do 
it again. I commend the committee for bringing this Paperwork Reduction 
Act before us. It is something we ought to do. But as we weigh our 
responsibilities as Members of Congress, one of the things happening is 
all our credibility is diminished by the present situation.
  As my colleagues know, I think we ought to do something simple now. 
We ought to put a limit of $100, we ought to tax advertising so we have 
the resources to make a public match so every American can feel 
empowered to be part of this process.
  Now I know that if we brought that bill and four or five others--I do 
not know that mine would win, but in that debate I know we would help 
build confidence in this system, we would at the end of the day take a 
step forward, and that is what this debate is really all about.
  There are lots of vehicles that we will try to use, as the minority. 
Those guys have the majority; I recognize that. They make the rules; 
they make the decision as to what bills come to the floor and what 
bills do not come to the floor.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Connecticut is 
talking about how he is in the minority now. I am relatively new to the 
institution.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. But the gentleman from Florida is doing real well for 
a new guy.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. The gentleman is, too, and I like his hair in the 
spirit of Hershey and comity.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. But, as my colleagues know, if the gentleman could 
give me a little historical perspective as a relatively new Member 
here, I believe that they were all in the majority in 1993 and 1994, 
and I also believe that they had somebody in the White House who was 
also a Democrat. Could the gentleman tell me if they all passed 
campaign finance in 1993 or 1994 or if the gentleman's selective memory 
prevents him from doing this?

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say to 
the gentleman's question, we passed campaign finance reform and 
President George Bush vetoed it. We passed it through this House. It 
got to the Senate, and I can only reference the gentleman in the other 
body in the Republican Party from Kentucky who filibustered it to 
death, and in the opening days of this Congress he threatened to 
filibuster any new campaign reform bill to death.
  We passed it, it got vetoed by President Bush. We passed it through 
the House, it was filibustered to death in the Senate.
  What we are saying is, let us join together and pass a limit on 
spending. Let us limit the amount of money. Let us rebuild confidence 
in this system so we can work to reduce paperwork, so we can reduce the 
amount of time we spend raising money, and put our attention back on 
the people's business to take care of children, to make sure they have 
health care, to make sure the people losing their benefits have jobs 
and not street corners to hang out on.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise Members 
to avoid making references to Members of the other body.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on either side, and 
was the clock running when the gentleman used up all his time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
New York the Chair is keeping very good time.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] has 23 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time, and I certainly hope I have the same timekeeper on my two minutes 
as the previous speaker had on his one.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the previous speaker that 
the question that was asked was what happened while the Democrats had 
control in 1993 and 1994 and when they had control in the White House 
in 1993 and 1994.
  The previous speaker almost moved me to tears in his very self-
righteous indignation, and then blamed George Bush for killing it.
  I may be a dumb country lawyer, I may have graduated from the 
University of Alabama, but my recollection was that George Bush was not 
President in 1993 or in 1994, that that was in fact William Jefferson 
Clinton.
  I see some people shaking their heads, so maybe, maybe I am incorrect 
in this. But they can be self-righteous all they want. They had control 
over this Chamber over the two-year period in 1993 and 1994, they had 
the President of the United States, and they did not want to do 
anything on campaign finance reform.
  Now they come to this well in self-righteous indignation trying to 
distract people. . . . And if they want to be self-righteous, if they 
want to get on the well of the floor and debate this, we will gladly do 
it for as long as you want to do it, because you do not have the moral 
high ground. And when you had a chance to change things, you did not do 
it, and you cannot rewrite history, as much as you would like to try.
  So beat your chest in self-righteous indignation, but pray for the 
children tonight, pray for America and whatever you want to do, but the 
fact of the matter is, that you are being hypocrites.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken 
down when he said that the White House had sold influence to Communist 
China and other things. There is no proof of that, and that is 
absolutely ridiculous, to come into this body and accuse the President 
of the United States of selling influence to a Communist nation.
  I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will suspend.
  The Clerk will report the words objected to.

                              {time}  1636

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Scarborough] seek recognition?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words about 
specifically mentioning the President . . . since while Newsweek has 
written an article about that those have not been proven yet, so I will 
specifically withdraw the statement regarding the President . . . .
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making the 
correction, and that saves us a trip back to Hershey.

[[Page H995]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Scarborough] has expired.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] is recognized. The gentleman from 
Ohio has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
amendment I intend to offer, if the previous question is defeated, be 
printed in the Record immediately preceding the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The amendment referred to is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       ``Section 2. No later than May 31, 1997, the House shall 
     consider comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation 
     under an open amendment process.''

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that defeating 
the previous question is an exercise in futility, because the minority 
wants to offer an amendment that will be ruled out of order as 
nongermane to this rule. So the vote is without substance.
  The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to 
close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The 
vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert an explanation of the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The explanation follows:

               The Previous Question Vote: What It Means

       House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that:
       There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, 
     being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a 
     quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all 
     debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or 
     ordered.
       In the case of a special rule or order of business 
     resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing 
     for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the one hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 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 agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 187, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 49]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Baker
     Barton
     Berman
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Costello
     Dicks
     Etheridge
     Foglietta
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     John
     Kingston
     Leach
     Manton
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Ortiz
     Price (NC)
     Roukema
     Schaefer, Dan
     Smith (TX)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1659

  Messrs. MATSUI, PASTOR, and SPRATT changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. FOLEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H996]]

                          personal explanation

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on rollcalls No. 48 and 49 I 
was unavoidably detained in transit. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 48 and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 49.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 88 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 852.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] to assume the chair temporarily.


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 852) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, 
popularly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act, to minimize the burden 
of Federal paperwork demands upon small businesses, educational and 
nonprofit institutions, Federal contractors, State and local 
governments, and other persons through the sponsorship and use of 
alternative information technologies with Mr. Sensenbrenner (chairman 
pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
McCarthy] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
bill be limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side, which I 
understand the gentlewoman has no objection to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. McCarthy] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, This is a noncontroversial but very significant bill, 
Mr. Chairman. It is a supplement to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1996. We call it the Paperwork Elimination Act. What the bill does, in 
fine, is require that regulatory agencies give the people that they 
regulate, not just small businesses but everybody, the option to store 
and supply the information they have to supply by electronic means: 
modems, computers, faxes, where that is appropriate. This is done 
within the framework of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which we passed 
unanimously last year.
  This bill itself passed the House last year unanimously, moved over 
to the Senate, was discharged from committee, but never reached the 
Senate floor. It came out of the Committee on Small Business 
unanimously. It is supported by the ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. LaFalce], and myself. It is a good bill and a good step 
forward in trying to provide some additional options to people who are 
trying to supply information to the government in an efficient way at 
as little cost as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage quick passage of H.R. 852, 
entitled the ``Paperwork Elimination Act of 1997.''
  Paperwork demands of the Federal Government place a tremendous burden 
upon all Americans. Some estimates place the total burden at more than 
6 billion hours a year. To place this staggering number in perspective, 
6 billion hours of labor is equivalent to 3 million employees working 
full-time to satisfy the often repetitive and duplicative requests of 
various Federal agencies. This is a expense which small business can 
ill afford.
  According to a 1995 study by Thomas Hopkins of the Rochester 
Institute of Technology, small businesses with less than 20 employees 
pay an average of $5,106 per employee annually in regulatory costs. 
This is in strong contrast to the average of $3,404 in regulatory costs 
per employer which businesses with more than 500 employees pay. Much of 
this regulatory cost stems from paperwork--paperwork which this 
legislation intends to eliminate.
  The Paperwork Elimination Act builds upon the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 to further minimize the burden of Federal paperwork demands 
upon small businesses and others. H.R. 852 would accomplish this by 
advancing the use of alternative information technologies including 
electronic maintenance, submission, and disclosure of information. 
Essentially, this would mean that anyone with access to a personal 
computer or even a phone would be able to meet the Federal Government's 
information requests in an easier and less timely fashion.
  It is important to note that the Paperwork Elimination Act requires 
Federal agencies to provide for only the optical use of alternative 
technologies in complying with informational demands. This legislation 
should not in any way be construed as a mandate on individuals. Those 
without the ability or desire to comply with Federal regulatory demands 
electronically would not be required to do so against their will.
  H.R. 852 is identical to legislation passed by the House in the 104th 
Congress. In the last Congress, after a thorough hearing by the Small 
Business Subcommittee on Government Programs, our committee adopted 
this measure by voice vote and the House went on to pass it 
unanimously. Unfortunately, even though this measure was discharged by 
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Senate was not able 
to take final action before the close of the 104th Congress. After 
consulting with Mr. LaFalce, our ranking member, we decided that we 
could move this legislation through committee without the need for an 
additional hearing. The committee held a mark-up on this legislation 
last Thursday, March 6. We reported this measure out unanimously by 
voice vote without amendment, and filed our report later that day.
  In conclusion, let me commend many out there for moving into the 
information age with such great speed and enthusiasm. I have observed 
businesses of all sizes eagerly accepting and embracing all forms of 
new technology. No office seems complete these days without a computer 
and fax machine. Products are being advertised, orders being taken, 
bills being paid, all by electronic means. Why should the Federal 
Government be any different?
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 852, the Paperwork 
Elimination Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that control and duration of time for 
general debate was set by order of the House, meaning essentially 30 
minutes per side. While the previous request in the Committee of the 
Whole is not controlling, under the circumstances, however, the Chair 
notes that each side may yield back any time that they may desire.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  (Mrs. McCARTHY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 852, the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1997, which the Committee on 
Small Business reported out unanimously last week. I commend the 
chairman and the ranking member for bringing this bipartisan 
legislation to the floor.
  In approving this legislation, the Committee on Small Business, which 
has long been a forum for and a voice of the small business community, 
took another step forward, responding to one of the principal ongoing 
concerns of small business owners: the paperwork burdens imposed on 
them by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, the ambitious title of the legislation notwithstanding, 
I do not foresee a day in my lifetime when we will eliminate paperwork. 
Nor do I foresee the day when we will altogether eliminate regulations. 
What we can do, however, and what this bill does, is take advantage of 
existing technology capabilities and ease the regulatory burden on 
small businesses by reducing the amount of paper they must fill out, 
mail, and file.
  This legislation itself imposes no burden. It has no mandates. It 
allows those small business owners, educators, State and local 
governments and others the option of communicating with the Federal 
Government via computer.

[[Page H997]]

  Mr. Chairman, I see much progress and no problems accompanying this 
bill, and therefore I urge all of my distinguished colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo.]
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. I would like to point out that according to the Small 
Business Administration, small business owners spend at least 1 
billion, that is right, 1 billion hours a year in filling out 
government forms, at an annual cost of $100 billion.
  As someone who has spent more than 25 years in a small business, I 
can testify to the accuracy of this statistic. I spent more than my 
fair share of time filling out form after form after form. The 
paperwork required by the Government was seemingly endless. The 
Paperwork Elimination Act will alleviate the paper burden by giving 
small business owners and employees the option to submit information by 
electronic means.
  Over the last several years, we have seen historic changes in the 
field of telecommunications. This bill will bring the Government into 
the information age. Many small businesses already take advantage of 
various technologies used for communication. This initiative would give 
businesses the option to use this technology to submit information to 
the Government. If it does not have the capability or the desire to 
exchange information electronically, if a business does not want to do 
that, they will not be penalized under this bill.
  I hope the days of filling out forms in triplicates will be behind 
us. Passing this bill will be a giant step closer to that end.
  In the last Congress, this legislation passed the House of 
Representatives with unanimous support but it never saw action on the 
Senate floor. In this session I hope we can put this bill on the 
President's desk, and I urge all of my colleagues to strongly support 
the legislation.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the distinguished 
ranking member of the committee.
  (Mr. LaFalce asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to praise the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent], the new chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business, and all the members of the Committee on Small Business, 
especially the freshman members on both sides, for the great work they 
have done so far.
  I call upon everyone to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of the Paperwork 
Elimination Act of 1997, introduced by my good friend and the chairman 
of the Small Business Committee, Congressman Jim Talent.
  Last year the Congress passed and the President signed the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, which mandates fixed percentage cuts in paperwork 
burdens over the next few years. The Paperwork Elimination Act builds 
on that law by encouraging the electronic submission and disclosure of 
regulations and submission of information for regulatory compliance.
  This legislation is easy to extol as all affected parties are a 
winner. It urges the Federal Government to disseminate and receive 
information by computer where appropriate. As this involves putting 
already existing technology to better use, the Government will incur 
little, if any, additional administrative or financial cost to comply 
with the provisions of this legislation.
  Small businesses, nonprofits, and State and local governments stand 
to gain because they may, if they choose, comply with Federal 
requirements for information by furnishing it electronically rather 
than on paper. If this serves to reduce paperwork storage and 
compliance time, then the burden of the small business owner and others 
becomes a bit lighter.
  In the last several years on the Hill we have seen in our own offices 
an amazing increase in our reliance on computers and other forms of 
information transmission and storage. We have seen our ability to 
communicate become faster and more efficient. It is time we take the 
next logical step and prod Federal agencies to open the door to 
electronic communication with the businesses, States and towns of 
America. The Paperwork Elimination Act is the next logical step.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, in my office and in offices throughout our 
country, e-mail has become an alternative and efficient way for people 
in one office and different offices to transfer information. Within 
minutes of sending a message, memo, or document, a recipient in the 
next office, or someone who is five States away, receives information. 
It is quick, easy, and it saves paper.
  The technological advances of our Nation have changed the face of 
doing business, whether it is using e-mail, having a WEB site, or even 
teleconferencing businesses are taking advantages of these 
technological advances in order to speed up the transfer of 
information.
  By passing the Paperwork Elimination Act, the Federal Government can 
use these new advances in technology to reduce the burden on many small 
businesses. The Government can receive, disseminate, and respond to 
inquiries, input information, and save thousands of pieces of paper by 
implementing these new advances. The 104th Congress took a giant step 
forward in reducing the burdensome paperwork that consumes many 
businesses by passing the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 105th Congress 
has an opportunity to build on that and pass the Paperwork Elimination 
Act.

                              {time}  1715

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time. I commend her efforts in bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  The Paperwork Elimination Act is an excellent piece of legislation. I 
believe it will enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support. The importance 
of small businesses in New Jersey cannot be emphasized enough. They are 
the backbone of the State's economy. Of the 187,000 full-time business 
firms in New Jersey, 98 percent are small businesses, which are 
independent businesses with fewer than 500 workers. The aim of this act 
is to minimize the burden of Federal paperwork on small businesses 
through the use of electronic information technology.
  To use an extreme example, some small businesses are required to file 
forms with up to 50 different Federal, State and local agencies. This 
is impossible. These bureaucratic demands can strangle a small 
business. This bill ameliorates this burden by requiring all Federal 
agencies to provide the option of electronic submission of information 
to all those who must comply with Federal regulations. I believe it 
will accomplish the goal that is set out in the summary of the bill.
  Small businesses play too significant of a role in our economy. We 
need job creation. We need productivity, and we need expansion. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 852.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Snowbarger].
  (Mr. SNOWBARGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, with that provision let me make just 
two points in the interest of time. First of all, I am very much 
supportive of any efforts on the part of agencies to allow electronic 
submission to take advantage of both efficiency and economy that is 
allowed by electronic submissions.
  The second point I would like to make, however, is we must make sure 
that the legislative history is clear on this, that this is the option 
of the small business and governments that this is meant to provide 
some relief for and it is not at the option of the agency.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Paperwork Elimination Act of 
1997. This legislation provides an option to small businesses and 
others, who have the capacity to comply with regulations by computer 
and other means, to take advantage of electronic technology. This is an 
effort to make it easier and less costly to do business with the 
Government, and I would encourage Government agencies to improve their 
effectiveness in utilizing information technology. I would like to 
point out that OMB is required to oversee and promote the use of 
electronic information technology.

[[Page H998]]

  However, we should make it very clear that the use of electronic 
technology is optional on the part of those required to comply with 
Government paperwork mandates. I support this legislation that will 
enable small businesses to cut down the billion or so hours they spend 
each year filling out Government forms, and, hopefully, lower their 
costs of $100 billion.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand].
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  I would first of all like to compliment our ranking member, from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce] and our chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent]. If there is anything that we have been talking about over the 
last couple months, it is bipartisanship. This bill is probably the 
best example of what anybody could call bipartisan legislation. It is 
here today. It may be small. But it is indeed the first effort that we 
have seen in this Congress of a bipartisan piece of legislation, so I 
compliment them both.
  As a former small business owner, Mr. Chairman, I, like many of our 
colleagues, was besieged with Federal paperwork, working nights and 
weekends, taking time away from my family and my clients to be able to 
fill in those forms. This act will help change that.
  More importantly, one of the things that we have heard in this 
Congress time and time again is that we must teach our children about 
computers and being more literate in that electronic field. This now 
forces us to also recognize the Federal Government must be literate in 
that area. It forces them to be on the state of the art in terms of 
technology. It forces us to finally get into the 21st century. It is a 
great piece of legislation. It may be small, but it moves us in the 
right direction, not only for businesses but for a bipartisan Congress. 
I hope Members will all support it.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to 
commend and congratulate Chairman Talent and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce], the ranking member, for the exemplary leadership 
that they provided in bringing this legislation to the floor.
  I want to concur and agree with the words that have already been 
spoken by most of my colleagues and would simply echo their sentiments. 
But I would like to add that I hope that in the implementation of this 
act that even those businesses that we call micro businesses, the ma 
and pa shops, the cleaners, the beauty shops, the barber shops, those 
that do not even have computers, I would hope that the legislation 
would be implemented in such a way that there would be a facility 
someplace that they could go and receive assistance so that they, too, 
could benefit from this legislation.
  I think it is an excellent display of bipartisanship, and I hope that 
we can display in the near future the same kind of bipartisanship, the 
same kind of concern for campaign finance reform so that the people of 
this country can have the same assurances that small businesses will 
have, that they will get the most from their government.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank all the speakers for their kind words about the bill 
and about the process. I do need to thank some other people, Mr. 
Chairman, very briefly. The Committee on Small Business shares 
jurisdiction over issues involving paperwork reduction with the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the chairman, and his staff for 
agreeing to waive their primary jurisdiction over the legislation. I 
also want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], a member 
of the Committee on Small Business who in his role as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and 
Regulatory Affairs of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
has along with his staff also assisted greatly in helping us move this 
measure forward in a speedy fashion.
  I would also like to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce], for his help in moving the bill through the 
committee at information age speed. It could not have been done without 
him. I would also like to thank the Committee on Small Business staff 
who worked on the legislation: Jeff Polich, Emily Murphy, Laurie Rains, 
and Harry Katrichis for the majority, and Patricia Hennessey and Tom 
Powers for the minority.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 852, the Paperwork Reduction Act. This bill is an important step 
into the technological age.
  H.R. 852 will allow businesses to choose to submit required 
information to the Government by electronic filing. It will benefit 
businesses by allowing them to use the most efficient means available 
to communicate with the Government.
  H.R. 852 brings both business and government into the modern age 
where information is transferred quickly and efficiently through the 
electronic medium. In so doing, it has the important effect of 
conserving resources--both human and material--and eliminating waste.
  In the 104th Congress, we recognized the merits of H.R. 852 and voted 
unanimously in favor of similar legislation. Our colleagues in the 
Senate, however, did not act. I hope that in this new session, the 
House and Senate will stand together in support of this important 
legislation. However, as we work to reduce paperwork--a real discussion 
on campaign finance reform, should become a part of the House agenda. 
That is a necessary part of this body's work.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and enthusiastic 
support of H.R. 852, the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1997. This is 
important legislation that will assist in the process of lowering the 
paperwork burden that the Federal Government places on small businesses 
throughout this country, and will facilitate Federal agencies' efforts 
to fulfill their requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
  We all know that the Federal Government places an enormous paperwork 
burden on small business owners. The amount of forms that it requires 
to be maintained or submitted is staggering.
  One study that was conducted by the General Accounting Office 
estimates the Government-wide paperwork burden to be 7 billion hours 
per year.
  Because of this burden that it creates, the Federal Government has an 
obligation to make compliance with these demands as easy and 
straightforward as possible. That is what the Paperwork Elimination Act 
is designed to address. It simply states that the Federal Government 
should recognize the advancements in information technology management 
that have been made in recent years, and allow small business owners to 
utilize them when meeting the demands that the Government makes.
  As chair of the Small Business Committee's Regulatory Reform and 
Paperwork Reduction Subcommittee, I constantly hear from small business 
owners across the country who are desperate for additional paperwork 
relief. As a former small business owner, I know first hand and can 
testify to the demands that paperwork and recordkeeping can place on 
the busy schedule of those trying to successfully operate their own 
business. H.R. 852 simply provides an additional tool for these 
individuals to have at their disposal.
  The one other important aspect of this legislation that I would like 
to highlight today is the flexibility it provides small business. While 
requiring that Federal agencies accommodate alternative information 
technologies, these amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act leave the 
decision of employing such technologies squarely in the hands of the 
small business owner. We did not need another mandate from the 
Government telling small businessmen and women how they must comply. 
Rather, we need to give them the option of deciding the best way in 
which they can meet the requirements placed upon them.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] for 
introducing this legislation. As we all know, this bill overwhelmingly 
passed this Chamber during the 104th Congress. I would like to urge all 
Members

[[Page H999]]

to support H.R. 852 and help make this important legislation become 
law.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by section. Each section shall be considered as having been read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as having been read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Paperwork Elimination Act of 
     1997''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purpose of this Act is to--
       (1) minimize the burden of Federal paperwork demands upon 
     small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, 
     Federal contractors, State and local governments, and other 
     persons through the sponsorship and use of alternative 
     information technologies, including the use of electronic 
     maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information to 
     substitute for paper; and
       (2) more effectively enable Federal agencies to achieve the 
     purposes of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, 
     popularly known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY AND FUNCTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 
                   OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

       (a) Direction and Oversight of Information Technology.--
     Section 3504(a)(1)(B)(vi) of title 44, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(vi) the acquisition and use of information technology, 
     including the use of alternative information technologies, 
     such as the use of electronic submission, maintenance, or 
     disclosure of information to substitute for paper.''.
       (b) Promotion of Use of Electronic Information 
     Technology.--Section 3504(h) of title 44, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (5) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(6) specifically promote the optional use of electronic 
     maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information where 
     appropriate, as an alternative information technology to 
     substitute for paper.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. ASSIGNMENT OF TASKS AND DEADLINES.

       Section 3505(a)(3) of title 44, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(D) a description of progress in providing for the use of 
     electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of 
     information to substitute for paper, including the extent to 
     which such progress accomplishes reduction of burden on small 
     businesses or other persons.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 5.
  The text of section 5 is as follows:

     SEC. 5. FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) Providing for Use of Electronic Information 
     Management.--Section 3506(c)(1)(B) of title 44, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at 
     the end of clause (ii) and by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iv) provides for the optional use, where appropriate, of 
     electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of 
     information; and''.
       (b) Promotion of Electronic Information Management.--
     Section 3506(c)(3)(C) of title 44, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     clause (ii), by adding ``or'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of clause (iii), and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) the promotion and optional use, where appropriate, 
     of electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of 
     information.''.
       (c) Use of Alternative Information Technologies.--Section 
     3506(c)(3)(J) of title 44, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(J) to the maximum extent practicable, uses alternative 
     information technologies, including the use of electronic 
     maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, to 
     reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and 
     responsiveness to the public.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 5?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
  The text of section 6 is as follows:

     SEC. 6. PUBLIC INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES; SUBMISSION 
                   TO DIRECTOR; APPROVAL AND DELEGATION.

       Section 3507(a)(1)(D)(ii) of title 44, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of subclause (V), by adding ``and'' after the semicolon at 
     the end of subclause (VI), and by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(VII) a description of how respondents may, if 
     appropriate, electronically maintain, submit, or disclose 
     information under the collection of information.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 6?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 7.
  The text of section 7 is as follows:

     SEC. 7. RESPONSIVENESS TO CONGRESS.

       Section 3514(a)(2) of title 44, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (D) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(E) reduced the collection of information burden on small 
     businesses and other persons through the use of electronic 
     maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information to 
     substitute for paper maintenance, submission, or disclosure 
     of information, including--
       ``(i) a description of instances where such substitution 
     has added to burden; and
       ``(ii) specific identification of such instances relating 
     to the Internal Revenue Service.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 7?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 8.
  The text of section 8 is as follows:

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect October 1, 1998.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 8 or to the bill?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, 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. 852) 
to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, to minimize the burden of Federal 
paperwork demands upon small businesses, educational and nonprofit 
institutions, Federal contractors, State and local governments, and 
other persons through the sponsorship and use of alternative 
information technologies, pursuant to House Resolution 88, he reported 
the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395, 
nays 0, not voting 37, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               YEAS--395

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne

[[Page H1000]]


     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--37

     Baker
     Barton
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Callahan
     Clay
     Clayton
     Dicks
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Gallegly
     Hyde
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Manton
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Nethercutt
     Ortiz
     Price (NC)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Sanchez
     Schaefer, Dan
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1743

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

                          ____________________