[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1117-H1121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2883, GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND 
                RESULTS ACT TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 1998

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 384 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 384

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2883) to amend provisions of law enacted by 
     the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to improve 
     Federal agency strategic plans and performance reports. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of 
     order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Stearns) to speak out of 
order.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to proceed out of order 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)


                 Olympic Committee's 5th Olympic Dinner

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration of the 
Members. I want to call the Members' attention to an upcoming event, 
the United States Olympic Committee's fifth Olympic dinner.
  As co-chair of this dinner, I can assure the membership this will be 
a great event. The President and Vice President usually attend, along 
with Members of the House and Senate. Dozens and dozens of Olympic 
athletes, many making their first appearance since performing in 
Nagano, will be there so that we all can honor them.
  The day of the dinner, many of the Olympians will visit areas schools 
as part of the Champions in Life program, as athletes get a firsthand 
opportunity to instill the values of the Olympic movement in the minds 
and hearts of young people in this community.
  The United States is one of the few countries in the world whose 
government does not support its Olympic athletes financially. Our 
athletes are supported by the American people, volunteers and 
contributors. The least we can do is endorse their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, the dinner is April 29 and I hope all my colleagues will 
attend.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentelwoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that once again the Committee 
on Rules has reported a completely open rule. H. Res. 384 will provide 
for fair and thorough debate of House Resolution 2883, the Government 
Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments of 1997.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in 
order the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight amendment in the 
nature of a substitute as an original bill.
  Under the rule, any germane amendment may be offered and any Member 
of this House who wishes to improve upon the bill may do so. However, 
priority recognition will be given to those Members who have preprinted 
their amendments in the Congressional Record.
  After the amendment process there will be another opportunity for 
those who oppose the bill to be heard through the motion to recommit 
with or without instructions. The rule provides only one waiver which 
pertains to a 3-day layover requirement for the committee reports.
  Finally, to facilitate consideration of H.R. 2883, the rule allows 
the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes and reduce 
voting time to 5 minutes as long as any postponed question follows a 
15-minute vote.
  Mr. Speaker, as the custodians of our Nation's purse strings, 
Congress has an incredible responsibility. We have been entrusted to 
safeguard the hard-earned money that the taxpayers send to Washington. 
It is our responsibility to see to it that those dollars are spent 
wisely and that the American people get the biggest bang for their 
buck, and that is what today's debate is all about.
  With passage of the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993, 
we took an important first step toward fulfilling our responsibility. 
Very simply, the Results Act requires Federal departments and agencies 
to set measurable performance goals in an effort to improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government, a common sense 
request to achieve a very important goal.
  However, it appears that many Federal agencies do not feel quite the 
same sense of responsibility to the taxpayers that Congress does. Many 
agencies were reluctant to develop the strategic plans required by the 
act. And finally, when they did submit their initial drafts, the 
results were disappointing at best.
  For example, very few agencies linked their mission statements to the 
actual statutory authority under which they operate. This suggests that 
agencies do not set their goals and priorities based on what the agency 
has been designed and mandated to do.
  Another troubling pattern among the agencies was their insufficient 
attention to fundamental problems, such as management weaknesses, 
reliability of data, or duplicative functions. These are essential 
issues that must be examined by any organization that hopes to be even 
remotely effective.
  But even though these agencies earned failing grades for their plans 
and appeared to be way off course in terms of fulfilling their primary 
functions, they were still unwilling to exert the extra effort required 
to make the grade. Congress asked the agencies to go back and improve 
upon their plans, but under existing law the agencies do not have to 
submit any additional information for three more years.

[[Page H1118]]

  H.R. 2883 addresses this roadblock to progress by requiring the 
submission of revised agency reports by the end of this fiscal year. 
These reports must provide the fundamental information lacking in the 
previous reports to ensure that an accurate picture of the agencies' 
operations is painted.
  Now, some oppose this bill, claiming it would be too burdensome for 
the agencies, but this is not about the bureaucracy's hardship, this is 
about the unjustifiable financial burden we place on American 
taxpayers. If Congress takes its responsibilities to the taxpayers 
seriously, we cannot just talk about a smaller, smarter, common-sense 
government, we must back that rhetoric with action. And it is not 
enough to simply pass a bill to require accountability among agencies 
if we do not enforce it. We must demand compliance, and if the law 
proves too weak it is incumbent upon Congress to strengthen it.
  Mr. Speaker, we must be relentless in our pursuit for complete and 
honest information that will allow us to make wise decisions and 
prudent investments of taxpayers' dollars. H.R. 2883 takes us to the 
next step in our quest for efficient, effective government by requiring 
agencies to fill in the gaps and glaring omissions in their strategic 
plans sooner rather than later. The taxpayers deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind my colleagues that this is a 
fair rule providing a wide open amendment process and thorough debate 
on the issue at hand. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule 
and support all our Nation's taxpayers by voting ``yes'' on the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 
for yielding me this customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule would allow all germane 
amendments to be offered, and while I support the open rule, I am 
somewhat dismayed that the Committee on Rules chose not to allow a 
related amendment which would have implemented one of the first 
promises in the majority's Contract With America.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Dennis Kucinich), the subcommittee 
ranking member, brought to the Committee on Rules an amendment he had 
offered at the full committee. The amendment would have fulfilled the 
Contract With America's pledge that Congress should abide by the 
mandates it places on others. His amendment would have applied the 
Government Performance and Results Act to the committees of the 
Congress.
  It does seem inconsistent that the majority chose not to allow a vote 
on applying the act's requirements to Congress. If we are serious about 
holding government accountable and improving its efficiency and 
effectiveness, we should certainly start in our own back yard.
  I also have concerns about the underlying bill. I strongly supported 
the Government Performance and Results Act when it became law in 1993. 
The goal of GPRA was to make agencies undertake strategic planning and 
performance evaluations to streamline their operations and to make them 
more efficient. And I am a firm believer that the government needs to 
be accountable and continually strive to improve its economy and 
efficiency.
  However, H.R. 2883 contradicts this spirit. A central requirement of 
this bill is the resubmission of strategic plans by all covered 
agencies by September 30, 1998. The premise of this new requirement is 
that the plans submitted less than 6 months ago were all so unusable as 
to be worthless. This is simply not true. The General Accounting Office 
has concluded that the current strategic plans provide a workable 
foundation for Congress to use in helping to fulfill its 
appropriations, budget, authorization and oversight responsibilities.
  Instead of starting over at square one, the GPRA process should 
continue under the oversight of the appropriate authorization and 
appropriations committees of jurisdiction.

                              {time}  1030

  It is inefficient and uneconomical to require all agencies to repeat 
work that they have just completed no matter whether their plan was 
prepared well or poorly. Let us move ahead with the Reinventing 
Government initiative rather than going backward.
  Mr. Speaker, while I have reservations about the underlying bill, I 
do not oppose this open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder), distinguished member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express strong support for this wide-open rule 
and for H.R. 2883, the Government Performance and Results Act Technical 
Amendments.
  President Reagan used to say that the most frightening greeting was, 
``Hello, I'm with the Federal Government and I'm here to help you.'' I 
think a close second would be, ``I'm with the Federal Government, and 
you can trust me to spend your money wisely.''
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to common-sense decision making and 
spending money wisely, the grades on performance by Federal agencies 
are in. Unfortunately, the average score has risen only from 29.9 to 
46.6. I think most American children could imagine the reaction of 
their parents if they brought home report cards that looked like these. 
This is, unbelievably, an improvement, but it is still obviously 
inadequate.
  We must insist on a smaller, smarter, common-sense government. That 
is why this legislation sends a message to agencies to come up with a 
more solid strategic plan that allows us to monitor performance clearly 
and directly. Congress passed the Results Act to hold Federal agencies 
accountable for efficiency and achieving results. This bill can be a 
tremendous tool to eliminate waste and fraud in the government, and 
today's legislation is designed to maximize the use of this tool.
  The Federal Government spends trillions of dollars of the American 
taxpayers' money, and it is very important for all of us to remember 
that it is not the Federal Government's money. On the first day, an 
American citizen pays a cent in taxes, that citizen becomes a 
shareholder in the Government and wants to see a healthy return on 
their investment.
  I support reinforcing the Results Act, because I cannot believe that 
any shareholder in any company would every tolerate mismanagement, 
waste, or illogical planning. In our commitment to hold the Government 
accountable to those who pay for it, this bill creates the framework 
for the American people to judge how their money is being spent.
  Mr. LINDER. As for those who express concern that this bill does not 
include in it oversight of committees of Congress, let me remind them 
that this bill was passed in 1993, when the Democrats were in the 
majority, and they chose not to include oversight of the committees of 
Congress that they were at the time sharing. This is merely a technical 
amendment to that act, following their lines.
  I strongly support enhancing this performance-based management system 
in order to ensure that this government achieves results-oriented goals 
and reacts to serious management problems. The American people expect 
smarter decisions based on common sense and they want to see results as 
soon as possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote in favor of this 
very important legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate as 
the ranking member of the committee. And I am pleased to be here with 
my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), to speak 
about our concerns about the bill.
  But first of all, I want to say I support the rule, but I am 
disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not shield from a point of 
order an amendment that I think would be quite significant, which I 
want to speak about in a few seconds. But first of all, I am a little 
bit concerned at the outset, as

[[Page H1119]]

we are starting this debate, about this persistent attack on government 
itself. I mean this is our government. This is the government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people; and I think that these 
attacks on government that are occurring here ought to be exposed for 
what they are. They are really attacks on the democratic process itself 
and on the people's right to self-determination, to have a government, 
administration, and the Congress have direct control over this 
government.
  So I think that is going to be part of the issue that is going to be 
debated here today. And, also, we are going to debate whether or not we 
are truly accomplishing efficiency by asking 100 Federal agencies to 
have to do reports all over again, reports that took months and months 
to prepare, reports that we are now told all of them are trash, 
government agencies which are working for the people in this country, 
after they spent long hours being accountable proving what the 
performances were, proving what their plans are, and then having all 
those things thrown out on the basis of a grading system that no one 
has even explained. We need to debate that today, too, even as we can 
say well, we accept the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, when I testified before the Committee on Rules 
yesterday, I asked the rule to protect an amendment from a 
parliamentary point of order. However, the honorable opposition 
apparently does not wish to have any debate about whether the 
committees of Congress ought to be subject to the same sound management 
practices which are required from Federal agencies. And that is a 
shame, because it is clear to me, after only a year in this Congress, 
that our congressional committees need greater accountability and 
efficiency. And I think it would be of great benefit to the 
congressional committees, which are operated honorably and with great 
skill by our friends on the other side of the aisle, I think this would 
be a great benefit to have those committees be accountable to the 
Government Performance and Results Act in the same way that the 
administration should be. If we are serious about holding governmental 
agencies accountable, I think we should show by example and start right 
here in the Congress.
  When we passed GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act, our 
goal was to make the government more accountable not only to the 
Congress, but to the American people. We wanted agencies to set out 
clear goals and to set a plan for reaching those goals. And that is 
important. That was the right thing to do. And by requiring agencies to 
know where they are going and how they are going to get there, we hope 
to make government more efficient and to eliminate waste and 
duplication and add something. That is something I think all of us can 
agree on; we all agree that Government should be more efficient and 
that we should eliminate waste and duplication.
  In the beginning of the 104th Congress, Mr. Speaker, Congress passed 
the Congressional Accountability Act; and then, for the first time, 
Congress was asked to abide by the same laws everyone else has to abide 
by. And that is what my amendment would have done. And I said it then 
and it was said then and I agree that Congress writes better laws and 
it has to live by the laws that it imposes on the executive branch and 
the private sector.
  The goal of a more efficient government is just as important for 
Congress as it is for the executive branch. Congressional committees, 
like executive agencies, should set out a clear plan on what they hope 
to accomplish and how they hope to accomplish it. We in Congress should 
be held accountable for eliminating waste and duplication.
  So, Mr. Speaker, today I am hopeful that we will have an opportunity 
to apply GPRA to Congress, which would undoubtedly give Members of 
Congress better insight into strategic planning and performance-based 
management and would help us write better laws, which I know we are all 
here to do.
  The bill came out of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. I think that, when we look at the campaign finance 
investigation, we could see that, if we had strategic planning concepts 
involved there, that would make for some better investigations and 
probably eliminated a lot of the duplication, and this would help the 
committees, the Congress and the country.
  For example, the Commerce Department received 64 requests for 
documents in connection with campaign finance inquiries from nine 
different congressional committees. As of last September 1997, the 
Commerce Department submitted almost a million, 1 million pages of 
documents in response to these requests at a total cost of $2 million.
  So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if we apply GPRA to Congress and 
committees, I think we could eliminate some waste and duplication that 
has characterized even the most sincere efforts to try to investigate 
things in this administration as well as across the country.
  We would save the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. 
Requiring Congress to comply with the Government Performance and 
Results Act is just common sense. I am hopeful that, when we get to 
that process, we will get that amendment approved.
  Again, I am supporting the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton) from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me say to my colleague who just spoke, the 
gentleman from Ohio, that I am sorry his amendment will not be made in 
order because of the Rules of the House. What I would like to do is 
inform the gentleman that we do have accountability in the Congress. It 
is not necessary to put it in this particular bill.
  In every session, an oversight plan has to be filed with the 
Committee on House Oversight by February 15. Every committee in the 
House does that. So we already do that.
  If the gentleman would refer to page 427 of the Rules of the House, 
and I would like to read it to him, he will find that not later than 
February 15 of the first session of the Congress, each standing 
committee of the House shall, and we do, in a meeting that is open to 
the public, and with a quorum present, adopt its oversight plans for 
that Congress.
  Such plans shall be submitted simultaneously to the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, our committee on which the gentleman 
and I serve, and to the Committee on House Oversight, the committee of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  In developing such plans, each committee shall, to the maximum extent 
feasible, and then it goes on and lays out very clearly what we are 
supposed to do. That changes from time to time with each session of 
Congress.
  Let me just say that we have oversight plans from each committee of 
Congress. All we want to do with the bill we have before us today is to 
apply businesslike standards and requirements for every agency of 
government so that the taxpayer who pays the bills for all this gets 
the bang for the buck that they want.
  We get that in the Congress. The rules of the House spell it out very 
clearly. I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio, the very 
distinguished former mayor of Cleveland, take a good look at the rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who I am very honored to serve 
with in this Congress, I would say that, if there is a sense in which 
we are already doing it, then, perhaps, there should not be any 
objection to the amendment that I am offering, which simply asks that 
Congress has to respond in the same way that the executive agencies 
have to through the Government Performance and Results Act.
  While I, too, agree with my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton), that there ought to be businesslike standards involved, I 
do not know any business that could survive having to do the same plans 
over and over.
  We have the largest business in America here. It is the United States 
of America. We have 100 different agencies that did strategic planning. 
We did the plans. The plans were complete. Now, we are told that every 
one of those plans, somehow every single one of them are not worth 
anything. They should be thrown out. We have to start all over again.

[[Page H1120]]

  I would say that is not very businesslike and that is not very 
efficient. I say that with all due respect to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) a member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will save substantive remarks on the proposal as a 
whole for the debate. But I would like to say a few things in response 
to my fine colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the new 
ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology.
  Number one, in 1993 the original Government Performance and Results 
Act of 1993 was bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported by this 
Chamber. One agency in the bill that was specifically exempt was the 
General Accounting Office. Why? Because it is part of the legislative 
branch. We do not have jurisdiction in the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight and its Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, which I chair, on matters in the 
legislative branch or the judicial branch. We have jurisdiction over 
what happens in the executive branch.
  We are coming here today to make sure that the plans that were passed 
on a bipartisan basis in the 103d Congress controlled by the Democrats 
will be brought up to date. It is not a case of dumping plans. It is 
getting them right in the first place. That is what we are talking 
about.
  Since I am reminded of 1993, when the base legislation was passed on 
a bipartisan basis, I would merely like to observe that the House spent 
$1 million in that Congress on a reform group chaired by two of our 
most distinguished colleagues who are still in Congress, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), Democrat, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), Republican. They did an outstanding job.
  Most of us wanted those reform proposals to come to the floor in the 
Democratic Congress. Yet, neither the Speaker at that time--the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley)--nor the Majority Leader at that 
time--the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt)--would let that reform 
proposal come to the floor. That is what is wrong.
  When we took over in the 104th Congress, we did the first audit since 
1789. This place had never been audited. Every Member received a copy 
of that audit. So for the first time in the history of the Congress, 
Members knew where the money was going around here.

                              {time}  1045

  Number two, the Speaker substantially reorganized committees on our 
side. Hundreds of people that were not necessary were let go. We honed 
the subcommittees to get the job done.
  We are still doing that. We are very conscious of it. As the chairman 
of the full committee said, we have our basic jurisdiction set out in 
the rules. We have looked at the Rules of the House. The Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight receives the oversight plan from every 
other committee, and if they have a hole in their proposal, our 
committee can get into the issues involved with relation to the 
executive branch.
  But that is the issue. It is not Congress. It is the executive 
branch.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak more on this bill when 
we get into the general debate, but I did want to take this opportunity 
to clarify the record. The GPRA legislation, the underlying bill that 
we are considering today, did pass the House by a bipartisan majority. 
It was overwhelmingly approved. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn) has made that statement. But he and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) have both told us that we cannot now apply the same 
standards to the Congress because, one, it is not within the 
jurisdiction, the House rules would prevent it, et cetera, et cetera, 
et cetera.
  These are excuses. They are the kind of excuses that I am surprised 
to hear from the other side. Because one of the things the Republicans 
did, for which they deserve a great deal of credit, is when we 
organized the Congress in 1995, they said that the rules that are going 
to apply to everyone else should also apply to the Congress. It was a 
reform that was long overdue. We all supported it. I was even amazed 
why we had not thought of it earlier. But the fact of the matter is, it 
made sense.
  But now we are hearing excuses about why we cannot have the same 
rules that this legislation sets up for the executive branch apply to 
the Congress. There is no reason for it. The House rules do not prevent 
it. It is not unprecedented.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. Congress passed legislation 
dealing with unfunded mandates, requirements on other levels of 
government. We said, if the executive branch develops a proposal or 
regulation that is going to provide for an unfunded mandate, they are 
going to require special isolation of that issue so that it is clear 
that is what they are doing; and the same would apply to the Congress.
  Both the Congress and the executive branch were covered in that 
legislation, appropriately. Why should we say that they cannot pass 
unfunded mandates, but we can; or we should not give any special 
consideration to unfunded mandates on either the executive branch or 
the legislative branch?
  Let me give my colleagues a second example. Our very committee has a 
bill dealing with standards for child care. Very appropriate. In that 
legislation they talk about standards that would apply to child care 
that would be administered by the executive branch. But in that same 
bill, they require the same standards to apply to child care run by the 
legislative branch. It makes sense.
  Let us not hear excuses why in the rule we are not going to permit an 
amendment that would apply the same standards to the Congress that we 
are asking of the administration, and that is that we develop a 
reasonable plan.
  I will have more to say about this when we get into general debate, 
but I did not want anybody watching this debate to be fooled by all of 
these excuses.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule. This is what I 
requested on behalf of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  It is an open rule. It provides opportunities for various Members of 
the House on both sides of the aisle to offer constructive amendments 
and suggestions.
  We have had a lot of people on the staff of this committee and the 
subcommittee and the majority leader's office, who have done very 
helpful things. I will acknowledge them and their splendid work at the 
conclusion of the debate. But I want particularly to note at this time 
the work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) who chairs the 
Results Caucus. I hope he will have a lot to say on the substantive 
aspects once this rule is adopted.
  I also particularly thank at this time the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney), the retiring minority ranking member who has had some 
very constructive amendments; and we have worked out most of those 
details, and we will deal with that in the substantive debate. She has 
been a constructive member of this subcommittee for the last three 
years, and we are sorry she is leaving to be the Ranking Minority 
Member on the Census Subcommittee.
  Again, we have an excellent bill. It is a good rule. I urge our 
colleagues in both parties to support both.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. 
I remind this body that this is an open rule. I yield back the balance 
of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H1121]]

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Without objection, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum 
time for electronic voting, if ordered, on approving the Journal on 
which proceedings will resume immediately after this 15-minute vote on 
adopting the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412, 
nays 0, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 48]

                               YEAS--412

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ackerman
     Crane
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     McHugh
     Poshard
     Redmond
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Souder
     Tanner

                              {time}  1111

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii and Mr. BARTON of Texas changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________