[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5868-H5895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Ballenger]. Pursuant to House Resolution 
197 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. 2209.

                              {time}  1733


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2209) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the floor H.R. 
2209, the fiscal year 1998 legislative appropriations bill. This is the 
first year I have had the pleasure of chairing this subcommittee.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the former chairman of 
the subcommittee, has set a very high standard for us to follow. I want 
to recognize the members of the Subcommittee on Legislative who have 
assisted me in bringing this bill to the floor.
  First, let me thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], 
the vice-chairman of the subcommittee. In addition, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], and the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham] all have contributed to the work on 
this bill.
  My colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Serrano], the other part of New York, downstate New York, is the 
ranking minority member. He is a great friend and has worked with me on 
a bipartisan basis throughout the process.
  In addition, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] have helped shape this bill and have 
maintained the bipartisan spirit of the subcommittee. Also, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], the ranking minority member of the full committee, have fully 
participated in the subcommittee's deliberations.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2209 provides $1,711,417,000 in new budget 
authority. This bill is $10 million below the 1997 bill. If I could 
repeat that, it is 0.6 percent lower than last year's appropriation, 
Senate excluded. This continues a 3-year trend of making the 
legislative branch smaller and indeed leading the way toward smaller 
government.
  The Congressional Research Service, in consultation with the 
Congressional Budget Office, has calculated that if the entire Federal 
budget were to be reduced in the same proportion as we have downsized 
the legislative branch, the entire Federal budget would show a surplus 
of $183 billion for fiscal year 1998.
  Here are a few general points about the bill:
  We have continued the program begun in the 104th Congress to right-
size the legislative branch. This is producing a more efficient, 
smaller work force by using technology wherever possible. The bill does 
not fund certain personnel costs, such as within-grade, promotion or 
merit pay increases. Legislative agencies will absorb these costs, just 
as the executive branch does.
  The legislative branch work force is cut by an additional 316 
positions. Since 1994, we have reduced FTE's, or full time equivalent 
positions, by over 3,800 positions. That is a reduction of almost 14 
percent of the entire legislative branch work force. The FTE cut does 
not reduce agency programs. The current level of FTE's used by agencies 
has been maintained. However, funds for unused FTE's have been removed.
  Some of the details in the bill include:
  For the House of Representatives, $708 million is provided. The 
Members' representational allowance appropriation has been increased to 
cover staff cost of living allowances. Committee funds have been 
increased by $6.7 million and are extended through December 31, 1998. 
House administrative offices, the Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, CAO, and 
others are funded at a net reduction of $2 million. Within the CAO, HIR 
operational costs are reduced $1.6 million.

[[Page H5869]]

  For joint items, $86.8 million is provided. The Joint Economic and 
Printing Committees are funded at the level requested in the budget 
submission. The Joint Tax Committee has been provided funds for five 
additional staff to accommodate an expanded workload.
  The Capitol Police cost-of-living allowances are funded with the 
additional funds pending authorizing committee approval. An 
administrative provision establishes a unified pay and leave procedure 
for House and Senate details. For the Architect of the Capitol, $122.9 
million is provided.
  Mr. Chairman, the Capitol buildings belong to the people of the 
United States. We have an obligation to keep up the maintenance needed 
to keep the buildings and grounds in working order and suitable for the 
work of Congress and to accommodate the millions of taxpayers and 
others who visit each year.
  The Architect has estimated that the cost of maintenance and 
improvements over the next 5 years will require an additional $254 
million. This need must be addressed, although perhaps not the full 
amount. This bill begins to address the long-term Capitol investment 
program articulated by the new Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Alan M. 
Hantman, and we welcome him.
  We must exercise judgment, however. In the bill, 68 percent of 
priority-one projects are funded. Safety and Americans with 
Disabilities Act work continues, including fire alarms, sprinklers, 
access doors, etc.
  The initial funding for the rehabilitation of the Capitol dome has 
been provided. Mr. Chairman, there is no more important symbol of the 
American Nation than that Capitol dome. Funding is also provided to 
commence replacement of the deteriorated floors of the parking garage 
in the Cannon Building. The Library of Congress, including CRS, is 
funded at $342 million. We have also added $160 million in other 
resources to the Library. The bill funds the current FTE level. The 
initial phase of the new bibliographic system is funded as is 
additional playback equipment for talking books for the blind.
  For the Government Printing Office, almost $100 million is provided. 
Congressional printing is funded at the fiscal year 1997 level, 
including an $11 million transfer from the working capital fund, a 
transfer back to this account of funds paid out earlier to cover costs 
of non-congressional printing.
  For the General Accounting Office, $323.5 million is provided. This 
will allow 85 additional FTE positions over the current level. The 
Emergency Supplemental Act of 1997 provided GAO authority to enter into 
multiyear contracts. We have been told that up to $8.4 million of funds 
requested for fiscal year 1998 may be obligated in fiscal year 1997 
with this new authority. That provision enabled us to reduce the fiscal 
year 1998 appropriation by that amount.
  Just a couple of notes, in summary, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues. 
The budget authority compared to the 1997 operating level: we are $10 
million, at 0.6 percent below. That is a reduction under 1997 
appropriations. It is $143 million less than the President's request 
for the legislative branch, and it is $2.6 million below our 602(b) 
allocations.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, on a note that does not get an awful lot of 
attention, but I think it shows that we lead by example, not only in 
reducing the size of legislative branch. In the area of recycling, it 
should be noted that the House of Representatives recycling program has 
been operating for 6 years now.
  A pilot test was done in 1990. The House-wide program was begun in 
1993. It should also be noted that the program has been producing 
results. We have all heard of the rumors that we take our waste and we 
throw fine paper in one basket and we throw the sorted paper in another 
basket and then the cleaning people come up in at night and throw them 
all into one coffer. That is not the case.
  I want to dispel that rumor. In fact, we have recycled 12,000, almost 
13,000 tons of waste, including cans, bottles, and paper. The Architect 
has estimated that we have avoided over $900,000 in landfill costs due 
to recycling waste. And here is the key point: We have also been told 
by the Architect of the Capitol that 1,977 tons of House trash and 
waste were recycled by a recycling contractor last year. That 
represents over 57 percent of the waste generated by House offices. 
That is a remarkable number, given the fact that the goal for the 
Federal Government is a 50-percent level of recycling. We are doing 57 
percent, higher, to my knowledge, higher than any other branch of the 
Federal Government.
  So, once again, Mr. Chairman, we are leading by example. We have 
shown that we are willing to lead in terms of recycling, but more 
importantly, that we continue to make government smaller, more 
efficient and saving money along the way.

[[Page H5870]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY97.000


[[Page H5871]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY97.001


[[Page H5872]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY97.002

    

[[Page H5873]]

  Mr. WALSH. The committee report contains language which stresses the 
need for improving the waste recycling program operated by the 
Architect of the Capitol. The language in the report makes clear that 
the Architect should contact each Member, committee, and staff office 
to elicit cooperation and compliance. It also stresses the importance 
of continued training of the Architect's workforce in implementing this 
program.
  It should be noted that the House Recycling Program has been 
operating for 6 years now. A pilot test was done in 1990. The House-
wide program was begun in 1993.
  It should also be noted that the program has been producing results. 
Since 1993, 12,886 tons of House and Senate waste cans, bottles, and 
paper have been recycled. The Architect has estimated that we have 
avoided over $900,000 (936,518) in landfill costs due to the recycling 
waste transferred to recycling contractors. Over the past 3 years, 
almost $600,000 of cost avoidance is due to waste material collected 
and recycled from House offices, at a cost of $378,000.
  That's a 1.6 to 1 benefit/cost ratio. That is a benefit/cost ratio 
that indicates that recycling is paying off. It is saving taxpayer 
funds and is contributing to a cleaner environment.
  We have also been told by the Architect of the Capitol that 1,977 
tons of House trash and waste were recycled by our recycling contractor 
last year. That 1,977 tons represents about 57 percent of the waste 
stream generated by House offices.
  The Office of Waste Management at the General Services Administration 
has informed us that GSA itself only recycles 30-35 percent of their 
waste stream. According to GSA, the Government-wide goal is 50 percent.
  So, I would say to those who are concerned about the effort being 
made, there is a great deal being accomplished. And we are exceeding 
the Government-wide standard.
  Recycling of House waste products is working, but like all similar 
programs, it requires monitoring and follow-up. We should strive to 
improve our record.
  In that context, the subcommittee decided to include the report 
language. We have asked the Architect of the Capitol to renew his 
efforts and to enlist the cooperation of all House offices.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first say that my colleague, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh], deserves quite a bit of praise for this bill. 
This is a good bill, and it is a bill that was put together by the work 
that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] has done and the way in 
which he has treated the members of the committee.
  He has been very fair to this ranking member, and he has been very 
fair to the members on our side. And for that, we thank him and we 
look, in spite of some present difficulties, to a future working 
relationship that will improve as time goes on.
  I also would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our ranking member, for the work that he has 
done in support of my work on the committee, and also to thank the 
other members of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], and a special thanks 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who set a track record 
here in this House for this kind of work. Once again, I thank the 
gentleman.
  And I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] for being the 
kind of person that he is and for the work that he has done on this 
committee.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Chairman, the difficulty of today's discussion is the fact that 
while this bill starts out as a good bill, outside problems, problems 
that do not belong really within the committee but then become part of 
the committee, have taken a hold of this process.
  I am speaking specifically about the fact that the minority party 
feels very much that fairness is not being applied in the dealings with 
amendments not only on this committee but throughout the committees in 
the House and that a lack of civility has grown in the institution to 
the point where the minority party in no way on our side of the aisle 
feels that we are being treated fairly and properly.
  In addition, on this particular bill, we asked for some amendments 
which were denied. They were amendments, in our opinion, that belong as 
part of this discussion, because they speak as to how the majority 
party is running the House and how some things are being done.
  While some may argue that the amendments specifically do not speak to 
the bill, they certainly do speak to the running of the House, they 
speak to the way in which business is being conducted, and in that 
sense we have some very serious problems with those issues. We asked 
for those amendments to be presented.
  We were very much concerned, for instance, with the fact that $1.4 
million is being spent on an investigation of organized labor in this 
country. We are concerned also with the fact that a Member of Congress 
who has been duly elected has been harassed and her campaign and her 
campaign results continue to be questioned. I speak about the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. It is improper, in our 
opinion, to continue to harass her and harass the results of her 
campaign.
  We particularly feel very nervous about the fact and very concerned 
about the fact that in carrying out, as we feel, this harassment, that 
some people have been targeted throughout the country, namely Hispanic 
surname Americans, for special negative treatment.
  We are also very much concerned about the fact that, in general, when 
we ask for amendments, amendments are either denied or they are 
rewritten by the Committee on Rules before they are presented in the 
House, and that is something that has been of great concern to us.
  With that in mind, we will hear Members today on our side of the 
aisle speak about these issues, and it is with much displeasure that I 
once again inform my friend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], 
and I mean that sincerely, my friend, that it is not the intent of this 
side to vote for this bill when final passage comes.
  There will be some amendments that we will deal with, we will try to 
make our point, but I am hoping that the gentleman from New York will 
continue to understand or at least try to understand, if he does not 
already, that this is a very difficult time in terms of the behavior of 
this House, and our side of the aisle is trying to very strongly make 
the point that this has to change, that it has to end, and that a new 
day has to be born in this House.
  With that in mind, I once again commit myself to working with the 
gentleman from New York. I look forward to the day, pretty soon, when 
these issues are put aside and we continue to build on this work that 
he has put forth.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close with this thought. When I had an 
opportunity in the Committee on Appropriations to either go back on the 
Education subcommittee or choose this subcommittee, I chose this one 
with the understanding that I personally have such respect for this 
institution that I do not have a problem in dealing with this 
particular bill year after year, that I do not have a problem in 
working with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] in building the 
institution up.
  I am concerned that some of the issues we will discuss today are 
indeed targeting the work that we do, because if other parts of the 
House and other behavior are not being carried out properly, then it 
really does not matter how much we try to protect the institution, the 
institution will always be in danger and our ability to deal with each 
other and conduct business will be in danger. I look forward to this 
type of behavior coming to an end, and I look forward to the debate 
that we will have today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we will soon entertain a number of amendments that were 
granted by the rule. I would just like to point out for the record that 
the rule is a modified closed rule. This is the traditional way that 
this rule has been structured for consideration of this bill.
  As my colleagues might imagine, there are lots of opportunity for 
mischief on this bill. I think while we were in the minority, we 
certainly respected the majority's view of protecting the institution 
by using the rule process. We have tried to do exactly the same thing.
  In the process of devising this rule, with the help of the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules who has been

[[Page H5874]]

very, very helpful, we allowed for four amendments, two from 
Republicans and two from Democrats. There were two very contentious 
amendments on each side, one Republican and one Democrat, that were not 
granted under the rule. I think that is about as fair as one could ask.
  There are issues that swirl about the Congress that are not of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] and my making. We have, I think, 
a very good relationship. We work very well together. Philosophically, 
we are not what one would call twins, but we do understand the need to 
protect the institution, and we are both trying to do that. So we are 
being affected by issues that are outside of the purview of our 
subcommittee.
  I would ask that once everybody has their opportunity to make their 
case and to take their best shot and to vote for or against their 
amendment, that we could get a bipartisan vote on this bill. I think 
traditionally it is the majority's responsibility to deliver the votes 
on the legislative branch, but there has always been at least some 
semblance of bipartisanship on final passage of the bill. It 
strengthens our hand when we go to the Senate in the conference to make 
sure that we protect our side of this very important Capitol building.
  I would end my comments right now by saying, let us have our debate, 
let us be as civil as we can with each other, and when it is all said 
and done, let us come together and vote bipartisanly for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill today 
because of the irresponsible way in which the Republican leadership has 
conducted itself.
  I consider the three investigations that I am going to mention 
nothing more than partisan witch-hunts. This year, the Republican 
leadership is wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars on three separate 
investigations. These investigations are mean-spirited, duplicative, 
and wholly unnecessary. So far, they have absolutely nothing to show 
for their efforts.
  I would like to begin with the Committee on House Oversight's 
investigation into the election of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez]. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] defeated 
incumbent Bob Dornan in an election that was certified by the 
Republican Secretary of State in California.
  In spite of this, Mr. Dornan, who was defeated, can still command the 
will of the Republican Caucus and orchestrate a kangaroo court to 
investigate his loss. However, 9 months later, Bob Dornan still has not 
proven that he won. Instead, he intends to punish the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez] under an avalanche of subpoenas and a mountain 
of legal bills, and no matter that the burden of proof to prove 
wrongdoing is on Bob Dornan as the accuser and he has failed again. Mr. 
Chairman, the Republican leadership should stop using taxpayer money to 
harass the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] in order to 
satisfy Mr. Dornan's craving for revenge.
  Turning to the second witch-hunt, we have the three-ring circus of 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] in the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight. In spite of the fact that there is a credible 
bipartisan investigation currently being conducted in the Senate, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is determined to go forward with an 
investigation that is being conducted so shabbily that high-level 
Republican staffers have resigned from the committee. To date, this 
investigation has cost American taxpayers over $2 million and there has 
not been one hearing, not one deposition that has produced any result. 
That is $2 million spent and, again, nothing to show for it.
  Finally, now we have the third investigation. The House Republican 
leadership has decided to tap into the Speaker's slush fund and spend 
$1.4 million on an investigation into the political activities of labor 
groups. For what, Mr. Chairman? For another political score to settle 
at the taxpayers' expense.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], the vice chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Walsh]. I think from the different committees that I 
have served on and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there is 
no more of an evenhandedness of the issues or of the bill. The 
gentleman will bend over backward to help.
  I would like to address the last speaker's words on Mr. Dornan and 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. Many of us feel that the 
Sanchez-Dornan seat was stolen. I will be specific. I will give my 
colleagues a classic example.
  In the city of San Diego, they had 5,000 new citizens sworn in. At 
that time, a gentleman from the Republican Party asked the INS if they 
could establish tables like they always have, but this was an extra 
large one and they were told no, that this was so large that they were 
not going to allow anyone to register new citizens in either party. The 
Republican Party went down there the day of, anyway, and there were 12 
Democrat tables set up and no Republican tables had been allowed in.
  Then we have the case of the pushing in of new citizens and waiving 
background checks to the point where we have thousands, thousands, of 
people that were let in as new citizens that were felons. I am not 
talking just little felons, I am talking rapists, murderers, and so on. 
The recent newspaper articles on Conair, where they are actually 
shifting out people in different areas, is prevalent, also.
  All Mr. Dornan is asking is to get the records to see if there was an 
injustice or if there were any peculiarities in that particular 
district that affected voting. That is a fair question: Do you have 
American citizens voting?
  What they found to date, especially one activist group encouraged 
people that were going to be citizens to vote. Even though they had not 
become citizens, they had done so. It is a felony for people to 
register before they have become citizens, and there is a great number 
of those. At the same time, there were numbers of illegals that had 
registered.
  What we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is to take a look at motor-voter, 
the practices of the INS, the practices of registration in different 
States. It is not just Mr. Dornan at stake. If we look at all of the 
border States and the infusion of illegals coming across, we even had 
hearings in San Diego that the Border Patrol stepped forward and said 
that they were ordered to let illegals come through, not us, not the 
Republicans, but the Border Patrol members themselves.
  We need to get to the heart of this. When Mr. Dornan asks to have the 
records looked at by appropriate sources, by Republicans and Democrats, 
by the judicial system, I think that is fair.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], a man who set the tone for me to follow, and it 
is very difficult.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I expressed my feelings on the rule on the issue that 
was just brought to us by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham]. But my reason for rising at this point is to separate 
myself from the debate on the overall behavior of the majority versus 
the minority in the institution, to pay tribute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh] and the gentleman from the city of New York [Mr. 
Serrano] for the excellent job that they have done in bringing the bill 
to this point.
  As the chairman has indicated, we are obviously confronted with other 
issues when we come to the floor that sometimes transcend the work that 
is done in the subcommittee and in the full committee, and that is once 
again the case here. Members will feel differently about the vote on 
final passage today, perhaps based on factors that have influenced our 
thinking in the general manner in which the House is being 
administered. But I think that if we are not careful, we will overlook 
the fine work that has been done by these two gentlemen, and I hope all 
Members will pay attention to and honor the effort they have made 
getting us to this point.

[[Page H5875]]

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the great frustrations 
here, of course, is that not only have we violated all the traditions 
of the House in the Sanchez case, changing the rules, having the 
committee kind of being the adversary for an elected Member of 
Congress, but we have focused in on a community that the majority 
Republican Party has made a serious effort trying to intimidate away 
from the polls. Not just in this instance, going as far back as races 
in New Jersey in the early 1980's, when we had polling security people 
show up trying to intimidate new Americans from voting.

                              {time}  1800

  The reality is we cannot use the Sanchez situation to try to review 
every piece of legislation on the books. We remember from when motor-
voter was passed, the Republicans did not want to have poor people 
register. They wanted to keep it out of places where poor people went. 
They did not want to do it at welfare offices. We think everybody ought 
to vote. Frankly, I think it is too hard to get people in this country 
to vote. If someone is an American they ought to vote.
  If there is something wrong with the Sanchez race, then under the law 
it is Mr. Dornan's responsibility to come forward and show that. He has 
come forward so many times with so many accusations, he just keeps 
stretching the process, and now the committee has taken over. First, he 
was worried about a house. There were 10 or 12 people living in that 
house, and I think they all had different last names. Yes; there were 
nuns living in that house. Then he found a second house that seemed 
awfully dangerous, and there were like 18 people living in that house; 
1 address, 18 people, all different names. Lo and behold, it turned out 
to be a Marine barracks.
  As my colleagues know, Mr. Dornan spent a lot of time on this floor 
talking about how tough he was, what a military campaigner he was. He 
ought to take this like an honorable politician. The evidence is clear. 
She won the race. Were there some problems? Yes. They do not measure up 
to her margin. If he has got proof, he ought to come forward with it. 
It is 9 months since the election. It starts to look like they are 
trying to drain her of resources and intimidate Hispanics from voting.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, following the statement of the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], some of my colleagues might be 
surprised to find out that I was an original cosponsor of the motor-
voter bill, and in fact we think it is a good idea to reach out and get 
as many people as we can on the rolls. But they fail to understand one 
fundamental point. Get all the people on the rolls who legally should 
be on, get all the people off who should not be on.
  What we are doing now in Orange County, and the attorney for the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] has finally admitted, there 
were people who voted in that contest who should not have voted. They 
were registered illegally, and they participated in the election 
illegally. The question is not if; the question is how many. We are in 
the process of determining how many. It is interesting that the 
minority already knows there were not enough to make a difference in 
the election.
  What we try to do on our side of the aisle with the new majority is 
investigate the facts and then come to a conclusion rather than coming 
to a conclusion based upon what they want the end result to be. We are 
working with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It has been 
very difficult. We had to subpoena them to go through their records to 
provide us with the thousands of names. We will determine how many 
people voted illegally, not in an attempt to deal with this election, 
but in an attempt to get every American who casts a vote legally to 
have a comfort level that their vote would not have been canceled by 
someone who voted illegally.
  We believe it is fundamental. We believe we have to get to the bottom 
of it. No amount of protesting on their side will deter us from making 
sure that every legal voter believes no illegal vote canceled them out.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, regardless of what is being said here, 
over $200,000 in funds provided by this bill is being committed to a 
witch hunt against one of our colleagues, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez], for the sake of partisan games. This is an 
unprecedented attack which many of us believe has much more to do with 
the growing political power of Hispanics in this country. The committee 
has allowed a pattern of actions by both Mr. Dornan, the loser in that 
contest, and the committee itself which are an outrage to the Latino 
community.
  The violation of privacy rights that people have a right to expect 
when they apply to the INS; that is why they had to subpoena them, to 
violate their privacy rights, and future voter intimidation and voter 
suppression of the Hispanic community are outrageous and will never be 
tolerated by us.
  The voters of the 46th District of California elected the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Sanchez] in an election certified by the 
Republican Secretary of State last November, uncontested in any 
California court. For the first time since 1969 Republicans forced a 
hearing on the merits, a procedure that is available here. That 
hearing, held in the district of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez], was a media circus that produced no credible evidence of 
changing the election outcome.
  Unprecedented subpoena powers have been given to Mr. Dornan, now a 
private citizen, to harass Hispanic Americans and organizations that 
have helped them, like Catholic Charities, 20,000 students at Rancho 
Santiago Community College and even, as Mr. Dornan admitted, the 
Carpenters Union. Why? Because they had a large contingent of immigrant 
workers.
  Add to all of these facts the admissions that we have already heard 
here and by one of the senior Republican Committee on Appropriations 
members that the real reason for pursuing the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez] is to kill motor-voter, and we have a 
Republican plan that is crystal clear.
  So what is that plan? Attack the underpinnings of Hispanic 
empowerment by attacking a Hispanic woman elected to Congress, give 
unprecedented subpoena powers to a private citizen to intimidate 
Hispanic individuals, violate their privacy rights at the INS, create 
fear in the community, and by doing so create a chilling effect on 
voters, thereby intimidating them and suppressing their enjoyment of 
the right to vote, and, as a by-product, let us create the base for 
getting rid of motor-voter.
  And that reminds me of the Republican motivated ballot security 
program that happened in my State of New Jersey in 1980, which were 
brought to Federal Court, and we will do it again if we have to.
  We should not permit the use of taxpayer funds for such a biased 
political witch hunt, we should not accept and we will not accept this 
treatment as a community. We are here to stay, and so is the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. Get it over with, stop 
wasting our money, and we should register a vote of protest on this 
bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
bill. The Republican leadership is using the Committee on House 
Oversight, funded by this appropriation bill, to harass a Hispanic 
woman Member of Congress. Three hundred thousand dollars of the 
taxpayers' money has been used to try to deny the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez] the congressional seat that she won fair and 
square. And this is not just about the gentlewoman from California, 
this is about the growing influence, political influence, of

[[Page H5876]]

Latinos in this country. This is about sharing power.
  As if that were not enough, the Republicans have forced the INS to 
launch an investigation against the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez] without providing the funding to do so. They have literally 
given subpoena power to the loser in the race, Bob Dornan.
  The Republicans are trying to say that the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez] did not win her seat fairly. There is only one 
problem. They cannot prove it. Instead, they are wasting taxpayers' 
money to harass a Member of Congress. It is outrageous, and it has got 
to stop.
  Vote no on this bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I listened to this debate. I had to rise 
because I am familiar with a lot of the facts with respect to the 
investigation as to illegal voters voting in the Sanchez-Dornan race, 
and this is not about the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], it 
is not about Bob Dornan; it is about a very simple American fundamental 
value that is known as one man or one woman and one vote, and that 
means that no matter where one comes from, no matter how long they have 
been in America, no matter whether they are rich or poor, they get one 
vote.
  And there was an investigation in Orange County, and one organization 
that is supported by taxpayer dollars, by our dollars, registered to 
vote over 300 people who were not legal voters. That has been 
established. That is the basis for the ongoing investigation.
  I think it does a disservice for people that come from all over the 
world to be Americans to somehow give them the idea that the system 
that they left, the system where the ballots are counted on Sunday 
before the Tuesday election, the ballots where some people get five 
votes and other people get no votes, is somehow something that should 
be pursued here.
  Now one of the two candidates, Mr. Dornan or the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez], got the most votes by legal voters in Orange 
County. The person who got the most votes wins. That is what this is 
about, and everybody who is involved in this is willing to let the 
chips fall where they may. If Ms. Sanchez when the smoke clears and the 
illegal votes have been taken away has the most votes, then she wins; 
if when the smoke clears the person who got the most votes on election 
day is Mr. Dornan, then he wins; and if it is unclear as to who wins, 
then we have a new election.
  That is America, and I might say to my colleagues that is why people 
come to America. That is not bad, and that is not any kind of an insult 
to anybody. The Republicans do a lot of registering of new citizens, we 
have our card tables right there at the new citizens' swearing in 
programs for Hispanic Americans, Filipino Americans, Vietnamese 
Americans after they become citizens.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez] was certified the winner of the 1996 congressional election in 
California's 46th Congressional District by a Republican registrar of 
voters and the Republican secretary of State by 979 votes after a 
recount of every ballot. I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill.
  The Republican leadership has spent 9 months and $300,000 
investigating the election of our colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez], and it is now time for this to stop. This is 
clearly a partisan attempt to steal an election that the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Sanchez] won fair and square.
  I am sorry to break it to my Republican colleagues, but Bob Dornan 
lost the election and, yes, he even lost to a Democratic Hispanic 
woman. The Republicans have also given Bob Dornan, an average citizen, 
not a Member of the House of Representatives, the power to subpoena. He 
has used this authority to harass his political enemies by forcing them 
to spend thousands of dollars in legal bills to comply with his 
subpoena. Republicans are using taxpayer funds to finance a partisan 
political investigation. They are using race baiting tactics to scare 
new citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote.
  It is time to bring an end to this investigation. Let the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Sanchez] do what she is doing very well in 
representing the people of California's 46th district. Let us get back 
to the business of the American people, let us call off this witch hunt 
on a partisan political basis, and finally, let us just stop wasting 
taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to respond to this issue.
  The gentleman from New Jersey earlier suggested that the contesting 
of an election such as this is unprecedented. Well, there is very 
strong precedent: the McIntyre case in Indiana. And nobody on this side 
suggested that that was an anti-Irish decision.

                              {time}  1815

  Let us try to stick to the issues. This really does not fall on this 
committee. This falls on another Committee. Let us try to keep this 
debate within the constraints of this committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez, is a Member of this body. She has been seated. That is 
the rightful course of action.
  Again, I want to point out, as I did last week, that I have had my 
disagreements here when the Democrats were in charge, but when they 
were in charge and there was a contested election where a Republican 
was declared the victor, as the gentleman just mentioned, the 
Republican was not seated.
  In fact, we are not in any way disrupting the right of the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, to act as a Member of 
Congress, but we owe it to the American people to see that that 
election was a fair election, and if it was not, if it was determined 
by illegal votes, it should be overturned. Otherwise, it is a crime 
against the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
complaining that the contested election task force investigation is 
going on and has been dragging on too long. The fact is, this reflects 
something of a pattern.
  What we see is, on the other side of the aisle and with the 
administration, a stalling, a stonewalling, and just dragging its feet. 
No matter how or what way they can do it, they are trying to elongate 
this, and then coming before the body complaining that we are putting 
the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, through a travail 
because it is lasting so long.
  Mr. Chairman, this is pure politics. I, for one, would hope that we 
would not be calling each other names and then, especially, trying to 
suggest that the motives over here are malicious. We need to get to the 
bottom of this.
  The task force is working. It is trying to determine how many votes 
were illegal. Already they have found 300 votes in the 46th district 
since the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, was seated 
that were improperly cast. The Secretary of State in California has 
determined that. The State registrar declared another 120 absentee 
ballots invalid. Together, that calls into question one-third of the 
98-vote margin of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].
  However, with the INS dragging its feet and all the administration 
representatives out there not going along and trying to stonewall this, 
we now are faced with having to go through 5,000 votes that appear to 
be or there is a potential that these votes were cast by people who 
were not legally entitled to vote.
  Mr. Chairman, this is, as the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez, moves on, and we are not intimidating her, she is a 
Member of Congress, but it is just and right for us to determine 
whether that election was stolen, and if it was, she should be removed 
from that seat, because she did not win it.
  A Democratic Party activist in Orange County was convicted several 
years ago, and I come from Orange County, of registering illegal aliens 
intentionally. He was arrested and convicted of that crime. We cannot 
have this going on.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5877]]

  Mr. Chairman, I think what some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have to try to understand is the process which has been used 
in dealing with this issue. No one argues with the fact that if one 
party feels aggrieved in any way, they can bring up an issue, and that 
is what we have the court system for and we have rules of the House.
  But I can tell the Members that I have been on the short side of a 
couple of elections in my life where I thought there had been some 
problems on the other side, and there were different communities 
involved in that vote, not only different regions of a county, but 
certain different ethnic groups and political persuasions. I do not 
recall that anyone on my side ever suggested that the way to deal with 
this issue was to single out one particular group and to target those 
surnames and to go through the books and just make a mockery of the 
whole system.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also say that if you are a member of the 
Hispanic community and are involved in the political process, you know 
that for the last 25 or 30 years, 40 years, you have been working hard 
to try to get people registered to vote, to get people interested in 
the political system, and in the cases of immigrants, to get them to 
understand in this country you can participate and not be afraid that 
someone is going to do a number on you.
  I do not think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
understand, and some may understand and not care, the chilling effect 
that this has on legitimate individuals who are here, who want to vote, 
who want to participate, and now are feeling that somehow, somehow they 
are being targeted.
  Let me conclude by saying that I know this subject well. I know this 
area well. It is so difficult on the receiving end to have one 
community targeted, to have people's last names be the issue of the 
day, and not what in fact happened in the election. That is not the 
right way to do it.
  What does that mean now, that every time there is an election 
throughout the country where there is a question, whatever your 
political persuasion is, that is the only group you are going to 
target? That could happen in all 50 States. That is not the proper way 
to do it. There are people on that side that know that is not the 
proper way. That is why we are making an issue of it today, because the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] has won. She should continue 
to sit here, and this investigation should come to an end.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friends that, as a member of the 
task force, I have followed this case very closely, quite obviously.
  I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], 
who is inadvertently involved in this discussion, certainly he has none 
of the responsibility for the angst that is being discussed. First of 
all, let me say to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], who has left, he said this is pure politics. Let me say 
that it may be politics, but it is not pure.
  My friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] said that in the 
McIntyre-McCloskey case, which of course was not a Federal contested 
election case, that obviously is a sore point with many, and I 
understand that and do not mean to get into that, but the fact of the 
matter is, it was not. There was no question about the Irish vote. That 
is correct. The INS was not prepared to see if Irish perhaps had 
registered improperly.
  That was not surprising, the McIntyre case, because by that time the 
Irish had been here in big numbers for a long time and very active in 
politics. As somebody who came into politics because of John Fitzgerald 
Kennedy, I am thankful for that.
  At no time in Boston did anybody ever go to the INS, in the 1920's or 
the 1930's or the 1940's, and say, we want the Irish checked through 
your records to see whether or not they are legally registered.
  Mr. Chairman, in Providence, RI, into which the Italian community 
moved in great numbers, at no time in the 1920's or 1930's or 1940's 
did anybody repair to the INS and say, notwithstanding the fact of the 
machine politics of Boston or the machine politics of Providence or the 
machine politics of New York, when many Jews moved into the city of New 
York, at no time, I tell my friends, did anybody suggest that the INS 
check on every voter.
  Notwithstanding the fact in Chicago, when the Polish community moved 
in, in great numbers, nobody, notwithstanding the fact that there were 
allegations repeatedly as to whether or not there was fair voting, 
asked the INS to check on every Polish citizen; no, I tell my friend, 
the gentleman from New York, this is unprecedented; not McIntyre, not 
Tunno versus Veysey, which was the first case under the Federal 
Contested Election Act.
  And guess what, that was a case in which the Democratic majority said 
to a Democratic challenger of a Republican incumbent, no, you have not 
met the test, and we reject the Democratic challenge of the Republican 
incumbent, which we have done time and time and time again in seating 
Republicans who have been challenged by Democratic nonincumbents. 
Democrats rejected their claim and, in fact, never allowed their case 
to go as far as this one has.
  So yes, I say to my friend, the gentleman from New York, this is 
historically a brand new and different attack. It is not an attack, 
frankly, being made by Mr. Dornan, per se, it is the committee that is 
pursuing this; also unusual, I tell my friend.
  It is time to bring this matter to a close. It is time, and I say to 
my friend, if they have additional votes, 300, let us say, who is to 
say? At no time can anybody on this floor get up and say, I say to my 
friend from California, that those 300 votes were not equally divided, 
150 for Dornan and 150 for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez].
  Why do I say that? Because uncontested testimony at the hearing was 
that the leader, Herman Dodd, said he was a friend and close to Bob 
Dornan and could not get involved in a campaign against Mr. Dornan; 
uncontested testimony. I do not know whether that is the fact. But I 
say to my friends, it is time to end this investigation.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to become part of this 
dispute, but let me try to set the record straight, if the gentleman 
from New York will allow me, or both gentlemen.
  Mr. Chairman, the INS is checking every voter in that election, not 
one particular group. They are checking every voter to see if they were 
naturalized and what the date of naturalization was, whether you are of 
German descent or Irish descent or whatever. They are checking 
everyone. They are not singling out any particular group. That is my 
understanding.
  I say that because my subcommittee funds the INS. We have checked 
into this, I say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. If it were 
otherwise, I would join the gentleman in his outrage. That is just not 
the case. They are checking every single voter in that election, and 
the naturalization date, and if you are a natural born citizen, of 
course, you would not show up.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. One of the problems, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman 
perhaps knows, is, first of all, the committee asked for all of Orange 
County, not just the 46th District, all of Orange County. That is where 
the 500,000 came from. So they have done a much broader search than 
would be called for by this contested election.
  Mr. ROGERS. No single group is picked out.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  At first I thought this contest was about a difficult loss, Mr. 
Chairman. After all, Mr. Dornan served in the House for many years. But 
9 months and $300,000 later, no contested election has ever taken this 
long or gone this far in the history of this country. The gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, won the election fair

[[Page H5878]]

and square. The Latinos and other citizens of Orange County spoke, and 
there are some in this House who would like to silence them.
  Mr. Chairman, the women and the Hispanics and the Democrats in this 
House will not tolerate the silencing of any man's or woman's vote. The 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] was absolutely correct when he said 
this has gone too far. It is time to end this investigation. It is 
undemocratic. Vote against this rule.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the levelheaded 
and very fair-minded gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], chairman of 
that House task force.
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman of the task force investigating this 
election. I have to say that the comments I have heard from the other 
side of the aisle bear no resemblance whatsoever to the activity of the 
task force.
  The point has been raised that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez] won the election fair and square. We have not in any way said 
that she had cheated in the election. We are simply trying to determine 
if noncitizens voted in the election, and that would be illegal if they 
did. But we are not saying that she instigated this in any way 
whatsoever.

                              {time}  1830

  I also point out that my parents were immigrants. I grew up in an 
immigrant culture in a small town in Minnesota where a majority of 
people were immigrants. I would also point out that this Congress, the 
Republican majority, seated the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez], which is a practice not followed by the Democrats in the case 
of a famous election in 1984 when they did not seat Mr. McIntyre and 
eventually denied him a seat on very poor grounds, and seated his 
opponent.
  I would also point out that we have not delayed in determining this. 
We are working as rapidly as possible. The other task force on which I 
served in the previous session of Congress, that of Mr. Charlie Rose of 
North Carolina, did not resolve the issue until September of the 
following year. We certainly hope to resolve this one before that 
amount of time elapses. We are certainly not dilly-dallying on this 
one, or delaying, or conducting an investigation of a type that has not 
been done before.
  A comment has been made that for the first time the committee has 
allowed subpoenas to be issued. We did not allow them. Mr. Dornan read 
the law and discovered that he could issue them. So he proceeded to 
issue them. It was a question raised in court by the Sanchez attorneys, 
and the court said: That is fine, Mr. Dornan can issue those subpoenas 
under the law.
  We have not had any involvement with that activity. The only 
subpoenas issued by the committee have been those on the INS which 
unfortunately proved necessary because the INS was not willing to 
release its computer tapes to the committee without subpoenas. 
Fortunately they have been cooperating since that time.
  As the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has mentioned, we are 
checking all names, and my colleagues might be surprised at the 
results, since all the discussion here has been about those with 
Spanish surnames. The number of Vietnamese names is very, very large on 
the list in question, and other nationalities appear as well.
  It appears that there may have been an organization in Orange County, 
which is why we are looking at all of Orange County, that deliberately 
encouraged noncitizens to register to vote. In other words, this 
organization may have been using noncitizens in citizenship classes and 
encouraging them to register to vote before they could legally do so. 
That is one area we are investigating.
  The problem we have encountered is that subpoenas issued to that 
organization and to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and 
to other organizations have not been honored. They have not even 
responded to them. They refuse to give the information. The U.S. 
attorney has been asked to rule on that and has not yet done so. But it 
appears the only way we could get the information would be through 
committee subpoenas. We have not done that as yet, but we may be forced 
to.
  This is not a new type of attacks as stated here. We are using the 
procedures under the act as it was written by this Congress and signed 
into law. We are simply using them properly for the first time in the 
history of the act. No one can accurately accuse us of subverting the 
process in any way.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] has 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me once again extend my appreciation to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh], even during this debate, for the gentlemanly way in 
which he conducts himself and treats the Members on this side of the 
aisle.
  As I have said at the outset, it was difficult to stand up in 
opposition to this bill at first because of the fact that we understood 
well that outside issues had come into play. But as we listened to this 
debate, I think we can come to the conclusion that, while they may have 
started out as outside issues, they are in fact very much a part of 
this bill because this bill sets out to run the House, to pay the bills 
for the House, if you will. And when those bills are paid to harass 
people and those bills are paid to bring pain on the institution, then 
I do not think it is improper to bring it up during this debate. So we 
have done so.
  Let me just say that much of the discussion was around the Sanchez 
case. That is a very crucial case. It is not, in my opinion, crucial 
because it speaks about a seat in Congress, although I tell my 
colleagues I love my seat and I know how important that is. It is 
crucial because it speaks about a much broader issue. And it is the 
treatment of a community.
  The last gentleman who spoke clearly said that other communities had 
been investigated but there are many people who feel that the target 
was specifically the Hispanic community that presents to some people a 
political threat.
  Let me also tell my colleagues that I come from a district in the 
Bronx where at times we hear and deal with information regarding people 
who are not in this country with documents, as some would say, illegal. 
Well, the fact of life is that their behavior is one of hiding in the 
shadows of society, of never coming out in front. So the whole idea 
that people in large numbers were registered to vote to steal this 
election goes, runs contrary to everything we know about the behavior 
of people who are not citizens yet. Those people hide. We cannot get 
them sometimes into a clinic for help because they are afraid somehow 
somebody will find them out.
  That is a fact of life. I do not know where all of a sudden this one 
county came up with the boldest of undocumented aliens who now want to 
be out front, sign up and be deported in the process.
  This is not the way it is. My side will vote against this bill 
tonight, and we will hope that in the process we will discuss other 
issues which will make it easier for the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh] and I to present next year's bill and any changes thereof on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard an awful lot today about the contested 
race in southern California. That is an issue of obvious importance to 
many but it has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. Our 
responsibility, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] and mine, and 
our subcommittee's and the Committee on Appropriations' is to provide 
the resources that this body needs to function. I think we have done 
that.
  I think we have continued the trend toward cutting the budget, 
cutting expenses, reducing staff, working smarter, faster, better like 
American businesses have done to make them globally competitive. We 
have continued that trend. But our role ends there. We appropriate the 
funds to make sure that the legislative branch can do its

[[Page H5879]]

work. Then the legislative branch, the democratic process takes over. 
And the majority will prevails. In this case the majority will is to 
proceed with this task force. The minority digresses from that view. 
That is their right. They can say it as loud and as long as they like, 
but the fact is that when they were in the majority, their will 
prevailed and we expressed our reservations and they continued on their 
path.
  The American public decided that this party would have the majority 
for these 2 years and they would have the minority, that those are the 
facts.
  Our job today has nothing to do with that. It is to provide the 
resources needed for the legislative branch of Government. We have done 
that. We have done a good job, and it has been a bipartisan job and we 
should be proud of that. There is plenty in this bill for all of us to 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I will finish by just asking once again, reach across 
the aisle, ask the Democratic Members of the Congress to set the issues 
aside, once we have completed the work on this bill, and vote 
bipartisanly for support.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to register my strong 
opposition not only to the FY 98 Legislative Branch Appropriations 
bill, H.R. 2209, but to the way in which the Leadership of this House 
continues to thwart progress and ignore fairness in order to advance a 
partisan agenda. This has resulted in the Democrats being effectively 
shut out of what had the potential to be a legislative session 
characterized by bipartisanship and productivity.
  I am particularly angered at what I feel is an egregious waste of 
taxpayer money to fund investigative hearings designed to attack and 
intimidate organized labor. The Speaker of the House has access to 
nearly $8 million, euphemistically referred to as the ``Speaker's 
Reserve Fund,'' which is intended for use in case of emergency. Yet 
$1.4 million of this slush fund was recently used to launch 
investigative hearings into labor activities, without the consultation 
of minority members of the House. I find this pattern of shutting out 
the minority to be entirely mean-spirited, petty and unfair to the 
American people, especially when it is their hard-earned tax dollars 
that are being used to advance these partisan goals. There is no excuse 
for circumventing the established and equitable procedures of the 
House, simply to avoid debate and discussion of issues that deserve, 
and indeed require, such serious consideration and bipartisan debate.
  The Republican attack on labor, and on the minority members of this 
House, has gone too far, and I cannot support a bill to appropriate 
funds which will allow this type of partisan, unwarranted investigation 
to continue. It is certainly unfortunate that such considerations must 
continue to interfere with the business of the House, and I had held 
out great hope at the beginning of the appropriations process that we 
might be able to get our work done effectively, efficiently and fairly. 
It saddens me that this view has proven to be overly optimistic. I will 
therefore be forced to vote against this bill, and I must urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the Subcommittee 
on Legislative Appropriations included report language urging the 
Architect of the Capitol to conduct a feasibility study for the 
installation of adequate shower and locker facilities for congressional 
staff. Currently, there are only 14 shower heads for more than 7,000 
employees.
  The employees of the House of Representatives are one of the hardest 
working, most dedicated corps of staff I have had the pleasure to work 
with. House facilities are designed to cater to these long hours, with 
food service, banks, post offices, a barber shop and a beauty salon 
available within the House complex so that errands can be taken care of 
with minimal time away from work. Adequate facilities to accommodate 
those who wish to exercise during the day or bike or run to work are 
not perks--they are important in helping our employees become more 
efficient and effective and they could actually save us money. 
Encouraging our employees to bike to work or exercise has several 
benefits:
  Health and Productivity.--Recent studies ranking adult physical 
activity levels in U.S. cities concluded that Washington, DC, has the 
highest per capita rate of sedentary adults in the country. At the same 
time, we are learning more every day about the importance of regular 
exercise and its impacts on overall health, productivity, and 
longevity. I know many of our fellow Members believe they are more 
effective when they exercise regularly--I see them every day in the 
Members' locker room.
  Time.--How many people will sit in their cars this evening, stuck in 
traffic on their way to ride a stationary bike or run on a treadmill? 
Combining the daily commute with exercise is an effective way to work 
out without taking extra time from already full days. Riding, skating, 
or running to work can actually take less time than driving from some 
parts of the District. Showers would make it possible for staff to use 
these modes.
  Congestion.--The Washington metro area has some of the most congested 
roadways in the country. Local traffic congestion may seem like an 
intractable problem, but by making it possible for our employees to 
ride or run to work, or at least to avoid that extra trip to the health 
club, we can do something to relieve traffic congestion.
  A Harris Poll conducted in 1990 showed that 43.5 percent of bike 
riders would ride to work if trip-end facilities--showers, lockers, and 
bike parking--were available, and in my district, where a 1992 survey 
found that 21 percent of bike riders would be motivated to ride to work 
if they had showers and parking, response to these improvements is 
enthusiastic. Private companies and public agencies around the country 
are retrofitting their buildings with these facilities to accommodate 
their workers. We should acknowledge the wisdom of these companies and 
take up their example.
  I look forward to working with the Office of the Architect to design 
this study, and again I thank the committee for their consideration.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the legislative branch 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 cuts the funding level for the 
General Accounting Office by $9 million from the fiscal year 1997 
funding level. This cut is unwise and unfair and should be reversed in 
Conference.
  Two years ago, the GAO and House and Senate Appropriators reached an 
agreement on a two-year plan to reduce GAO's budget. As part of that 
agreement, GAO's budget has been reduced by 25 percent and its staffing 
has dropped below 3,500--its lowest level in almost 60 years. These 
cuts have taken a heavy toll. Hiring and promotions have been frozen 
for a long time. Staff reductions have diminished expertise in key 
areas. And needed investments in information technology have been 
placed on hold. Additional cuts now are not only a violation of that 
agreement, they will result in a loss of morale and a further loss in 
staff expertise as the agency's future is cast in doubt.
  Instead of pursuing this foolish course of action, the House should 
have honored the agreement over funding for the GAO. It could easily 
have made up for the revenue difference by refusing to fund the 
Government Reform and Oversight's partisan witch-hunt into campaign 
fundraising practices. The budget for that ``investigation'' is an 
extravagant waste of taxpayers' money. The Senate is doing a better, 
and fairer, job while the House's investigation is in a shambles. We 
are wasting millions of dollars on a mistake-plagued House 
investigation which duplicates the more comprehensive and bipartisan 
efforts of the Senate. Instead of funding partisan investigations in 
the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, let's give money to 
those that can really use it, the professional auditors and 
investigators of the GAO.
  The Senate has also taken a much wiser approach to GAO's funding, and 
kept faith with the agreement reached two years ago. By funding GAO at 
their requested level, the Senate has provided less than a 2 percent 
increase; not enough for any staff or program increases, just enough to 
continue current operations at their present levels. In essence it is a 
cost of living increase. This is certainly the least Congress should 
provide for the GAO, our own investigative arm. The cuts in the House 
bill are penny wise and pound foolish because the GAO remains an 
excellent investment for the American taxpayer. The financial benefits 
from its work in the last five years alone total over $103 billion.
  If we in Congress are to continue doing our jobs well, we need a 
strong and effective General Accounting Office. I urge my colleagues on 
the House Appropriations Committee to carefully consider these issues 
during the conference with the Senate on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2209 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2209

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for 
     other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
     $708,738,000, as follows:

                        house leadership offices

       For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 
     $12,293,000, including: Office of the

[[Page H5880]]

     Speaker, $1,590,000, including $25,000 for official expenses 
     of the Speaker; Office of the Majority Floor Leader, 
     $1,626,000, including $10,000 for official expenses of the 
     Majority Leader; Office of the Minority Floor Leader, 
     $1,652,000, including $10,000 for official expenses of the 
     Minority Leader; Office of the Majority Whip, including the 
     Chief Deputy Majority Whip, $1,024,000, including $5,000 for 
     official expenses of the Majority Whip; Office of the 
     Minority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Minority Whip, 
     $998,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the 
     Minority Whip; Speaker's Office for Legislative Floor 
     Activities, $397,000; Republican Steering Committee, 
     $736,000; Republican Conference, $1,172,000; Democratic 
     Steering and Policy Committee, $1,277,000; Democratic Caucus, 
     $631,000; and nine minority employees, $1,190,000.

                  Members' Representational Allowances

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

       For Members' representational allowances, including 
     Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, 
     $379,789,000.

                          Committee Employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special 
     and select, authorized by House resolutions, $86,268,000: 
     Provided, That such amount (together with any amounts 
     appropriated for such salaries and expenses for fiscal year 
     1997) shall remain available for such salaries and expenses 
     until December 31, 1998.

                      Committee on Appropriations

       For salaries and expenses of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, $18,276,000, including studies and 
     examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal 
     services for such committee, to be expended in accordance 
     with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for 
     services performed: Provided, That such amount (together with 
     any amounts appropriated for such salaries and expenses for 
     fiscal year 1997) shall remain available for such salaries 
     and expenses until December 31, 1998.


                    salaries, officers and employees

       For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as 
     authorized by law, $84,356,000, including: for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not more than 
     $3,500, of which not more than $2,500 is for the Family Room, 
     for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $16,804,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of 
     Garages, and including not more than $750 for official 
     representation and reception expenses, $3,564,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Administrative Officer, $50,727,000, including $27,247,000 
     for salaries, expenses and temporary personal services of 
     House Information Resources, of which $23,210,000 is provided 
     herein: Provided, That of the amount provided for House 
     Information Resources, $8,253,000 shall be for net expenses 
     of telecommunications: Provided further, That House 
     Information Resources is authorized to receive reimbursement 
     from Members of the House of Representatives and other 
     governmental entities for services provided and such 
     reimbursement shall be deposited in the Treasury for credit 
     to this account; for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     the Inspector General, $3,808,000, of which $1,000 shall be 
     for the release of the Inspector General's Report on 
     Management and Financial Irregularities--Office of the Chief 
     Administrative Office: Provided further, That all names of 
     persons making favorable or unfavorable statements in the 
     report shall be expunged; for the Office of the Chaplain, 
     $133,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian and $2,000 for 
     preparing the Digest of Rules, $1,101,000; for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the 
     House, $1,821,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     the Legislative Counsel of the House, $4,827,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Corrections Calendar Office, 
     $791,000; and for other authorized employees, $780,000.


                        allowances and expenses

       For allowances and expenses as authorized by House 
     resolution or law, $127,756,000, including: supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, 
     $2,225,000; official mail for committees, leadership offices, 
     and administrative offices of the House, $500,000; Government 
     contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and 
     other applicable employee benefits, $124,390,000; and 
     miscellaneous items including purchase, exchange, 
     maintenance, repair and operation of House motor vehicles, 
     interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to heirs of 
     deceased employees of the House, $641,000.


                           child care center

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

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. The provisions of House Resolution 7, One Hundred 
     Fifth Congress, agreed to January 7, 1997, establishing the 
     Corrections Calendar Office, shall be the permanent law with 
     respect thereto. The provisions of House Resolution 130, One 
     Hundred Fifth Congress, agreed to April 24, 1997, providing a 
     lump sum allowance for the Corrections Calendar Office, shall 
     be the permanent law with respect thereto.
       Sec. 102. The funds and accounts specified in section 
     107(b) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 (2 
     U.S.C. 123b note) shall be treated as categories of 
     allowances and expenses for purposes of section 101(a) of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993 (2 U.S.C. 
     95b(a)).
       Sec. 103. (a) Section 109(a) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (2 U.S.C. 60o(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``who is separated from employment,'';
       (2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``employee'' the second place it appears and inserting 
     ``employee or for any other purpose''; and
       (3) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``the amount'' and 
     inserting ``in the case of a lump sum payment for the accrued 
     annual leave of the employee, the amount''.
       (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to 
     fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1997.
       Sec. 104. (a) Section 104(c)(2) of the House of 
     Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 92(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``in the 
     District of Columbia''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 
     1997.
       Sec. 105. (a) Section 204(11)(A) of the House of 
     Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections 
     Act (110 Stat. 1731) is amended by striking out ``through 
     `respective Houses' and'' and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``through `respective Houses' the second place it 
     appears and''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     as of August 20, 1996.

                              JOINT ITEMS

       For Joint Committees, as follows:

                        Joint Economic Committee

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee, 
     $2,750,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

                      Joint Committee on Printing

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Printing, $804,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the 
     Senate.

                      Joint Committee on Taxation

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation, $5,907,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House.
       For other joint items, as follows:

                   Office of the Attending Physician

       For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of 
     the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his 
     assistants, including (1) an allowance of $1,500 per month to 
     the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $500 per month 
     each to two medical officers while on duty in the Office of 
     the Attending Physician; (3) an allowance of $500 per month 
     to one assistant and $400 per month each to not to exceed 
     nine assistants on the basis heretofore provided for such 
     assistants; and (4) $893,000 for reimbursement to the 
     Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and 
     equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician, 
     which shall be advanced and credited to the appropriations 
     from which such expenses incurred for staff and equipment are 
     payable and shall be available for all the purposes thereof, 
     $1,266,000, to be disbursed by the Chief Administrative 
     Officer of the House.

                          Capitol Police Board

                             Capitol Police

                                salaries

       For the Capitol Police Board for salaries of officers, 
     members, and employees of the Capitol Police, including 
     overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, clothing allowance 
     of not more than $600 each for members required to wear 
     civilian attire, and Government contributions for health, 
     retirement, Social Security, and other applicable employee 
     benefits, $70,955,000, of which $34,118,000 is provided to 
     the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, to be 
     disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, 
     and $36,837,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms and 
     Doorkeeper of the Senate, to be disbursed by the Secretary of 
     the Senate: Provided, That, of the amounts appropriated under 
     this heading, such amounts as may be necessary may be 
     transferred between the Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
     Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 
     the Senate, upon approval of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.

                            general expenses

       For the Capitol Police Board for necessary expenses of the 
     Capitol Police, including motor vehicles, communications and 
     other equipment, security equipment and installation, 
     uniforms, weapons, supplies, materials, training, medical 
     services, forensic services, stenographic services, personal 
     and professional services, the employee assistance program, 
     not more than $2,000 for the awards program, postage, 
     telephone service, travel advances, relocation of instructor 
     and liaison personnel for the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, and $85 per month for

[[Page H5881]]

     extra services performed for the Capitol Police Board by an 
     employee of the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate or the House 
     of Representatives designated by the Chairman of the Board, 
     $3,099,000, to be disbursed by the Chief Administrative 
     Officer of the House of Representatives: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the cost of basic 
     training for the Capitol Police at the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center for fiscal year 1998 shall be 
     paid by the Secretary of the Treasury from funds available to 
     the Department of the Treasury.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 106. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1998 for the 
     Capitol Police Board for the Capitol Police may be 
     transferred between the headings ``salaries'' and ``general 
     expenses'' upon the approval of--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, in the case of amounts transferred from the 
     appropriation provided to the Sergeant at Arms of the House 
     of Representatives under the heading ``salaries'';
       (2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, in the 
     case of amounts transferred from the appropriation provided 
     to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate under 
     the heading ``salaries''; and
       (3) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, in the case of other transfers.
       Sec. 107. (a)(1) The Capitol Police Board shall establish 
     and maintain unified schedules of rates of basic pay for 
     members and civilian employees of the Capitol Police which 
     shall apply to both members and employees whose appointing 
     authority is an officer of the Senate and members and 
     employees whose appointing authority is an officer of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) The Capitol Police Board may, from time to time, adjust 
     any schedule established under paragraph (1) to the extent 
     that the Board determines appropriate to reflect changes in 
     the cost of living and to maintain pay comparability.
       (3) A schedule established or revised under paragraph (1) 
     or (2) shall take effect only upon approval by the Committee 
     on House Oversight of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.
       (4) A schedule approved under paragraph (3) shall have the 
     force and effect of law.
       (b)(1) The Capitol Police Board shall prescribe, by 
     regulation, a unified leave system for members and civilian 
     employees of the Capitol Police which shall apply to both 
     members and employees whose appointing authority is an 
     officer of the Senate and members and employees whose 
     appointing authority is an officer of the House of 
     Representatives. The leave system shall include provisions 
     for--
       (A) annual leave, based on years of service;
       (B) sick leave;
       (C) administrative leave;
       (D) leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 
     (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.);
       (E) leave without pay and leave with reduced pay, including 
     provisions relating to contributions for benefits for any 
     period of such leave;
       (F) approval of all leave by the Chief or the designee of 
     the Chief;
       (G) the order in which categories of leave shall be used;
       (H) use, accrual, and carryover rules and limitations, 
     including rules and limitations for any period of active duty 
     in the armed forces;
       (I) advance of annual leave or sick leave after a member or 
     civilian employee has used all such accrued leave;
       (J) buy back of annual leave or sick leave used during an 
     extended recovery period in the case of an injury in the 
     performance of duty;
       (K) the use of accrued leave before termination of the 
     employment as a member or civilian employee of the Capitol 
     Police, with provision for lump sum payment for unused annual 
     leave; and
       (L) a leave sharing program.
       (2) The leave system under this section may not provide for 
     the accrual of either annual or sick leave for any period of 
     leave without pay or leave with reduced pay.
       (3) All provisions of the leave system established under 
     this subsection shall be subject to the approval of the 
     Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. 
     All regulations approved under this subsection shall have the 
     force and effect of law.
       (c)(1) Upon the approval of the Capitol Police Board, a 
     member or civilian employee of the Capitol Police who is 
     separated from service, may be paid a lump sum payment for 
     the accrued annual leave of the member or civilian employee.
       (2) The lump sum payment under paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall equal the pay the member or civilian employee 
     would have received had such member or employee remained in 
     the service until the expiration of the period of annual 
     leave;
       (B) shall be paid from amounts appropriated to the Capitol 
     Police;
       (C) shall be based on the rate of basic pay in effect with 
     respect to the member or civilian employee on the last day of 
     service of the member or civilian employee;
       (D) shall not be calculated on the basis of extending the 
     period of leave described under subparagraph (A) by any 
     holiday occurring after the date of separation from service;
       (E) shall be considered pay for taxation purposes only; and
       (F) shall be paid only after the Chairman of the Capitol 
     Police Board certifies the applicable period of leave to the 
     Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Administrative Officer 
     of the House of Representatives, as appropriate.
       (3) A member or civilian employee of the Capitol Police who 
     enters active duty in the armed forces may--
       (A) receive a lump sum payment for accrued annual leave in 
     accordance with this subsection, in addition to any pay or 
     allowance payable from the armed forces; or
       (B) elect to have the leave remain to the credit of such 
     member or civilian employee until such member or civilian 
     employee returns from active duty.
       (4) The Capitol Police Board may prescribe regulations to 
     carry out this subsection. No lump sum payment may be paid 
     under this subsection until such regulations are approved by 
     the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and 
     the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives. All regulations approved under this 
     subsection shall have the force and effect of law.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     the appointing authority of any officer of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives.

           Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office

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

                      Statements of Appropriations

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

                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as 
     authorized by section 305 of the Congressional Accountability 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), $2,479,000.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public 
     Law 93-344), including not more than $2,500 to be expended on 
     the certification of the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses, $24,797,000: Provided, That no part of 
     such amount may be used for the purchase or hire of a 
     passenger motor vehicle.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds


                           capitol buildings

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries for the Architect of the Capitol, the 
     Assistant Architect of the Capitol, and other personal 
     services, at rates of pay provided by law; for surveys and 
     studies in connection with activities under the care of the 
     Architect of the Capitol; for all necessary expenses for the 
     maintenance, care and operation of the Capitol and electrical 
     substations of the Senate and House office buildings under 
     the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, including 
     furnishings and office equipment, including not more than 
     $1,000 for official reception and representation expenses, to 
     be expended as the Architect of the Capitol may approve; for 
     purchase or exchange, maintenance and operation of a 
     passenger motor vehicle; and for attendance, when 
     specifically authorized by the Architect of the Capitol, at 
     meetings or conventions in connection with subjects related 
     to work under the Architect of the Capitol, $36,827,000, of 
     which $6,450,000 shall remain available until expended.

                            capitol grounds

       For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of 
     grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office 
     buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $4,991,000, of which 
     $25,000 shall remain available until expended.


                         house office buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the House office buildings, $37,181,000, of 
     which $8,082,000 shall remain available until expended.


                          capitol power plant

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, 
     power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water 
     and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds 
     about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage,

[[Page H5882]]

     and air conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants 
     in any of such buildings; heating the Government Printing 
     Office and Washington City Post Office, and heating and 
     chilled water for air conditioning for the Supreme Court 
     Building, the Union Station complex, the Thurgood Marshall 
     Federal Judiciary Building and the Folger Shakespeare 
     Library, expenses for which shall be advanced or reimbursed 
     upon request of the Architect of the Capitol and amounts so 
     received shall be deposited into the Treasury to the credit 
     of this appropriation, $32,032,000, of which $550,000 shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That not more than 
     $4,000,000 of the funds credited or to be reimbursed to this 
     appropriation as herein provided shall be available for 
     obligation during fiscal year 1998.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                     Congressional Research Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated 
     Constitution of the United States of America, $64,603,000: 
     Provided, That no part of such amount may be used to pay any 
     salary or expense in connection with any publication, or 
     preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of Public 
     General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress 
     unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either 
     the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the compensation of the Director of 
     the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 
     shall be at an annual rate which is equal to the annual rate 
     of basic pay for positions at level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of Congressional information in any format; 
     printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol; 
     expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthly and session 
     index to the Congressional Record, as authorized by law (44 
     U.S.C. 902); printing and binding of Government publications 
     authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress; 
     and printing, binding, and distribution of Government 
     publications authorized by law to be distributed without 
     charge to the recipient, $81,669,000, of which $11,017,000 
     shall be derived by transfer from the Government Printing 
     Office revolving fund under section 309 of title 44, United 
     States Code: Provided, That this appropriation shall not be 
     available for paper copies of the permanent edition of the 
     Congressional Record for individual Representatives, Resident 
     Commissioners or Delegates authorized under 44 U.S.C. 906: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred under the 
     appropriations for similar purposes for preceding fiscal 
     years.
       This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Operations 
     Appropriations Act, 1998''.

                        TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES

                             BOTANIC GARDEN

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings, 
     grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange, 
     maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
     the Library, $1,771,000.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not 
     otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance 
     of the Union Catalogs; custody and custodial care of the 
     Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and 
     repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the 
     custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the 
     American Folklife Center in the Library; preparation and 
     distribution of catalog records and other publications of the 
     Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and 
     expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not 
     properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by 
     the Board, $223,507,000, of which not more than $7,869,000 
     shall be derived from collections credited to this 
     appropriation during fiscal year 1998, and shall remain 
     available until expended, under the Act of June 28, 1902 
     (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150): Provided, That 
     the Library of Congress may not obligate or expend any funds 
     derived from collections under the Act of June 28, 1902, in 
     excess of the amount authorized for obligation or expenditure 
     in appropriations Acts: Provided further, That the total 
     amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the 
     amount by which collections are less than the $7,869,000: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $8,845,000 is to remain available until expended for 
     acquisition of books, periodicals, newspapers, and all other 
     materials including subscriptions for bibliographic services 
     for the Library, including $40,000 to be available solely for 
     the purchase, when specifically approved by the Librarian, of 
     special and unique materials for additions to the 
     collections.

                            Copyright Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, including 
     publication of the decisions of the United States courts 
     involving copyrights, $34,361,000, of which not more than 
     $17,340,000 shall be derived from collections credited to 
     this appropriation during fiscal year 1998 under 17 U.S.C. 
     708(d), and not more than $5,086,000 shall be derived from 
     collections during fiscal year 1998 under 17 U.S.C. 
     111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), and 1005: Provided, That the 
     total amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the 
     amount by which collections are less than $22,426,000: 
     Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of the amount 
     appropriated is available for the maintenance of an 
     ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright Office 
     of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training 
     nationals of developing countries in intellectual property 
     laws and policies: Provided further, That not more than 
     $2,250 may be expended, on the certification of the Librarian 
     of Congress, in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses for activities of the International 
     Copyright Institute.

             Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses to carry out the Act of March 3, 
     1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 U.S.C. 135a), 
     $45,936,000, of which $12,319,000 shall remain available 
     until expended.

                       Furniture and Furnishings

       For necessary expenses for the purchase and repair of 
     furniture, furnishings, office and library equipment, 
     $4,178,000.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 201. Appropriations in this Act available to the 
     Library of Congress shall be available, in an amount of not 
     more than $194,290, of which $58,100 is for the Congressional 
     Research Service, when specifically authorized by the 
     Librarian, for attendance at meetings concerned with the 
     function or activity for which the appropriation is made.
       Sec. 202. (a) No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by the Library of Congress to administer any 
     flexible or compressed work schedule which--
       (1) applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the 
     grade or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15; and
       (2) grants such manager or supervisor the right to not be 
     at work for all or a portion of a workday because of time 
     worked by the manager or supervisor on another workday.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``manager or 
     supervisor'' means any management official or supervisor, as 
     such terms are defined in section 7103(a) (10) and (11) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 203. Appropriated funds received by the Library of 
     Congress from other Federal agencies to cover general and 
     administrative overhead costs generated by performing 
     reimbursable work for other agencies under the authority of 
     31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536 shall not be used to employ more than 
     65 employees and may be expended or obligated--
       (1) in the case of a reimbursement, only to such extent or 
     in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; or
       (2) in the case of an advance payment, only--
       (A) to pay for such general or administrative overhead 
     costs as are attributable to the work performed for such 
     agency; or
       (B) to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in 
     appropriations Acts, with respect to any purpose not 
     allowable under subparagraph (A).
       Sec. 204. Of the amounts appropriated to the Library of 
     Congress in this Act, not more than $5,000 may be expended, 
     on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in 
     connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses for the incentive awards program.
       Sec. 205. Of the amount appropriated to the Library of 
     Congress in this Act, not more than $12,000 may be expended, 
     on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in 
     connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses for the Overseas Field Offices.
       Sec. 206. (a) For fiscal year 1998, the obligational 
     authority of the Library of Congress for the activities 
     described in subsection (b) may not exceed $97,490,000.
       (b) The activities referred to in subsection (a) are 
     reimbursable and revolving fund activities that are funded 
     from sources other than appropriations to the Library in 
     appropriations Acts for the legislative branch.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Library Buildings and Grounds


                     structural and mechanical care

       For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and 
     structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library 
     buildings and grounds, $10,073,000, of which $710,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                 Office of Superintendent of Documents


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents 
     necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of 
     Government publications and their distribution to the public, 
     Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and 
     designated depository

[[Page H5883]]

     and international exchange libraries as authorized by law, 
     $29,264,000: Provided, That travel expenses, including travel 
     expenses of the Depository Library Council to the Public 
     Printer, shall not exceed $150,000: Provided further, That 
     amounts of not more than $2,000,000 from current year 
     appropriations are authorized for producing and disseminating 
     Congressional serial sets and other related publications for 
     1996 and 1997 to depository and other designated libraries.

               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make 
     such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and 
     in accord with the law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 9104 of title 31, United States Code, as 
     may be necessary in carrying out the programs and purposes 
     set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for the 
     Government Printing Office revolving fund: Provided, That not 
     more than $2,500 may be expended on the certification of the 
     Public Printer in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses: Provided further, That the revolving fund 
     shall be available for the hire or purchase of not more than 
     twelve passenger motor vehicles: Provided further, That 
     expenditures in connection with travel expenses of the 
     advisory councils to the Public Printer shall be deemed 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of title 44, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That the revolving fund shall 
     be available for temporary or intermittent services under 
     section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates 
     for individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay for level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of such title: Provided further, 
     That the revolving fund and the funds provided under the 
     headings ``office of superintendent of documents'' and 
     ``salaries and expenses'' together may not be available for 
     the full-time equivalent employment of more than 3,550 
     workyears: Provided further, That activities financed through 
     the revolving fund may provide information in any format: 
     Provided further, That the revolving fund shall not be used 
     to administer any flexible or compressed work schedule which 
     applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the grade 
     or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15: Provided 
     further, That expenses for attendance at meetings shall not 
     exceed $75,000.

                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office, 
     including not more than $7,000 to be expended on the 
     certification of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for 
     individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual 
     rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor 
     vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries in accordance 
     with 31 U.S.C. 3324; benefits comparable to those payable 
     under sections 901(5), 901(6) and 901(8) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 4081(6) and 4081(8)); 
     and under regulations prescribed by the Comptroller General 
     of the United States, rental of living quarters in foreign 
     countries; $323,520,000: Provided, That not more than 
     $1,000,000 of reimbursements received incident to the 
     operation of the General Accounting Office Building shall be 
     available for use in fiscal year 1998: Provided further, That 
     an additional amount of $4,404,000 shall be made available by 
     transfer from funds previously deposited in the special 
     account established pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 782: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 9105 hereafter 
     amounts reimbursed to the Comptroller General pursuant to 
     that section shall be deposited to the appropriation of the 
     General Accounting Office and remain available until 
     expended, and not more than $2,000,000 of such funds shall be 
     available for use in fiscal year 1998: Provided further, That 
     this appropriation and appropriations for administrative 
     expenses of any other department or agency which is a member 
     of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) 
     shall be available to finance an appropriate share of JFMIP 
     costs as determined by the JFMIP, including the salary of the 
     Executive Director and secretarial support: Provided further, 
     That this appropriation and appropriations for administrative 
     expenses of any other department or agency which is a member 
     of the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional 
     Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of Forum costs as determined by the 
     Forum, including necessary travel expenses of non-Federal 
     participants. Payments hereunder to either the Forum or the 
     JFMIP may be credited as reimbursements to any appropriation 
     from which costs involved are initially financed: Provided 
     further, That this appropriation and appropriations for 
     administrative expenses of any other department or agency 
     which is a member of the American Consortium on International 
     Public Administration (ACIPA) shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of ACIPA costs as determined by the 
     ACIPA, including any expenses attributable to membership of 
     ACIPA in the International Institute of Administrative 
     Sciences.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used for the maintenance or care of private 
     vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may 
     be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities 
     for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on 
     House Oversight and for the Senate issued by the Committee on 
     Rules and Administration.
       Sec. 302. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall remain available for obligation beyond fiscal year 1998 
     unless expressly so provided in this Act.
       Sec. 303. Whenever in this Act any office or position not 
     specifically established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 
     is appropriated for or the rate of compensation or 
     designation of any office or position appropriated for is 
     different from that specifically established by such Act, the 
     rate of compensation and the designation in this Act shall be 
     the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided, That the 
     provisions in this Act for the various items of official 
     expenses of Members, officers, and committees of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, and clerk hire for Senators and 
     Members of the House of Representatives shall be the 
     permanent law with respect thereto.
       Sec. 304. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 305. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       (c) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with 
     the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the 
     United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in section 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 306. Such sums as may be necessary are appropriated to 
     the account described in subsection (a) of section 415 of 
     Public Law 104-1 to pay awards and settlements as authorized 
     under such subsection.
       Sec. 307. Amounts available for administrative expenses of 
     any legislative branch entity which participates in the 
     Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council (LBFMC) 
     established by charter on March 26, 1996, shall be available 
     to finance an appropriate share of LBFMC costs as determined 
     by the LBFMC, except that the total LBFMC costs to be shared 
     among all participating legislative branch entities (in such 
     allocations among the entities as the entities may determine) 
     may not exceed $1,500.
       Sec. 308. (a) Section 713(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after ``Senate,'' the 
     following: ``or the seal of the United States House of 
     Representatives, or the seal of the United States 
     Congress,''.
       (b) Section 713 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(d) Whoever, except as directed by the United States 
     House of Representatives, or the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, 
     reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately 
     or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness 
     of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or 
     any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale 
     of the article for the official use of the Government of the 
     United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
     not more than six months, or both.
       ``(e) Whoever, except as directed by the United States 
     Congress, or the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives, acting jointly on its behalf, 
     knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases 
     for resale, either separately or appended to any article 
     manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United 
     States Congress, or any substantial part thereof, except for 
     manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of 
     the Government of the United States, shall be fined under 
     this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or 
     both.''.
       (c) Section 713(f) of title 18, United States Code (as 
     redesignated by subsection (b)(1)), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

[[Page H5884]]

       ``(3) in the case of the seal of the United States House of 
     Representatives, upon complaint by the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(4) in the case of the seal of the United States 
     Congress, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate and 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly.''.
       (d) The heading of section 713 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``and the seal of the United 
     States Senate'' and inserting the following: ``the seal of 
     the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House 
     of Representatives, and the seal of the United States 
     Congress''.
       (e) The table of sections for chapter 33 of part I of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by amending the item 
     relating to section 713 to read as follows:

``713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the 
              seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of 
              the United States Senate, the seal of the United States 
              House of Representatives, and the seal of the United 
              States Congress.''.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1998''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
House Report 105-202, which may be offered only in the order specified, 
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debated for the time specified in the report, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 105-202.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia:
       Page 8, insert after line 5 the following new section:
       Sec. 106. Section 104(a) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1987 (as incorporated by reference in 
     section 101(j) of Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 99-591) (2 
     U.S.C. 117e) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``A donation'' and inserting ``Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), a donation'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) In the case of computer-related equipment, during 
     fiscal year 1998 the Chief Administrative Officer may donate 
     directly the equipment to a public elementary or secondary 
     school of the District of Columbia without regard to whether 
     the donation meets the requirements of the second sentence of 
     paragraph (2), except that the total number of workstations 
     donated as a result of this paragraph may not exceed 1,000.
       ``(B) In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `computer-related equipment' includes 
     desktops, laptops, printers, file servers, and peripherals 
     which are appropriate for use in public school education;
       ``(ii) the terms `public elementary school' and `public 
     secondary school' have the meaning given such terms in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965; and
       ``(iii) the term `workstation' includes desktops and 
     peripherals, file servers and peripherals, laptops and 
     peripherals, printers and peripherals, and workstations and 
     peripherals.
       ``(C) The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority 
     to issue regulations to carry out this paragraph.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 197, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis] and a Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This amendment is fairly simple and straightforward. The schools in 
our Nation's Capital are in a state of crisis. The dropout rate in the 
school system is over 40 percent. We have a very low percentage of 
these students going on to college. There are safety issues and 
management issues, but worst of all there is a technology revolution 
that is engulfing the beltway, creating thousands and thousands of jobs 
in the Metro D.C. area and the District of Columbia. And the students 
who come out of its public schools have not really been able to 
participate in a meaningful way in this revolution.
  This amendment addresses this human tragedy by making surplus 
congressional information technology equipment available at no cost to 
the city's public elementary and secondary schools. Specifically the 
amendment would authorize the Chief Administrative Officer of the House 
to transfer surplus equipment without charge to the District of 
Columbia public school system during fiscal year 1998.
  My amendment is limited to the District of Columbia schools because 
of the special responsibility that the Congress has to the residents of 
this Federal District under the Constitution. The Committee on Rules 
has made this in order. I hope my colleagues will support it. We have 
other Members who would like to address it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the Davis 
amendment?
  Mr. SERRANO. I do, Mr. Chairman, not in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Serrano] is recognized for 5 minutes and may proceed in support of the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I think it is a wonderful amendment. I would like, however, if possible 
to ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Walsh], if he would allow me to ask him a question. I am very much 
in favor of this notion and I am very much supportive of it. But, as we 
know, in the past I have discussed the possibility of Members being 
able to do this in their own districts. I would hope that we do this as 
a 1-year situation, which I support wholeheartedly and that next year 
the subcommittee look at possibilities, that Members in their own 
districts can accomplish what the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] 
is accomplishing for the great city of Washington, DC.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very good amendment. I think 
the gentleman's amendment has merit. I would certainly support it. I am 
delighted that in my role as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Legislative I am still able to reach back and help out my former 
constituents in the District of Columbia.
  In response to the gentleman's question, this is something that we 
have talked about, that we both support the concept of allowing Members 
to use their used equipment in their district offices to provide to 
local school districts. I am sure the Committee on House Oversight 
would like to take a look at this before we appropriators try to make a 
determination, but I would certainly go with the gentleman from New 
York to the chairman and members of the House oversight subcommittee 
and urge that this be considered very strongly for next year.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for their generosity.
  I do not think we have to look far to see the crying need for the 
gentleman's amendment. I especially appreciate that in his role as 
chairman of the D.C. committee he has looked far and wide and always 
dealt with the District in a bipartisan manner. I would like to make a 
suggestion to the ranking member because I can understand his concern 
as well. As to these computers in the District of Columbia, the cost of 
shipping will probably be more than the computers would be worth, but 
there are Federal agencies in all the large cities; and it seems to me 
the same kind of situation could be worked out with the Federal 
agencies in cities

[[Page H5885]]

like New York who would also have, it seems to me, excess technology 
equipment of this kind. It said that the District needs a billion 
dollars in school repairs.
  In that respect, it is clear that we will not get to computers for an 
awfully long time. Bell Atlantic is wiring the schools of the District 
free. That will be done by April. General Becton in his budget this 
year asked for $20 million for technology, and of course it had to be 
cut. The District came into compliance a year ahead of time, into 
balance a year ahead of time in order to qualify for the President's 
plan to relieve it of some State functions.

                              {time}  1845

  While the District is getting its act together, I do not think that 
the children should suffer. The Speaker has said that if we put a lap-
top in the lap of every kid in the city, we would see changes, if not 
overnight, then very soon.
  The gentleman from Virginia is clearly trying to get us close to that 
by at least putting a computer in every school. I thank him for it, and 
I urge this amendment be adopted.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia.
  We can support this right now, for all States, for all congressional 
districts, but just in a little different way. The Century 21 high-
technology bill, which is in the budget under Ways and Means, today the 
President is looking at it and he accepts some portions of that.
  Right now he is insisting that all $35 billion go toward higher 
postsecondary education. If that is the case, this will be cut out of 
all of our districts, and it is one in which we accommodate industry 
that develops and puts into the classrooms high-technology equipment 
like computers, like scientific gear.
  The next phase of this, I think, should be the libraries, and we are 
asking for just a small portion of that $35 billion goes through K 
through 12. We think when our education system in some areas, and we 
have good teachers, my wife is one of them, but in some areas needs 
help, that we do it in the K through 12 and not spend it all on 
postsecondary education.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I note there are over 19,000 
high-technology jobs available right now that we cannot fill in the 
greater Washington area. This amendment, with a donation from the House 
of surplus computers, we have over 644 PC's available today, plus a 
number of printers, modems and other IT equipment, going to the school 
system, can allow the city of Washington, DC, the District of Columbia 
and the students therein, to share in the economic benefits of this 
region and to allow them to be trained to fill some of these jobs.
  I think it is a good amendment. I thank very much the chairman of the 
committee for allowing us to offer this, the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Foley], who has helped in arranging this as well, and I hope my 
colleagues will support it.
  The District of Columbia public schools are in desperate need of 
information technology infrastructure in their classrooms. By 
supporting the Davis of Virginia amendment to the legislative branch 
appropriations bill, scheduled for consideration this evening. Congress 
will allow hundreds of surplus computers, printers, modems, and other 
IT equipment to be donated to the D.C. public schools.
  This amendment authorizes the Chief Administrative Officer [CAO] of 
the House to transfer surplus computer equipment to elementary and 
secondary D.C. public schools during fiscal year 1998. Current laws 
constrain the donation of surplus equipment, allowing disposal only 
through the General Services Administration [GSA] except for equipment 
with no recoverable value. The CAO estimates that there are hundreds of 
high end computers, printers, and modems currently available for use 
but not needed by the Congress or GSA. While the Senate Sergeant at 
Arms and Doorkeeper have successfully donated surplus computers and 
related equipment to the schools, the House lags far behind. To the 
thousands of D.C. students, 40 percent of whom are at risk of dropping 
out of school, this equipment correlates into more effective and 
dynamic learning opportunities.
  The Congress has a unique constitutional relationship to the District 
of Columbia. Supporting the Davis amendment to the legislative branch 
appropriations bill is a direct and efficient method that will inject 
much needed technology into the D.C. public schools. Speaker Gingrich, 
Representatives Mark Foley, John Boehner, and Eleanor Holmes Norton 
have all been extremely helpful in moving this concept forward.
  I thank my colleague, for their support of this commonsense measure.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, as a long-time advocate of providing 
telecommunications services to our public classrooms, I rise in support 
of the Davis amendment. This amendment would allow the Chief 
Administrative Officer [CAO] of the House to transfer surplus 
computers, printers, modems, and other technological equipment to 
schools in the District of Columbia.
  Many of the classrooms in the District are housed in buildings that 
are falling apart. Classrooms are ill-equipped with resources that will 
leave students behind in this rapidly evolving technological 
revolution. The Davis amendment would provide the District with an 
infusion of much-needed technology that will afford students the 
opportunity to succeed in this new, information age.
  The statistics on the performance of students in the D.C. public 
schools are dismal. Only 22 percent of fourth-grade students in the 
D.C. public schools scored at or above basic reading achievement levels 
in 1994. Over the last 3 years, 53 percent of students dropped out or 
left the school system after 10th grade. The cumulative grade point 
average for current 12th grade students is 1.5 on a 4.0 scale, and wide 
disparities exist in student performances among wards.
  Information technology can excite young minds and provide all 
children in the District access to the same rich learning resources, 
regardless of where they live. Telecommunications would close the gap 
between the have and have-not communities within the District and help 
provide a level playing field for all students to utilize the 
information superhighway. In a nation rich in information, teachers, 
and students in the D.C. public schools can no longer rely on the 
skills of the industrial age.
  I applaud Congressman Davis for his efforts to bring technology into 
D.C. classrooms in a direct and efficient manner, and I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the Davis amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 105-202.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Fazio of California

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Fazio of California:
       Page 8, line 18, strike ``5,907,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,624,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 197, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I rise in support of this amendment to freeze positions at 
the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  My colleagues, I am sure, remember that the regular committee funding 
resolution managed by the Committee on House Oversight was a source of 
major contention this year. The dispute was not just because of 
Democratic objections but also because of Republican objections to 
proposed committee increases. Yet the funding assumption of that 
resolution was still a freeze on the number of committee positions, the 
Speaker's so-called employment caps.
  The one exception, as I am sure many remember, was the proposed 
increase in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's 
allocation, and those increases provoked a significant fight here on 
the floor that I am sure we have already noted continues even up to 
this day.
  Now the majority is trying to accomplish, I believe indirectly, what 
they could not accomplish directly, and that is increases in committee 
staff levels. The Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee originally 
went along with

[[Page H5886]]

the request by the Joint Committee on Taxation to increase its funding 
by 20 percent, a total of 12 positions, from 61 to 73 positions. But 
because of objections by Democrats on the committee, the bill was 
changed at the full Committee on Appropriations to add five positions 
to the Joint Committee on Taxation. My amendment would eliminate that 
increase and hold the Joint Committee on Taxation to the current year's 
staffing level of 61 positions.
  The majority received significant credit at the beginning of this 
104th Congress for reducing committee staff by one-third. It was a 
significant reduction, and one that we are reminded about constantly. 
In fact, we were reminded of it as recently as Friday's debate on the 
rule for this bill.
  So one question is whether the Joint Committee on Taxation, which 
does not clear through the regular committee funding process for the 
standing committees of the House, will be singled out for special 
treatment while other committees with important jurisdictions and heavy 
workloads are given no increase in staffing.
  I think it is also suspect that the Joint Committee on Taxation would 
make this extraordinary request for fiscal year 1998 funds but make it 
for the year after we are scheduled to complete consideration of major 
tax legislation. In fact, the buzz all over the Capitol tonight is that 
we have reached agreement on a major tax bill for the long haul. If 
that is the case, and I certainly anticipate it will occur this week, 
there is absolutely no way in which the Joint Committee on Taxation's 
increased staff will have any major tax bill before it in the near 
future.
  The rationale given for significant new duties by the chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], in making his request to the 
committee, was for unfunded mandates and line item veto. It just does 
not hold water, Mr. Chairman. Those are responsibilities that are 
chiefly handled by the Congressional Budget Office.
  Line item vetoes are far more likely to be applied to the 
appropriations bill. In fact, there is even a question as to whether it 
will apply to a tax bill. And unfunded mandates, as we know, are far 
more likely to be included in authorizing legislation.
  In fact, the gentleman from Texas said, ``If the Joint Committee's 
responsibilities are expanded in any further way, I will find it 
necessary to request an additional increase.''
  But perhaps the most important point is the highly politicized 
complexion that the Joint Committee on Taxation has assumed under 
Republican control, in sharp departure from its traditional low 
profile. The staff director, Kenneth Kies, was singled out for a 
profile in the Wall Street Journal that appeared in April. Here is a 
quote from that article:
  ``But Mr. Kies is breaking the mold, wielding his clout in some 
surprising ways and taking all-expense-paid trips to speak to groups, 
many of which have large stakes in the tax code. Mr. Kies does not get 
paid for speaking, but last year he accepted more in travel expenses 
than any other congressional staffer,'' and this is what I think my 
colleagues are most interested in hearing, ``more than any of the 535 
Members of Congress, according to an analysis done by the Associated 
Press.''
  The Washington Post editorial a few days ago had this to say about 
the Joint Committee on Taxation: ``The JCT was once the great redoubt 
of integrity in such matters. It has been converted into a political 
parrot.'' The New York Times, in an editorial about the 1995 budget 
bill said `` Congress relied on misleading estimates by its tax 
analysts,'' and ``The Republican distribution tables are distorted in 
at least four ways.''
  So adding positions to the Joint Committee on Taxation when its fair-
handedness is being called into question makes absolutely no sense. The 
simple fact is the Joint Committee on Taxation has not made a 
compelling case for these additional positions. They should not get 
special treatment.
  Our precious committee resources should not be going to highly 
politicized staff operations that will merely be used to advance a 
partisan agenda here in the House instead of providing the nonpartisan 
estimates that we have come to expect in the past.
  I think this is an opportunity for us to show that we are going to be 
fair across the board. I think it is an opportunity to indicate that we 
like people to work for us in these different and very essential 
committees who do not bring their own personal profile or who serve the 
House in a traditional manner, one that emphasizes the role of the 
Members and not of the staff in making policy.
  I think we ought to treat this committee the same way we are treating 
most agencies, and that is give the existing staff a cost-of-living 
adjustment. That is what this amendment would allow; and, therefore, I 
ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will eliminate the five additional staff 
positions that we have appropriated for the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. The chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], who also chairs the Committee on 
Ways and Means of the House, testified that he needed 12 new positions 
to do the additional work that was mandated on the Joint Committee's 
staff. The committee bill only allows five.
  We removed seven of those positions during the full committee 
consideration of the bill, after the gentleman from California and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin and others raised this issue. They felt that 
it was too large an increase at one time. That would have only, by the 
way, brought us up to the level where the Democratic majority had it 
when they lost control of the House, so we are still substantially 
below that level.
  We offered an amendment not to eliminate the total increase but to 
reduce it to five. So we went more than halfway to show a reasonable 
approach to try to develop compromise. They wanted the whole loaf 
instead of half of the loaf.
  The fact is the chairman of the House Ways and Means and the chairman 
of the Committee on Finance in the Senate both felt that this is 
essential to their work. The Joint Committee on Taxation does the very 
important work of providing technical support to the Committee on Ways 
and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance.
  As we know, this work is highly technical in nature and requires very 
high skills in tax law and economics. The staff is called upon to make 
several thousand revenue estimates each session for Members and those 
estimates are highly regarded.
  In addition, the Joint Committee on Taxation has new responsibilities 
that staff resources are needed for: a new requirement imposed by the 
House to make dynamic scoring estimates in major tax legislation, to 
determine unfunded mandates contained in revenue legislation, and to 
determine limited tax benefits subject to the line item veto act. These 
are all new responsibilities.
  With all due respect to the gentleman from California, under the 
rules of the House these are required of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. It is their responsibility.
  They also will have, we are told, the added responsibility of 
reviewing options for a comprehensive review of the Tax Code. What a 
monumental challenge that would be without additional staff.
  There are many in this country who feel that the current Tax Code is 
unfair, it is antiquated, and it creates tremendous amounts of work and 
expense to individuals and to businesses. So many of us feel that there 
needs to be a review, and the Joint Committee on Taxation would have 
that responsibility.
  The bill provides funding for a staff level of 66 employees, or FTEs. 
It puts the FTEs back to the level they were funded at in 1988. We are 
now working on the 1998 appropriations bill. We are asking for an 
increase to 66, and that is still seven positions below the level it 
was funded at by the Democrats in 1988.
  So we are doing this added responsibility, doing it better, smarter, 
and faster. All we have done is to put them back where they were 10 
years ago.
  I heard the gentleman's concerns in the full committee and I offered 
an amendment that reduced the subcommittee's mark of 12 positions to 5. 
The Committee on Appropriations

[[Page H5887]]

heard the gentleman, considered the prudence of restraint, accepted a 
staff level of a decade ago and reported the bill with those limited 
resources. We have met the gentleman more than halfway.
  I oppose the amendment and urge all to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to respond to the gentleman. If the gentleman would look at 
the transcript of the hearing on the Joint Committee on Taxation on 
February 13, the statement of the chairman of the Joint Committee, the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bill Archer, makes no reference to dynamic 
scoring.
  There is not any reference because, I believe, dynamic scoring is 
something that is still a controversial issue here, and I am not sure 
there is any mandate to the committee to handle that task. Dynamic 
scoring may, in fact, be what the committee needs additional staff for, 
but if we look at what was cited as the justification for the increase, 
I could not find it.

                              {time}  1900

  A lot of committees would like to go back to the staffing level they 
were at in the past. That is the very point I am trying to make. This 
committee is being given the opportunity to go back because suddenly it 
is determined that there is work for them to do. Well, there are many 
other committees that have additional work they would like to do, but 
they are not being give this kind of latitude, they are not being given 
this kind of assistance.
  Also, part of my concern is I believe much of the help for this 
committee will be given to the Committee on Ways and Means staff. 
Certainly, the members of the Committee on Ways and Means benefit 
greatly from the work of the joint committee. But I am not sure that is 
going to be handed out in any 2-to-1 ratio. I am not sure it is going 
to be available to Democrats as much as to Republicans.
  In fact, I think that the issue of dynamic scoring is something that 
is quite partisan within that committee in terms of how they would like 
to have the long-range effects of tax bills analyzed and factored into 
the way in which we project future deficits, for example.
  So I think that the comments of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh], while certainly appreciated in a rebuttal sense, do not hold 
weight.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just to clarify on this one point, under the rules of the House, this 
is rule XIII, paragraph (e)(1) of clause 7, regarding dynamic scoring:

       A report from the Committee on Ways and Means on a bill or 
     joint resolution designated by the majority leader (after 
     consultation with the minority leader) as major tax 
     legislation may include a dynamic estimate of the changes in 
     Federal revenues expected to result from enactment of the 
     legislation.

  So, clearly, the rules of the House do provide that responsibility to 
the joint committee.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time. But before I do so, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, the fact 
that it is cited in the rules and yet not mentioned by the chairman as 
a justification for additional staff is, perhaps, the point. It is not 
one of the reasons the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has asked for 
additional help.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  The point of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] was that these 
responsibilities are not covered by the Rules of the House. Quite 
clearly, they are covered by the Rules of the House. Not to pick nits, 
but the responsibility is theirs. Thus, the need for additional 
staffing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] of the Committee on House Oversight, also a 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh] for yielding me the time.
  I find it almost fascinating that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio], the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative of the 
Committee on Appropriations is offering an amendment to allow no 
additional staff. The gentleman indicated that perhaps this particular 
committee could learn from what occurred to other committees.
  Let me recite some dollars and cents and numbers for my colleagues. 
There is one committee in the House of Representatives that is not 
responsive to House Oversight and the rest of the Members in 
determining its budget. It is not the Joint Committee on Taxation. It 
is not the Committee on Ways and Means. It is not the Committee on 
Agriculture. It is not the Committee on Commerce. It happens to be the 
Committee on Appropriations. That committee alone determines its own 
staff and its own budget.
  Let us return to 1994. The budget for Appropriations was $14.7 
million. The budget for the Committee on Ways and Means was $8.1 
million. The budget for the Joint Committee on Taxation is $5.7 
million. Let us leap ahead 4 years and look at the fiscal year 1998 
budget of Appropriations, $18.2 million. From $14.7 million to $18.2 
million. That is a 25-percent increase in the budget that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio], behind closed doors, determines what is 
appropriate to do their job.
  The Committee on Ways and Means, at $8.1 million in 1994. In 1998, it 
is $5.5 million. In 1994, Ways and Means, $8.1 million. In 1998, $5.5 
million. That is a decrease of 32 percent.
  The new majority willingly took on themselves savings of taxpayers' 
dollars. The Joint Committee on Taxation goes from $5.7 million to $5.9 
million. That is an increase. That is a 3-percent increase. The 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] focuses on staffing. In the 103d 
Congress, the Joint Committee, under Democratic leadership, had 77 
staff. Currently there are 59.
  On the Committee on Appropriations, there are 60 members. There are 
155 staff; 52 of them are called associate staff. They get a staffer 
for virtually every member of the committee. The Committee on Ways and 
Means, we do not get that kind of staffing. We have to rely on the 
Joint Committee on Taxation.
  Why is it called the Joint Committee on Taxation? Because that 
committee serves not only the 39 members of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, but it serves the 20 members of the Senate as well. There are 59 
members who utilize the services of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Is 
it not interesting there are also 59 staffers? That means, on the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, there is one staffer for every member.
  On the Committee on Appropriations, on the committee that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] believes should not get even five 
new staffers, the ratio for staffers is 2.6; 1.0 for the Joint 
Committee; 2.6 for Appropriations.
  But frankly, the Joint Committee should not be compared to any 
committee here in the House. We have to go down and look at Treasury 
and we have to look at the Office of Management and Budget, because the 
Joint Committee is for Congress. The Office of Management and Budget, 
for the President, has 503 staff.
  The Treasury, focusing on the issues that the Joint Committee focuses 
on, has 113. Get your translating dictionary. When they were in the 
majority, the staff was bipartisan. When they are in the minority, the 
staff is partisan. Understand, the Joint Committee works for all of us. 
They need five new staffers to do our work. Vote down the Fazio 
amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, I really think it is not my place to protect or defend 
the majority on the Committee on Appropriations and the way in which 
they have allocated the funds. This is not a debate between the 
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Appropriations. This 
is a question of how much we should provide the Joint Committee on 
Taxation.
  I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] is proud of some of 
the reductions that have been made. But if we look at the Committee on

[[Page H5888]]

Government Reform or the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we 
see an increase from 1997 and 1998 of 26 percent for Government Reform 
and 22 percent for Education and the Workforce.
  I guess the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] feels that a 20-
percent increase that was originally intended for the Joint Committee 
on Taxation is consistent with those overwhelming increases in the 
staffing of those committees.
  But I have confidence in the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]. I do not think the Committee 
on Appropriations has been treated any better than any other committee. 
In fact, I think we set an example. And, so, I guess I rise to defend 
the majority from the majority.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, briefly, I rise as a 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means and as the former principal 
tax staffer for the Senate Republicans in Pennsylvania in strong 
opposition to this amendment.
  We have to realize that these revenue estimates that are done by the 
Joint Committee on Taxation are critical to our policymaking and 
critical for the minority and the majority. There have been 2,000 
revenue requests per year heaped on the Joint Committee, and so far 
they only have the staff resources to process about 50 percent of them.
  In the last 2 years, we have asked the Joint Committee to assume 
additional responsibilities in connection with the Line Item Veto Act 
and unfunded mandates legislation. We adopted a new House rule that 
requires the Joint Committee on Taxation to analyze the macroeconomic 
effects of such proposed legislation, and we have added additional 
responsibilities.
  The lack of revenue estimates stifles tax policy, it reduces input 
from rank and file Members. Because, let us face it, members of the tax 
committee have, in all probability, easier access to revenue estimates 
from the Joint Committee.
  Also, I think it is fair to say that this gives the minority a better 
shot at getting revenue estimates. Let us understand that revenue 
estimates are important and that a vote for this amendment by reducing 
access to revenue estimates is a vote against tax relief, in my view. 
And more importantly, it is also a vote against tax reform, which is 
something that I hope the Committee on Ways and Means will have an 
opportunity to take up during this Congress. It will require many 
revenue estimates because it is going to be extremely complicated.
  In my view, if any Member of this body strongly supports tax reform, 
tax simplification, streamlining our tax system, they should vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve at this 
time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time.
  Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] have the opportunity 
to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has the right to close.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Serrano].
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio] for yielding me the time.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has made some very 
interesting points. But the one that touches me the most, for someone 
who just became the ranking member of this committee and who has been 
on the Committee on Appropriations for a shorter time than most members 
on that committee, is his understanding and my understanding that what 
we are trying to do here is, through the back door, increase a 
committee at the same time that we are sending out press releases 
talking about the fact that we are cutting staff.
  And indeed, we are cutting staff in many committees. And, in fact, 
the whole House has felt the need at times to deal with this issue. And 
here we single out one committee, one committee that in our opinion has 
become a very political instrument to use in this House, not 
necessarily one that simply deals with the facts and figures; and we, 
through the back door, are trying to increase this committee.
  Now, I know the difficulty that we face, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Walsh] and I, in my case being supportive of his decisions to make 
some changes in the committee structure. But the fact of life is that 
no matter how we present this, there is no other way to present it but 
to admit the fact that this committee is being increased.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has made that point 
clearly. Anyone that votes against the Fazio amendment is in fact 
admitting to the fact that one committee was singled out for an 
increase, while other committees we gladly yell and scream are being 
cut. So we cannot have it both ways. We cannot cut an increase and then 
deny it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  How much time does remain, if I may ask?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] has 4\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I will just say that our responsibility on 
the subcommittee is to allocate resources. There are times when some 
committees have more responsibilities than others, and that is what we 
have tried to do. There was a request by the chairman, and this is 
unusual, too, because this is one of the rare places where the Senate 
and the House have to come to agreement on something that they mutually 
share. Both chairmen asked for this increase. We are going to provide 
that increase if the committee agrees.
  So I would again urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I will just close and yield 
back any remaining time simply to say, if there was a justification 
based on a major tax bill, straining the resources of the Joint Tax 
Committee would have been in this fiscal year.
  This is the year that we probably would find that committee spending 
long hours and putting in extra time trying to meet the needs of both 
the Senate and the House as we put together probably one of the largest 
tax bills we will see in this decade. But of course, this request comes 
in after the fact. It does not go into effect until the 1st of October.
  But I think, in addition, we have to keep in mind the Joint 
Committee's stature here. The Senate has chosen not to make the kind of 
reductions in staffing that have been so prominently discussed ad 
nauseam in the House of Representatives. We did make sizable 
reductions, eliminating essentially a third of our staffing, most of 
which of course were majority staff of the former majority Democrats 
when the new majority took over. We understand that decision. We 
understand that it has been made. And I believe it should apply across 
the board.
  It seems to me the people who need this committee from the other side 
of the Capitol are among those who need it least, because they have 
done absolutely nothing to track the reductions that have been made in 
this body.
  So the joint committee is available, obviously, to the Committee on 
Ways and Means. It is an additional staffing assistance to them. And we 
understand why all those who come to the well today to defend this 
increase are on that committee. They will benefit.

                              {time}  1915

  But I think most of the other Members of the House on a bipartisan 
basis want to be standing tall for equal treatment, to make sure that 
all of the bodies that assist us in our analysis of legislation of all 
sorts are treated equally. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my 
colleagues to defeat this increase in personnel and simply give the 
existing staff a cost of living adjustment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5889]]

First of all let me thank the gentleman from California for his 
stirring defense of not only the Committee on Appropriations, which I 
strongly endorse, but also his stirring defense of the majority. Any 
time I have him on my side in an argument, I feel pretty confident. 
However, on this amendment I do disagree substantively.
  The House is about to enter into a major tax reduction agreement with 
the President, an historic agreement. This is something that was part 
of the Contract With America. This is something that we worked all the 
last 2 years and now 6 more months to come to. A capital gains tax cut, 
an estate tax cut, a $500 per child tax cut for all Americans with 
children under 18. This is a monumental victory for all of us in this 
country. This is not the end of the tax cuts. If we have our say, this 
is only the beginning of tax cuts for the American public. We want to 
make sure that the Joint Committee can do a good job of determining 
what the impacts of these tax cuts are and help to lead the way, to 
show us the way toward further reducing the oppressive tax burden that 
has piled up on the American public over the last 40 years. What we are 
seeing is a major change of direction here by the legislature. We have 
seen the markets respond to it, we are seeing the deficit being reduced 
at an exorbitant clip. We are seeing the deficit estimates go down. 
Why? Because the country and the markets are responding to the 
Republican tax cuts. We want to make sure that we have the support of 
the Joint Tax Committee when we look at the next round of tax cuts in 
the next Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 197, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 105-202.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Klug

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Klug:
       Page 29, line 13, strike ``3,550 workyears'' and insert 
     ``3,200 workyears''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 197, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Serrano] each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with the Government Printing 
Office which the Federal Government has actually run and the House of 
Representatives has been involved with since well before the Civil War 
in this country. Since the mid-1800's, we have been running a printing 
office. There are 100,000 private printers across the United States, 
all of them, I think, quite capable of doing the printing work now 
being done by the United States Government. If I ran the world, we 
would actually figure out a way to end the Government Printing Office 
and instead simply turn it into a procurement agency. But that is not 
the option in front of us today. What we are going to try to do is to 
further reduce the staffing levels at the Government Printing Office in 
order to at a minimum help the Government Printing Office operate in 
the black rather than in the red.
  The General Accounting Office will tell us in a study ironically 
printed by the Government Printing Office that every time we print a 
document in the Government Printing Office it is roughly 2 times what 
it would cost us to do if we did it in the private sector. In 1991, the 
Government Printing Office lost $1.2 million; in 1992 it lost $5 
million; in 1993 it lost $14 million; in 1994 it lost $21 million. We 
began to squeeze the Government Printing Office down about the time we 
took over the majority, and in 1995 the loss was $3 million, but I have 
to tell my colleagues with some embarrassment this year it ballooned up 
to $16.9 million, nearly $17 million. This year through June of 1997 we 
are losing an additional $4 million.
  This amendment quite simply cuts the staffing at the Government 
Printing Office by less than 10 percent, about 350 slots. If my 
colleagues will do the arithmetic on that and translate it all out, 350 
staffers at about $50,000 a slot, when we include benefits, it results 
in savings to taxpayers at $17,500,000, virtually equivalent to what 
the Government Printing Office is expected to lose in this current 
operating year.
  I think in the long run we have to ask ourselves why it is that the 
Federal Government has been involved in the printing business for more 
than 130 years and especially today with web sites and Internet pages 
across the country beginning to replace hard documents and reliance on 
paper, the squeeze on the Government Printing Office I think will 
become even more extraordinary in the next several years, at a time 
when a single CD rom can replace hundreds of volumes of printed 
documents like the appropriations text that we are considering right 
now done by the Government Printing Office.
  My amendment makes good sense because of changing technology, my 
amendment makes good sense for the taxpayers of the United States, and 
it takes us one step further to where we want to be, I think, in the 
long run which is a government procurement office which uses the 
private sector and which saves money rather than a Government Printing 
Office which continues to run printing presses for the Federal 
Government in order to print government documents in an emergency, 
which as soon as I discover what a government emergency is, I will be 
glad to share it with my colleagues, and an operation at this point 
which loses unfortunately tens of millions of dollars a year for United 
States taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I have with me a letter that is being sent to all 
Members of the House in a bipartisan fashion by the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. They clearly point to the fact 
that the Klug bill is not a good idea. In fact, the subcommittee had 
recommended a cut of 50 positions as part of the ongoing work that we 
are doing in the House. Yet this particular amendment goes way 
overboard in asking for 350 position cuts.
  Let me just make one other quick comment. The gentleman did mention 
the fact that the web pages are opening all over the Nation. That is 
not reaching everyone. In fact, that is an issue for another day. But 
not everyone in this country and some communities are totally being 
left behind in this technology. To suggest that this is a way to reach 
them is totally improper at this time. I understand that the gentleman 
has a reputation for being one who likes to cut the budget and we 
applaud him at times for that. But I think this particular time he is 
making a drastic mistake and we should all join in defeating this 
amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, at this point let me suggest that it is not 
such a drastic cut, and to bolster the case let me yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment reduces the FTE staff level 
at the Government Printing Office from 3,550 to 3,200. GPO is currently 
staffed at a level of 3,600. This amendment will require a reduction in 
force. Even though the GPO continues to lose money at a rate of about 
$1 million a month, their costs remain high. They tell us that is 
because they have to maintain a capability to do the daily job of 
printing the Congressional Record, our hearings, bills, reports and 
other congressional documents.

[[Page H5890]]

  The long-run solution to this problem is a rewrite of the printing 
statutes. The Government Printing Office needs to have their mission 
reevaluated. The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are using 
modern desk-top publishing technologies and withdrawing much of their 
work from the printing plant. The situation cries out for a more 
substantive solution than annual limitations on their workforce.
  With that caveat, I will accept this amendment, but I want to stress 
that we need help from the authorizing committees on this matter. I 
know the chairman of that committee is dedicated to that task, and I 
want to work with him and others to bring it about.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, GPO, the Government Printing Office, has reduced their 
staff by 25 percent over the last 4 years, meaning a reduction of more 
than 1,000 full-time equivalents. The Klug amendment, although well 
intentioned, is extreme.
  Time and time again Members searching for easy deficit reduction 
targets turn to Federal employees. Indeed, that is what this amendment 
does. Already the bill before us today will reduce the Government 
Printing Office by 50 full-time equivalents. The additional cuts 
contained in this amendment would reduce GPO by another 350 FTEs.
  Such a draconian reduction would hinder their ability to produce the 
documents that we depend on in a timely fashion, including the 
Congressional Record, bills, reports, hearing transcripts, official 
documents. Furthermore, such a large cut would lead to expensive RIFs; 
let us consider that.
  Please join me in opposing this amendment. The GPO is making 
excellent progress moving into the 21st century with advanced 
technology and a leaner staff. Let us not set them back in time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not new. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
offers this amendment every year. This is his annual amendment of how 
we gut the GPO. Annually we say, ``Oh, it's not going to be a 
problem.'' The fact of the matter is that this is an over 10 percent 
reduction. It is going to be approximately 50 plus 350, 400. It is 
going to require RIFs.
  I regret that the chairman, somewhat in my opinion, cavalierly 
accepts this amendment. This is not a small cut. This is a cut on top 
of, as the gentlewoman from Maryland indicated, 1,000 employees out of 
4,500 employees over the last 4 years.
  They are not dairy farmers. So if we no longer stop buying milk or 
have price supports or anything of that nature, who cares? But these 
people are going to be put out on the street. We have gone from 8,000 
down to 3,600 in 20 years. We have done 25 percent of that in the last 
4 years.
  The fact of the matter is, if we want GPO to do something different, 
then let us pass legislation and mandate that. If we want them to be, I 
tell my chairman, financially solvent, then have the Congress pay its 
bills. Have the Congress pay fair market value for the product it gets 
from GPO and I guarantee that they will show a profit.
  I ask my chairman to go over to GPO. They have as modern a capability 
in information technology as there is in Washington. Period. They are 
on line and on top of it.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. This amendment, I will 
tell the chairman, will cost the government money. It costs 
approximately $25,000 to $35,000 per RIFed employee. This amendment 
will cost us, not save us. Reject the Klug amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me 
wrap up this debate, if I could.
  To my colleague from Maryland, let me point out to him that my 
farmers in Wisconsin actually would be delighted to eliminate the milk 
marketing orders because they discriminate against the upper Midwest. I 
would be more than willing to work with him on that in the future.
  Let me make a few closing points. Here are a few facts about the 
Government Printing Office: Over 50 percent of idle machine hours; GPO 
operated and paid overtime on at least one weekend day of 50 of 52 
weekends; paper waste average 40 percent higher than most industry 
standards, 1989 estimated waste totaled $7 million.
  Fact after fact, study after study tracing all the way back to 1989 
through 1997 reaches one simple conclusion: The Government Printing 
Office continues to lose money. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] 
is absolutely correct. We need to redefine the mission for the 
Government Printing Office, but in the interim we are going to lose $17 
million this year.
  The long-run solution is to outsource the Government Printing Office 
and use the experts that are there today. The short-run solution is to 
begin to stop the bleeding and have the Government Printing Office 
break even in the current year operation. That is the intent of this 
amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the Klug 
amendment. I believe it is ill-considered. The fact of the matter is 
that GPO has been reducing its work force. Since 1993 they reduced by 
25 percent, from 4,800 to 3,600. This year's appropriation request is 
for 3,500.
  But the gentleman wants to go further, and in going further he would 
have us make 400 RIFs; that is, 400 people thrown out in the street, 
within about 65 days, and that will cost the Government money.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to close on something that the gentleman 
from New York said in accepting the amendment. He said the fact of the 
matter is we need to evaluate GPO. But rather than evaluate first and 
then make policy, the Klug amendment would make policy in the absence 
of any study, any evaluation, and just throw people out on the street.
  If GPO's mission needs to be reevaluated, we have it within our power 
to do it. That is the responsible approach. This is a meat ax approach. 
It ignores the progress that GPO has already made in reducing its work 
force, and it does not make sound public policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a strenuous rejection of the Klug amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 197, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 4 printed in House 
Report 105-202.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Roemer

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Roemer: Page 37, insert 
     before line 1 the following new section:
       Sec. 309. Any amount appropriated in this Act for ``HOUSE 
     OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members' 
     Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for 
     fiscal year 1998. Any amount remaining after all payments are 
     made under such allowances for such fiscal year shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury, to be used for deficit reduction.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 197, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H5891]]

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Camp] for his help in cosponsoring the legislation 
that we have turned into this amendment. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment requires unexpended congressional office funds from the 
salaries and expenses of Members representational account allowances 
not to be respent, not to be shifted into a Speaker's slush fund or 
spent on marble elevator floors, but to instead go directly to the U.S. 
Treasury to reduce the deficit.
  Now we have been working on this for several years, Mr. Chairman. 
Last year we voice voted this amendment. The year before we had 403 
Members, Democrats and Republicans, agree to pass this legislation. We 
think that this is fair.
  In the context of this week we are debating maybe the most important 
legislation to balance the budget that we have considered in this body 
since the balanced budget amendment or since we balanced the budget in 
1969. We are considering how to share and sacrifice to get to a 
balanced budget, and certainly that sharing and sacrificing should 
start here in the House of Representatives.
  There are two reasons why my colleagues should support this Roemer-
Camp amendment. One is that instead of this money going back to be 
respent, we have the money go to reduce the deficit. Second, this 
encourages better management in individual offices. If my colleagues 
decide not to do a number of newsletters, if my colleagues decide to 
implement a new management technique on buying office equipment and 
technology, if my colleagues come up with better ways to motivate their 
staff and they do not hire as many people in their district office, why 
should that money automatically be respent in somebody else's account? 
That money should go to reduce the deficit.
  I encourage Members to support this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman 
from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding this time to me, and I thank him for his leadership on this 
issue and would associate myself with his remarks, and, Mr. Chairman, I 
rise in support of the Roemer-Camp amendment.
  We all know the Federal Government is drowning in a sea of red ink. 
The Roemer-Camp amendment would help in a very small way at least to 
stem that tide. It would allow unspent office funds to be used 
specifically for deficit reduction.
  As my fellow Members know, every office has provided funds to meet 
office expenses. The funds are not specific to each Member, but Members 
draw upon the account up to a certain level as needed.
  This amendment would reaffirm our commitment to eliminating the 
Federal debt and send a strong message to the American people that we, 
too, are willing to sacrifice and to put our fiscal house in order.
  If every Member saved only $50,000 a year, over $21 million would be 
returned to the Treasury to reduce the Federal debt. This amount 
obviously will not eliminate the Federal debt, but it will show the 
American people that Congress will do more with less in order to 
provide our children with a future that is free of debt and rich with 
opportunity.
  I urge a vote in favor of the Roemer-Camp amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, but I rise in support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have the gentleman's amendment. This is 
the same amendment we have carried for the past 2 years in the bill.
  As we understand the amendment, it would require that any amount 
remaining in the Members' representational allowances account after all 
payments are made under such allowances be deposited in the Treasury 
for deficit reduction.
  As the gentleman knows, the bill does not make representational 
allowances available to specific Members of the House. The calculation 
of how much each Member may spend for staff salaries, office expenses, 
and official mail is determined by law and is under the regulation of 
the Committee on House Oversight.
  That committee notifies each Member of the allowance available for 
each session of Congress. The amounts available are not given to the 
Member. They do not receive a check or a funds transfer. They are only 
given an allowance to draw upon.
  Likewise, the appropriations bill does not make a funds transfer to 
any Member. No MRA amount in this bill is assigned to any specific 
Member. The bill only provides an overall appropriation for the 
combined amount of the MRA's which may be charged against the Treasury.
  And the committee bill does not full fund this amount. The bill 
contains $379.8 million--$379,789,000--for the sum total of MRA's 
during fiscal 1998. That amount is $17 million below the total amount 
authorized to be spent by the Committee on House Oversight.
  So the committee bill has already economized on this item. We know 
that many Members will underspend this allowance. We are saving the $17 
million.
  This amendment says that what is left over after the end of the 
fiscal year will be deposited in the Treasury. That is true in concept 
but I would point out that these unspent funds never leave the Treasury 
to begin with.
  Since this is a fiscal year appropriation, all unspent funds will 
lapse. That is, they will not be available to be spent after the 
conclusion of the fiscal year. So the terms of the bill meet the 
requirements of the amendment.
  It is good to stipulate this fact and that is why I have no problem 
with this amendment.
  So, with that understanding, I have no problem accepting this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the original sponsor and also the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] for their persistence every year 
bringing this back up to the full House. We need their persistence out 
there. It is a great commonsense idea. I am delighted the gentleman has 
just accepted the amendment himself. It is a very commonsense idea to 
save the taxpayers a little money and also encourages Members to lead 
by example, and it is a very simple question really. When Members spend 
less on their office, should it go to this fund where it can be 
reprogrammed into other uses on Capitol Hill, which as I understand is 
a three-year fund, or should it go for deficit reduction?
  As my colleagues know, the answer is quite simple. It actually should 
probably go pro rata to the constituents and taxpayers of the district 
the Member represents because they are the ones who in a sense have 
made the sacrifice. Because that is probably not too practical, at 
least at this point, then I guess it should go to deficit reduction and 
as soon as possible.
  So I want to again commend both of these gentleman for raising this 
issue again, for bringing to the floor and for a little common sense in 
our legislative appropriations bill this year.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana has one-half minute 
remaining.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], who has been very helpful with 
the legislation.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, we have worked for many years in this 
institution to try to gain the credibility of the American people that 
when we talk about deficit reduction and when we take steps as Members 
to actually implement what we believe in that that effort is actually 
recognized in terms of what happens to this Nation's finances. And I 
would like to urge all Members to join with us in supporting this 
measure because indeed this measure allows us in the administration of 
our offices to actually implement what we are urging on the Government 
and the American people.
  I urge all Members to support the Roemer amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 197, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which

[[Page H5892]]

further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio], and Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Klug].


              Amendment Offered By Mr. Fazio of California

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote followed by a 5-minute 
vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 213, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 332]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Largent
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--213

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     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
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Ackerman
     Boucher
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Johnson (WI)
     Lantos
     McDermott
     McInnis
     Metcalf
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Schiff
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Thornberry
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Wexler
     White
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1958

  Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. BATEMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 332, the 
Fazio amendment, I was delayed and unable to vote because my air flight 
was detained because of weather. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 332, I was 
delayed and unable to vote because my air flight was detained because 
of weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 197, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Klug

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 242, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 333]

                               AYES--170

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle

[[Page H5893]]


     Oxley
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield

                               NOES--242

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Calvert
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ackerman
     Boucher
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Lantos
     McDermott
     McInnis
     Metcalf
     Portman
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Schiff
     Smith (MI)
     Thornberry
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Wexler
     White
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2007

  Ms. DANNER, and Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington, Mr. SCARBOROUGH, and Mr. HASTERT 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 333, my air 
flight was detained because of weather. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, because I was unavoidably detained, I was 
absent for rollcall vote No. 333. Had I been in attendance, I would 
have voted ``aye''.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, sadly a number of us sat on an airplane for 6 
hours in Detroit. We unfortunately missed two previous votes today. Had 
I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on both the Klug amendment as 
well as the Fazio amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Collins) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, 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. 2209) 
making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 197, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


              Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Gejdenson

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gejdenson moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2209 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House with an amendment to ensure that all 
     funds in the bill to support the Reserve Fund providing for 
     the hiring of additional committee staff and other related 
     expenses pursuant to clause 5(a) of rule XI are deleted.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I think that if we look at the issues 
that have brought tension to this House and this Congress, this issue 
is clearly among the most important.
  I would like Members of the minority and the majority to take a look 
at the history of how we got here. Pursuant to the rules of the House, 
the reserve fund was established of $7.9 million. At that time I 
referenced this reserve fund as a slush fund. A number of Members on 
the Republican side of the aisle objected.
  In section 5(a) of the reserve fund it was established for 
unanticipated expenses. Well, the request from the committee, the first 
request was to review the Department of Labor and its programs, 
activities, and spending habits. They got some of the slush fund money.
  The original jurisdiction of the committee was to review those very 
same programs, the Department of Labor, its programs, and its 
activities. It was also requested to review the focus of the program 
which had little past review in terms of impact on employees and 
employers. That was also the original description of the committee's 
$10 million worth of funding. So now if this is not a slush fund in the 
worst of its connotations for purely political purposes, the committee 
would have come up with some unanticipated challenges, some new scope 
where they had to go in and review a situation that was not 
anticipated, that was not able to be covered in their $10 million.
  What we found was very anticipated concerns were immediately used to 
get additional funding into this committee. It is a slush fund. If 
Members want to make things a little better here, let us have a chance 
to give some money back to the voters. Let us cut the $7.9 million.
  If the committees have a legitimate need, let them come to the 
Congress of the United States and in front of the American people ask 
for that money. The Republican majority has in the range of $50 million 
worth of investigations going on. I dare say not one American will be 
better off as a result of these investigations.

                              {time}  2015

  The taxpayers will simply lose some of their funds and we will not 
gain new information or, indeed, information on issues that were 
unanticipated.
  It is a $7.9 million slush fund used for political agendas, and they 
cannot come to this Congress and tell us that

[[Page H5894]]

they are trying to run it better when they failed in almost every 
category and now, in the utmost political venture on this floor, they 
have established an almost $8 million fund to be used to go after those 
who have stood up to them.
  Where do they start? They start with labor, with working men and 
women. They take some of that slush fund and they are going to try to 
go after them. The question is, if we allow them to continue with this 
kind of slush fund, which group of Americans will be next? Who will 
they try to intimidate with this $8 million fund, investigating 
citizens of this country who have every right to exercise their own 
political activity?
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I go to the words of the committee and the rules 
of the House. ``Unanticipated expenditures.'' Nothing in the 
expenditures that have been taken from this slush fund were 
unanticipated. It is simply a political attack on the adversaries of 
the majority party.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we can just get 10 Republicans to join us to put 
an end to this slush fund. There are people on the other side of the 
aisle that say they want comity, they went to Hershey trying to make 
friendship. Friendship is designed by peoples' actions. Vote for this 
motion to recommit. Get rid of the $7.8 million, $7.9 million, save the 
taxpayers' money and start building a trusting relationship in this 
House.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This motion is tantamount to killing 
this bill. It sends the bill back to committee, it eliminates all the 
work that the subcommittee, full committee and this House has done to 
this point, and I strenuously oppose any restrictions on the use of the 
reserve fund.
  Mr. Speaker, just because it is said loudly, does not mean it is 
true. This amendment would repeal an action taken earlier this year in 
the committee funding resolution. The House has worked its will on this 
issue. It does not belong in debate on the legislative appropriations 
bill.
  The reserve fund is designed to provide funding flexibility to take 
care of the unanticipated expenses that may arise during the 2-year 
term of this Congress. The committee funding resolution is a 2-year 
funding bill. And I think that in any project to have some 
unanticipated expense funds available is a very proper thing to do.
  The reserve fund is a separate and distinct fund. All expenditures 
will be detailed explicitly to the taxpayer. This is a role for the 
Committee on House Oversight which has been adopted by recorded vote in 
the House and is consistent with the rules of the House. I oppose any 
attempt to limit the ability of the committees of the House to do their 
routine oversight work. I strongly oppose the motion, and I strongly 
urge its defeat.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, it was stated that if the motion carries 
it kills the bill, and it is my understanding that it only sends it 
back. My inquiry is, it is my understanding under the rules it does not 
kill the bill, it simply sends it back to committee to take that 
particular action and return to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman the bill 
would be recommitted to committee.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 198, 
nays 220, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 334]

                               YEAS--198

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     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
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NAYS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     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
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     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
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     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)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ackerman
     Boucher
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     McDermott
     McInnis
     Metcalf
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Schiff
     Torres
     Towns
     Wexler
     White
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2036

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page H5895]]

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 203, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 335]

                               YEAS--214

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

                               NAYS--203

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     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)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Boucher
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     McDermott
     McInnis
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Sanchez
     Schiff
     Torres
     Towns
     Wexler
     White
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2054

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

                          ____________________