[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.
____________________