[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 95 (Monday, July 12, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5488-H5497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 707 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4755.

                              {time}  1753


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4755) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Linder 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 Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today to present the Legislative branch appropriation bill for 
fiscal year 2005 to the House for consideration, and I want to start by 
thanking not just the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my ranking 
member, but I wanted to say thanks to all the subcommittee staff who 
have worked hard to make this bill possible: Liz Dawson, who is our 
Chief Clerk; Chuck Turner, our Staff Assistant; Kathy Rohan; Celia 
Alvarado; Tom Forhan; Tim Aiken; Bill Johnson; Heather McNatt; and 
Jennifer Hing.
  I wanted to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the 
ranking member, that I have enjoyed working with him and working with 
all the subcommittee members. We have put together I think a good bill. 
We have had a number of amendments, some committee debate on it, and I 
think the product is a better bill because of that.
  It is a bipartisan bill and somewhat noncontroversial. I am not aware 
of any angst that Members have; although I know everybody would improve 
it here or there, given the opportunity.
  This bill actually funds the House of Representatives and all the 
various support agencies, including the Capitol Hill Police, the 
Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Government 
Printing Office and the General Accounting Office.
  The bill is $2.7 billion, which does not include the Senate items; 
and traditionally we do not fill in the blanks for the Senate. They do 
not fill in the blanks for us.
  The bill came in below the budget request and is basically flat, 
meaning that the size of it is about the same as what it was last year. 
It does, however, provide for the current staffing levels. It includes 
cost of living increases and other increases here and there for 
inflationary reasons. There are no deductions in force, and yet we have 
kept new initiatives off it and tried to defer funding on certain 
projects.
  Overall, the bill started out with a request level of $3.1 billion, 
and we were able to work that down to the $2.7 billion,
  My colleagues may also recall that the fiscal year 2004 bill was 
brought to the floor with a decrease from the 2003 levels. So the 
Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations has done 
its best to practice fiscal restraint and try to keep the President's 
goal in mind of a 1 percent increase for nondefense and homeland 
security discretionary spending, and we are actually below that.
  There are a number of important things in this bill, but what I might 
do is I see some Members are here to speak on it. At this point, I see 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, is here; 
and I will give him an opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) has, in fact, 
been fair. We have worked out an appropriations bill that we can both 
live with. So this should not take an inordinate amount of time.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, there is some disagreement over 
the rule, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) I know will 
be addressing a consideration of the rule, but that was not a matter 
that was left open to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) or 
myself. It was an amendment that might have been added.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has an amendment that he 
would at least like to talk about, and I think it has considerable 
merit, but there are a lot of things that had considerable merit that 
are not included within this bill.
  We had a very tight, tough 302(b) allocation; and it was felt that 
the Congress itself has to lead by example. Our original requests were 
not realistic. They would have increased spending in this 
appropriations bill by more than 14 percent above last year's spending 
level; and some of the major parts of this campus, the Capitol Police, 
the Architect of the Capitol, et cetera, had increases that were over 
30 percent this year over last year. So they were not granted.
  What we have before us is basically a flat bill. It is actually a .1 
percent cut below last year's level. It is probably unprecedented. 
Maybe somebody is going to find an appropriation bill that was actually 
cut below the prior year, but I am skeptical that there is such a 
thing. I think all of us would have liked more money for a number of 
components of this bill, but it is responsible, and, as far as I am 
concerned, it is a fair bill. It covers in full, mandatory cost 
increases without resorting to any layoffs or RIFs.
  In terms of percentages, the Office of the Attending Physician, who 
does a great job, Dr. Eisold and his colleagues are terrific and often 
called for in crisis situations, they receive a 13.7 percent increase, 
well justified, but the Open World Leadership Program, which I also 
think is well-justified, fared the worst with a 50 percent cut.

[[Page H5489]]

                              {time}  1800

  Hopefully, we will be able to restore some of that money in 
conference.
  Now, somewhere in between those two ends of the spectrum, all the 
other legislative branch agencies, the Congressional Budget Office, the 
Office of Compliance, Government Printing Office, our own Members' 
Representational Allowance, they will receive considerably less than 
was requested, but certainly enough to carry out their primary 
responsibilities and missions.
  The Capitol Police will be given approximately a 6 percent increase 
and additional flexibility to use unobligated funds from last year to 
cover most of their new equipment needs.
  I am disappointed that this bill, though, does impose such a stiff 
cut to the Open World Leadership program, because it promotes democracy 
by bringing foreign leaders from Russia and other countries that were 
satellites of the Soviet Union to study our democratic institutions, 
something that is very much needed. And when we consider the relative 
costs if we do not get democracy embedded in those countries, it is 
substantially greater, obviously.
  I am also troubled the public printer will lack the funds to 
modernize the functions of the Government Printing Office. But I am 
pleased that, despite the overall freeze, the chairman agreed, and I 
think we had the consensus of our subcommittee, that we should finally 
establish a staff fitness center. So I trust that the staff is going to 
be very pleased with that, and it is something that a number of us have 
been wanting to see go forward.
  The Congress, of course, is the institution that is at the heart of 
this great Republic's democracy. A $2.75 billion budget is less than 
.15 percent of the proposed total Federal budget. It is a small price 
to pay for a legislative body that represents the world's greatest 
democracy.
  So while the bill is fair, we do fall far short of what we may need 
to do in the future to provide for this institution's needs, the people 
who work here, and the people who visit here. If we attempt to continue 
such a tight budget in future years, and I am afraid that the same 
justification is going to apply, with large looming deficits for the 
next decade, then this institution will truly suffer.
  The flat funding we have in this budget will not be sustainable. It 
will trigger reductions in force, it will compromise security, it will 
render our now current computer information systems obsolete and 
ineffective, and it will undermine improvements in productivity and 
efficiency that will subsequently drive up future maintenance costs. 
Popular initiatives, like digitizing the Library of Congress' 
collections and sharing its wealth of literary material with the 
public, simply will not happen.
  We cannot balance the budget by freezing the legislative branch's 
budget. In fact, we cannot even balance the budget by freezing all of 
discretionary spending. So we do have some fundamental differences 
about our Nation's priorities, but those fall outside the scope of this 
committee. I am not going to dwell on them.
  This year's appropriation bills mark the beginning of what in the 
past has been an abstract budget debate, but we are now getting into 
the real consequences of a budget resolution that I think is 
insufficient, and we are going to have to address those 302(b) 
allocations in the future.
  Again, specifically, the legislative branch appropriation bill is a 
fair bill. I think it is reasonable and sustainable, at least for this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have a lot of good things in 
this bill. We had some good subcommittee-and committee-level debates 
and a number of amendments. One such amendment actually encourages 
Members of Congress to lease or use hybrid fuel-efficiency cars. This 
amendment was debated and offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp) and successfully put on it. He is here, and he is going to 
address that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank both the ranking member and the chairman for the work 
they do. Having served on this subcommittee for 6 years, I know the 
important work that they do.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people probably do not pay a whole lot of 
attention to this bill, because a lot of it is inside the Beltway, but 
I know the American people are keenly aware of the rising cost of 
gasoline and the need for our country to be independent of energy 
sources and not so dependent on oil. And I do not want to encourage any 
extra government spending whatsoever.
  A number of Members either take a mileage reimbursement for official 
travel, which is totally permissible under the rules, or they lease a 
vehicle at government expense. And in either case, this resolution 
encourages Members to use hybrid electric or alternatively fueled 
vehicles. Why? Because the American people expect us to lead. And a lot 
of them are asking what are we going to do about our dependence on 
foreign oil; what can we do to lower our cost of fuel.
  In the past, the options have not been too good. But this fall, in 
this country, there are at least eight hybrid electric vehicles in the 
marketplace for American consumers, including domestic vehicles, from 
pickup trucks to SUVs, where you can double your gas mileage. The new 
Ford Escape, and I have one on order, will get 38 miles per gallon. It 
is a small SUV. Throw your kids in the back, or if you are taking staff 
around the district, drive one of those. Or even a foreign model, if 
your constituents like that or will allow that. Some will not. But you 
have all the options, and we want to encourage this.
  The resolution simply says it is the sense of the House of 
Representatives that Members of the House who use vehicles in traveling 
for official or representational purposes, including Members who lease 
vehicles for which the lease payments are made using funds provided 
under the Members' Representational Allowance, are encouraged to use 
hybrid electric or alternatively fueled vehicles whenever possible, as 
the use of these vehicles will help to move our Nation forward toward 
the use of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and reduce our dependence on 
oil.
  We need to accelerate the transition to a hydrogen economy away from 
a petroleum-based economy, clean up the air, secure our liberty, and 
Members should lead by example. As the cochairman of the Renewable 
Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus here in the House, the Republican 
cochairman, with my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), 
we have over 228 to 232 Members, well over a majority of this body are 
members, we encourage the use of these hybrid electric vehicles, and it 
begins with us. Lead by example.
  If my colleagues are taking the mileage or if you lease a vehicle, we 
encourage you to use these alternative-fuel vehicles, double your gas 
mileage, and move us towards a secure energy future. I commend the 
chairman for including this important language.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this 
time, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise to deal with one aspect of this bill, and that is that it does 
not impose, as I would like it to, a $25,000 limit on the amount of 
postage spent by any one committee in any one year. That would be 
$50,000 a Congress or $25,000 as an annual limit.
  After all, in the 107th Congress, encompassing 2002 and 2001, the 
average amount spent by the highest-spending committee was $6,807. In 
fact, in looking at the entire history of this House, I cannot find an 
example where any committee prior to the 108th Congress ever needed to 
spend more than $10,000 on postage.
  A $25,000 limit seems like it provides plenty of room, particularly 
for a country that faces the kinds of fiscal problems that we face. And 
yet, why would I even think it necessary in a House where no committee 
had until the 108th Congress spent even $10,000 on postage, why would I 
think it necessary to come to this floor to seek a $25,000 annual 
limit? The reason is that

[[Page H5490]]

one committee, and this could be the opening of Pandora's box, decided 
in the 108th Congress to engage in a program of mass mailings in 
selected Members' districts.
  That committee, in the 107th Congress, spent an average of $2,483, 
that is less than $2,500 on postage. But in the 108th Congress, they 
came before the Committee on House Administration and asked for 
$250,000 for postage for 1 year, and in fact asked for $.5 million on 
postage for the 2 years making up the 108th Congress.
  So think of this. This is a 4,445 percent increase over what that 
same committee had requested for the prior Congress. But if that does 
not bother the fiscal conservatives in this room, reflect that it was a 
9,968 percent increase over what that committee actually spent in the 
prior Congress.
  Now, in fact, the Committee on House Administration did not provide 
for this one authorizing committee to have $.5 million for postage, but 
they did provide $50,000 for 2003 and another $50,000 for 2004. And 
this committee in fact spent $49,587 on postage just in one invoice in 
December 2003. And, in fact, in order to have something to mail for 
$49,000 in postage, they spent $40,000 printing the material that was 
mailed, just to send out material into a very few Members' districts.
  Now, the affected Members did not, to my knowledge, have any 
objection to the contents. But mark my words, this is the beginning. If 
we pass this legislative approps bill with no limits, then this one 
authorizing committee may come and ask for $.5 million on postage for 
the 109th Congress. They may ask for $2 million or $3 million in 
postage. Other committees may get in on the deal, and then we may have 
a circumstance where the Chair of each committee has a multi-million 
dollar postage slush fund to do mailings in the different Members' 
districts.
  Now, how is this different for the Member communications that we are 
all aware of? Because we all mail into our own districts newsletters, 
et cetera. Well, first, each Member gets a limited MRA. In contrast, 
the amount that could be provided under this leg approps bill for a 
single committee to do mass mailings is unlimited.
  Secondly, and I think this is the most important difference, every 
mailing says published and mailed and printed at government expense, so 
that the recipients of the mailing can hold the author accountable. If 
I am sending out useless mailings to my constituents, they can circle 
that line and remember it when the ballot box is in play.
  In contrast, if a Chair mails into my district or mails into another 
Member's district, and the recipients of that mailing think that it is 
useless, that it is highly political, that it is propaganda, that it is 
on a subject they are not interested in, what recourse do they have?
  I guess they could pick up and move to the district of the Chair who 
sent out the mailing. But assuming they are unwilling to move from one 
part of the country to the other, they have no recourse. So once we 
have Chairs sending out mailings, these mailings have no check on them. 
There is no accountability, and there is no way for the recipients to 
register their belief that the mailing is useless.
  In addition, MRA funds are distributed equally to Members regardless 
of their political party. But if we see $.5 million appropriated by 
this bill allocated to a particular chairman to do mass mailings into 
Members' districts, that will be entirely money for one party and zero 
for Members of the other party.
  Now, I want to stress my proposal here is bipartisan. In fact, it is 
designed to affect Democratic chairmen. That is to say, it affects the 
2005 fiscal year, when I hope and expect Democratic Chairs will be the 
ones that will be able to do these mass mailings. But I do not care 
whether it is Democrats or Republicans. We should not have mass 
mailings going out by Chairs. That is why I would like to enter into 
the Record a letter from the National Taxpayers Union and another from 
Citizens Against Government Waste.

                              {time}  1815

  Each of them says that we ought to limit to $25,000 a year as a first 
step the amount spent on postage by any committee. This marks the first 
time that any legislative proposal of mine has been formally endorsed 
by the National Taxpayers Union and by Citizens Against Government 
Waste.
  I know that people will want to come to this floor and reflexively 
vote against any motion to recommit, at least members of the majority, 
but your vote determines whether you endorse opening Pandora's box to 
unlimited mailings.

                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 12, 2004.
     Hon. Brad Sherman,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Sherman: On behalf of the 350,000-member 
     National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I am responding to your 
     request for NTU's views on a proposal to limit each 
     Committee's expenditure on postage to the sum of no more than 
     $25,000 per year.
       Even as overall postage and printing expenditures have 
     declined from the $100 million-plus levels once seen in 
     Congress 15 years ago, franking remains a source of fiscal 
     and political interest to NTU. The already-generous limits 
     governing the use of postage by House Members' personal 
     offices were lifted in 1999, while new computer technologies 
     have allowed lawmakers to maximize the impact of their 
     mailings in ways that were not feasible as recently as ten 
     years ago. Today, it is still possible for an incumbent House 
     Member to spend as much on franking in a year as a challenger 
     spends on his or her entire campaign. Rules regarding the 
     content and proximity of mailings to elections only modestly 
     offset this tremendous political advantage.
       During our 15-year campaign on behalf of franking reform, 
     NTU has focused on Member offices because they are the 
     primary source of unsolicited mass mailings and associated 
     expenditures. We were thus surprised to learn of a single 
     Committee's FY 2005 postage request for $250,000 in the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.
       NTU is greatly concerned over the prospect of any Committee 
     in Congress receiving postage fundings in these amounts, as 
     it would mark a significant expansion of the franking 
     privilege that had traditionally been utilized in large part 
     by Member offices. Such concern is irrespective of the 
     immediate policy issue at hand or the parties involved. If 
     the House sets a budget precedent now, taxpayers will very 
     shortly face the unwelcome prospect of tens of millions in 
     additional franking expenditures in future Congresses. 
     Equally, important Americans would be forced to contend with 
     a new set of issues affecting the balance of the political 
     process.
       Years of efforts from groups like NTU and reformers within 
     Congress have yielded an improved, yet imperfect, franking 
     disclosure process. Despite instances of poor recordkeeping, 
     inadequate disclosure, and overly-permissive rules, today 
     constituents at least have limited access to basic franking 
     information--giving them a chance to hold House Members 
     politically accountable for the unsolicited mass mailings 
     they send into their districts at taxpayer expense. Allowing 
     such a practice at the Committee level, where ties between 
     Members and constituents are less direct, would undermine 
     even this limited progress.
       It is especially galling that Congress would even consider 
     an additional taxpayer-financed expansion of the franking 
     privilege under the current fiscal and political 
     circumstances. Amidst FY 2005 budget deficit estimates 
     approaching $400 billion, and a campaign finance law that 
     further hamstrings political challengers, allowing such a 
     huge postage funding request for any Committee will further 
     reinforce Congress's reputation as an institution incapable 
     of self-restraint.
       Given the historical patterns of Committee expenditures, a 
     $25,000 annual limit on postage for each Committee is more 
     than adequate for any legitimate communication needs. 
     Seemingly minor budget requests such as the one before 
     Congress now can have major consequences for taxpayers in the 
     not-too-distant future. For this reason alone, the House of 
     Representatives can and should restrict Committee postage 
     expenditures--and a $25,000 annual limit is a reasonable 
     first step.
       Please feel free to contact me should you have an 
     additional questions regarding our position.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Pete Sepp,
     Vice President for Communications.
                                  ____

                                              Council for Citizens


                                     Against Government Waste,

                                                    July 12, 2004.
     Representative Brad Sherman,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Sherman: The more than one million 
     members and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against 
     Government Waste would like to express their appreciation for 
     your cost-saving effort to limit each Committee to spending 
     $25,000 a year on postage.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Thomas Schatz,
                                                        President.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to respond to my friend from California a little bit.

[[Page H5491]]

  Number one, this, as we all know, is an appropriation bill; and the 
proper place to deal with a franking issue, of course, would be on an 
authorizing bill. I hope that our friend is taking his concerns to the 
proper committee, which would be the Committee on House Administration.
  But I also wanted to say, in the spirit of good government, what I 
would like to see is Members of Congress and the institution going out 
into America, into the States a little bit more. As I understand it, 
talking to some committee chairmen, they actually use this franking 
privilege in their field hearings.
  I sit on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. I used to be on the 
Committee on Agriculture. What is more important than our food policy 
out there? If we had the Committee on Agriculture going out and talking 
about the dairy program or the peanut program or whatever, sending out 
letters to people to say, come to this congressional hearing that is 
going to be in your neighborhood, come raise Cain with your 
Congressman, I think that would be a good thing.
  Certainly the Committee on Ways and Means, the taxing committee, my 
folks down in the little briar patch that I represent would love to go 
out and, frankly, raise hell with everybody that writes our tax policy.
  Then there is the Committee on Energy and Commerce. They control 
telecommunications. We passed several years ago the slamming bill. That 
is something that I know has affected a lot of people. If there was an 
opportunity for the common, everyday citizen to go to a field hearing 
and raise Cain about how slamming was done on their phone service, I 
think that would be a healthy thing.
  I am not sure that a $25,000 limit would be good enough to have 
people come, but I think what we need is more sunshine and more public 
input. That is why I am hesitant to accept the $25,000 limit just on 
face value because I know that these notices are important. But I also 
know, Mr. Chairman, that the committees who use these have them signed 
off by the minority and the majority party and so there is a system of 
fairness.
  Again, in terms of fiscal restraint, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from California for getting an endorsement from the National 
Taxpayers Union, but I also want to say that this bill, we are very 
happy to say, is flat funding, if not a little less than last year. So 
we are with him at least on that angle.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), who has come up through the ranks as a former staffer and 
worked very hard and continues to work hard on staff quality of life. 
One of the issues that we are facing, we lose lots of staff here on 
Capitol Hill. The gentleman from Illinois has worked tirelessly to 
protect the quality of life for somebody who works here.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership on the Subcommittee on 
Legislative. I certainly rise in support.
  I would ask Members, after reviewing the amendments, to vote against 
the amendments. I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) have worked very hard on this 
bill to make sure it is the right mix of staffing for the House of 
Representatives, the right mix of staffing for our law enforcement 
personnel, the right mix for the Library of Congress and for all those 
who serve the Members of Congress.
  I know Members like to take the opportunity from time to time when 
they have a complaint maybe against another Member or against another 
committee or somebody else to come to the floor and use this bill to 
try and carry out some kind of a complaint or a gripe that they have. 
This is not the bill to do it. I would urge Members to vote against the 
amendments that are being proposed.
  As a member of the subcommittee, I have worked very hard over the 
last several years on the issue of improving the quality of life for 
employees of the House of Representatives, particularly as it relates 
to their health care, particularly as it relates to the issue of 
whether our employees of the House of Representatives should have some 
kind of health fitness center similar to the kind of center that we 
have for Members where staff, who work here pretty much 24/7 when we 
are in session, can have the opportunity to go and to work out and to 
keep healthy. We have accomplished that goal.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership in 
providing the funding in this bill and also the gentleman from 
Virginia, who obviously represents a lot of the employees, for his 
leadership for including the money so that we can begin, once this bill 
is signed by the President, to have the construction of a health 
fitness center for our employees for the House of Representatives.
  This is an important issue. There is a lot of talk about obesity and 
health care and how do we all stay healthy. Working around here is 
very, very demanding. I can think of no other opportunity that we can 
provide to our hard-working employees than an opportunity to have a 
place to stay healthy, to be healthy and to have it right here on the 
premises.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), too, for his 
leadership. As a former staffer, he also worked hard around here and 
continues to work hard on behalf of the staff.
  I just want to say a word about the people that make all of us look 
good, the people that are gathered here in the House Chamber, the 
Parliamentarians, the lawyers, the doctors, the police, the law 
enforcement who work here 24/7 to make sure that we are well protected, 
that we are well taken care of, that every word that we speak is taken 
down. There are so many people that work in the House complex that 
average, ordinary citizens, certainly taxpayers, never see, but they 
help make this institution what it is, the great institution that it 
is, in terms of our ability to do our work and pass bills and make new 
laws and solve problems in the country. We could not do it without the 
many wonderful employees that work so hard on behalf of the Members of 
the House of Representatives. My hat is off to them.
  This bill is the bill that takes care to make sure they have the 
equipment, make sure they have the information and the means to do 
their jobs. In supporting this bill and asking Members to look 
carefully at the amendments and rejecting the amendments because of the 
good work that has gone on by the chair and the ranking member, I say 
to the employees of the House of Representatives, job well done, and 
this is our way of saying thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to 
serve on this committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), another distinguished member of the subcommittee 
who is also a former staffer, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood) said, and has worked on not just the issue of quality of life 
for staffers and the gym but also one that has to do with our security 
around here, the Capitol Hill police, the use of horses, among other 
things.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and the 
ranking minority member for their strong leadership.
  As a former staffer, the construction of a staff gym is one I am very 
proud to see move forward. Congress spends a lot of money each year on 
programs to promote physical fitness and to fight obesity. Finally, the 
Congress is doing that right here. This legislation includes a $3 
million fund for the construction of a staff gym located in the Rayburn 
garage. Along with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), who has advocated this for so long, we have finally begun the 
process of the construction of a staff health and fitness center 
because it is time to give our staffs the same opportunities that 
Members have right here.
  We employ over 17,000 people in the legislative branch. Any employer 
of that size in Chicago would have long provided such facilities to 
their employees. The staff gym gives men and women who serve here in 
the House the opportunity to be fitter and be able to better handle the 
stress of their jobs, handling the long hours and under sometimes low-
paying conditions working for our constituents.
  I want to thank the subcommittee staff, especially Liz Dawson for her 
work in making this a reality.

[[Page H5492]]

  During the subcommittee markup, another issue was addressed to halt 
funding for the Capitol Police mounted horse unit. I offered an 
amendment to deny funding because of fiscal constraints in the face of 
security threats. It is imperative that we invest funds in protecting 
the Capitol and spend them wisely. I applaud the Capitol Police for 
their cooperative work with law enforcement agencies to minimize the 
threat but do not believe that investing taxpayer dollars in 18th 
century technology represents fiscal responsibility.
  We should not fund a program that has so many unresolved issues. A 
perfect example is the issue of quartering horses on the Capitol 
grounds. Last year, the committee was told the horses would be using 
Park Police stables on the far side of the mall. At very little 
expense, they were supposed to be housed close to the Capitol complex. 
However, that is not happening.
  Currently, the Capitol Police horses are stabled at a Bureau of Land 
Management facility on Gunston Road in Lorton, Virginia, 1 hour's drive 
with trailers from the Capitol. The Architect of the Capitol does not 
have a current cost estimate for constructing a stable or handling 
manure on the new location, but the K-9 kennel construction cost over 
$1 million, and one could easily hazard a guess that horse stables 
would cost even more than the K-9 facility that we have built. If the 
program continues, Congress would have to pay for use of the BLM 
facilities or constructing an entirely new horse stables and waste 
disposal system at taxpayer expense. By blocking funding for a new 
mounted unit, the committee has taken the action to save taxpayers 
approximately $1.8 million over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this legislation. I thank the 
ranking minority member and the chairman for their work on this 
legislation.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to quickly respond to the gentleman 
from Georgia who argues that these mass mailings by committees are 
justified.
  If we do not have a limit, they will grow. What was a $500,000 
request this time may be a $1 million request or a $2 million request 
for the 109th Congress. Never before the 108th Congress has any 
committee ever needed more than $10,000.
  The idea of having a field hearing as a reason to mail out a 
districtwide mailing, or several districtwide mailings, is relatively 
absurd. If the field hearing is really of interest, the press will 
publicize that field hearing; and people will come if they are 
interested. A field hearing has never in the history of this House up 
until this Congress been used as an excuse for mass propaganda into a 
Member's district; and if the gentleman thinks it should be, that is a 
revolutionary change. It is not one I would like to see in the 109th 
Congress.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from 
California, I understand he has a motion to recommit, and we will 
debate it a little bit more then, but I certainly think there is a lot 
to say about it. Again, one of our things is that the Committee on 
House Administration needs to be doing the authorizing on that.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does have a lot of good things in it. It 
includes one thing that I did not mention, that we are asking the 
Architect of the Capitol to contract out the management of the Capitol 
power plant as a private entity. We are doing that in the spirit of how 
can we lead the way to continue to make the Capitol a little more 
efficient.
  We are also asking for a review of the legislative branch agencies. 
Some of the heads of these agencies are appointed by the President. 
Some have a 10-year term. Some have a 14-year term. Some have the 
approval of the Senate. Some have the approval of the Senate and the 
House. We just think that it is time to review some of these things. 
They have a different retirement program.
  There are a lot of proposals out there. The Capitol Hill Police 
Chief, for example, for whom I have a lot of respect, has suggested 
that we build a wall around the U.S. Capitol. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), among others, has made sure that we have 
language in our bill to say that we do not want a wall around the U.S. 
Capitol compound. We want people to be able to get in here.
  We have taken a look at everything under our jurisdiction in a very 
serious way and just asked the questions, can we do it better? I will 
submit many of the changes that we have recommended for the record.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I will be the last speaker before we move to amendments, 
unless the gentleman from Georgia would like to offer some concluding 
remarks.
  Again, I will summarize what I said earlier. It is a fair bill. I 
thank the gentleman from Georgia very much. I want to thank Liz Dawson 
of the majority staff. The Democratic staff person has been Tom Forhan, 
who has done an excellent job, and Tim Aiken, my legislative director.

                              {time}  1830

  I have got a whole list here, and I ought to mention them. Chuck 
Turner deserves mentioning, Kathy Rohan, Clelia Alvarado, and I have 
already mentioned the others, and Heather McNatt. I thank them.
  Again, I want to say a word about something that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) mentioned, this business of the mounted police on 
the Capitol. I wholly agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) 
and the chairman. I do not think this is a necessary adjunct to our 
Capitol Police. I think it is a strange and illogical addition, in 
fact, and particularly when I learned that the Capitol Police have to 
spend what must be a good hour driving down to the BLM property on 
Gunston Road. I was involved with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) in setting that aside for the Bureau of Land Management. I am 
very much familiar with it. But I never imagined it would be housing 
horses that had to be deployed on the Capitol grounds. So they pick up 
the horses. They schlep the poor horses all the way back to the Capitol 
for a few hours, I guess, galloping around, and then they schlep them 
all the way back to this BLM property down in Lorton, Virginia, down 
Route 1. It is congested; so it is bumper to bumper. That is almost 
inhumane in itself, but it is certainly inefficient and a strange use 
of our resources. I am glad that that was eliminated.
  There are a number of things that we chose not to fund, but I think 
in subsequent years are probably going to have to be funded. As I said, 
I know a .1 percent cut in the legislative branch appropriations bill 
is not reasonable in the long term, although we can clearly get along 
with it this year.
  I do hope we will restore the Open World Leadership program in 
conference. We do have dental and vision benefits for the people who 
work here in the legislative branch, and that is an appropriate thing 
to do, and it is largely consistent with what we do with the executive 
branch. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is going to have an 
amendment with regard to science and technology. We do need a resource 
to avail ourselves of when it comes to scientific and technological 
issues which change every day, and we really do need a good deal of 
expertise to assist us in that. But he is going to have an amendment to 
address that issue.
  With that, I think we can go on to the amendments, and I suspect 
shortly we will have a full complement of House Members to be able to 
vote.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4755, the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This is the 
sixth bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations 
adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 9. I am pleased to 
report that it is consistent with the levels established in the 
conference report to S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2005, which the House adopted as its fiscal 
blueprint on May 19. Conforming with a long practice--under which each 
chamber of Congress determines its own needs--appropriations for the 
other body are not included in the reported bill.
  H.R. 4755 provides $2.751 billion in new budget authority, which is 
within the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Legislative and outlays of $2.92

[[Page H5493]]

billion. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget 
authority, nor does it include rescissions of previously enacted 
appropriations.
  Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, 
which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays 
established in the budget resolution.
  I commend Chairman Kingston's remarks in the accompanying report 
underscoring the fact that with record deficits, a war on terrorisms, 
troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget request from 
agencies of the legislative branch cannot continue to be presented with 
requested increases as high as 50 percent. I welcome his efforts and 
the efforts of other members of the Appropriations Committee as we try 
to hold discretionary spending to a reasonable level.
  In reading the final version of this bill I noted that the 
accompanying report directs the General Accounting Office to review the 
statutory responsibility and overlap of the jurisdiction of joint 
committees of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office and the 
Congressional Research Service. We should pause before we ask one 
congressional agency to examine the jurisdiction of other congressional 
agencies and committees of Congress. Also, it might not be appropriate 
for GAO to assume this role when it may duplicate the functions of some 
of the agencies it is being charged with evaluating.
  With that reservation, I express my support for H.R. 4755.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to announce 
that I am going to vote for H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2005, for one simple reason: It 
provides enough resources for the legislative branch agencies to 
fulfill their responsibilities to the American people during the coming 
fiscal year.
  First, I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Kingston and 
especially Ranking member Moran for all of their hard work on this 
legislation. Mr. Moran and Tim Aiken of his staff, as well as Tom 
Forhan of Mr. Obey's staff, worked closely with my staff and me on a 
number of issues in this bill and this cooperation is much appreciated.
  In the aggregate, the bill holds legislative branch spending, 
excluding the Senate items that are not before us, at $2.4 million 
below the level of new budget authority provided for fiscal 2004. 
Despite holding at last year's spending level, the Committee on 
Appropriations has managed to fund the agencies' mandatory increases, 
including an expected 3.5 percent Federal wage adjustment, and avoid 
requiring agencies to lay off employees. The Committee was also able to 
achieve significant savings, year-on-year, because it has benefited 
from non-recurring items from last year, deferred new capital projects 
and delayed others. This is appropriate, since our Federal budget 
deficit has reached mammoth proportions in just 4 years' time. It is 
hard for me to imagine that when I first came to this House, in January 
1999, the Federal budget was in surplus. Today, our Federal deficit has 
reached massive proportions, eclipsing those considered horrendous in 
1990 when the first President Bush was in office. The legislative 
branch must expect to participate in efforts to reduce that deficit, 
and this bill strikes an appropriate balance in this regard.
  While I will support the bill, I want to highlight several matters of 
interest to me as the ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
Administration, which has authorizing jurisdiction over several 
accounts funded in the measure, and others.
  First, I join with the Appropriations Committee in commending the 
staff of the numerous entities who helped to make last month's state 
funeral for President Reagan an occasion of which the entire 
legislative branch could be proud. Without the tireless efforts of 
countless individuals in the office of the Architect of the Capitol, 
the Capitol Police, the Government Printing Office, the Capitol Guide 
Service, the Attending Physician's Office, as well as the House and 
Senate leadership, committees, and others, Americans could not have 
paid proper respects to their former President. On behalf of my 
constituents in Connecticut, I wish to thank all of the dedicated 
legislative branch employees who made that funeral possible.
  I also thank the Appropriations Committee for its report language 
encouraging legislative agencies with respect to their employees' use 
of the transit-subsidy program. Wherever we can encourage Federal 
employees in the Washington area, and elsewhere, to use mass transit, 
we can not only clean the air, reduce traffic congestion, and reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil, I believe we can make our employees more 
productive. The program works here in the House and elsewhere, and I am 
pleased the Appropriations Committee expressed its continuing support.

  At total funding of $1.1 billion, including the House office 
buildings, the bill provides sufficient funds for the people's House. I 
am delighted that the Appropriations Committee has found $3 million to 
establish a new in-house fitness facility for staff, made a reality 
through the efforts of the gentlemen from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), both of whom are devoted to the health and 
welfare of all our dedicated employees. I am also pleased that the 
Committee eliminated the prohibition on exploring options for 
developing a supplemental vision and dental benefit for Members and 
employees. Many House staff have expressed interest in the availability 
of such benefits, for which they would pay.
  I appreciate the work of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price), who recently discovered that the chief administrative officer 
was improperly making prepayments for certain Web-related services, 
Federal law generally prohibits pre-payments for Federal services, and 
the CAO has moved swiftly to address the problem in his Finance Office.
  Finally, I hope the sense-of-the-House language included by the 
Committee at the behest of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), encouraging the use of hybrid 
and alternative-fueled vehicles wherever possible, will indeed spur the 
use of these cutting-edge technologies so important to our Nation's 
future.
  This bill provides adequate funds for the Capitol Police for the 
coming year, and eliminates funding for its new mounted unit. Mounted 
patrols may make sense for the U.S. Park Police, which must operate in 
the many thousands of forested acres of Rock Creek Park in northwest 
Washington. But in my judgment, horses, though perhaps harkening back 
to the ``Charge of the Light Brigade,'' make little sense in the 
comparatively small, confined, clean and manicured urban park that is 
the Capitol grounds, given the animals' unavoidable by-products. I also 
agree with the Committee, which included language prohibiting the study 
or construction of a fence around the Capitol grounds at this time. The 
people's House must not, even symbolically, erect a barrier between 
itself and the people we represent.
  I am glad this bill authorizes the Office of Compliance to institute 
a student-loan repayment program. Similar programs, including those 
established recently in the House and Senate, are designed to help 
agencies attract and retain qualified employees, and the Compliance 
Office's needs for talented staff are no different.
  The Library of Congress will receive adequate funding overall under 
the bill, enabling it to continue fulfilling its important missions. I 
appreciate the Committee's decision to provide level funding of $14.8 
million for the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, 
VA. I hope the relevant committees will take whatever action may be 
required in order to reauthorize the National Film Preservation Board 
and the National Film Preservation Foundation, so this important work 
can continue unabated. The pending bill does not include the $500,000 
provided for these activities last year, because the authorizations 
have expired. There is ample time to reauthorize it before this bill 
becomes law.
  I am pleased that the Committee also provided adequate funding for 
the coming year for the Government Printing Office, which has faced 
financial trouble. Our House Administration Committee convened an 
oversight hearing on April 28. We heard from the new Public Printer, 
Bruce James, who has exciting ideas for how GPO, which has made great 
strides in the last decade, can continue moving forward in the 
electronic age. Labor witnesses expressed concerns about Mr. James's 
plans, and about spending at the agency, which must run like a business 
and generally earn its keep. I hope the differing views expressed by 
Mr. James and labor at our hearing, and thereafter, reflect a 
misunderstanding of each other's goals for the agency in these 
challenging times.
  Finally, the Appropriations Committee report includes several far-
reaching assignments for the General Accounting Office, directing that 
agency to examine every legislative branch agency in search of savings 
and efficiencies, including by ``outsourcing'' of agency functions 
where appropriate. While I am willing to consider every reasonable way 
to save the public money in these times of massive Federal budget 
deficits caused largely by the policies of the present Administration, 
``outsourcing'' is hardly reasonable if the term means transferring the 
performing of inherently governmental functions overseas. I trust the 
Committee does not mean to suggest, for example, that government 
printing should be performed overseas.
  I thank the Appropriations Committee for its work, and look forward 
to working with the Committee on these and other matters in the months 
remaining in this session.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5494]]

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in 
House Report 108-590. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered read, debatable for the time specified 
in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 108-590.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. 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. Holt:
       Page 20, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 38, line 4, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would add $30 million to the salaries and expenses 
account of the General Accounting Office for the development of 
Scientific and Technology Assessment. This is something that is vital 
to us here in Congress. It would meet a bipartisan need of Congress to 
receive more objective expert and timely advice on the scientific and 
technological aspects of the issues before us. My amendment would avoid 
creating any new government agency or bureaucracy, but it would provide 
Congress with reputable and partial timely advice and analysis of 
emerging scientific and technological issues.
  This is something that was, until 10 years ago, offered by an in-
house agency. That is no longer available to us, but the GAO has begun 
on a pilot basis assuming some of this need and providing us with 
scientific and technological assessment. Not to have that today is 
hampering us in doing our work. So this certainly should be added to 
the appropriation.
  It would enable Congress to understand the scientific and 
technological aspects of current and future legislative choices, be 
they in homeland security or national defense or medicine or 
telecommunications, agriculture, transportation, computer science. This 
is not just science for science's sake. This is to look at those 
scientific and technological aspects that are present in virtually 
everything we do here in Congress.
  When the Office of Technology Assessment was operating until a decade 
ago, they produced studies in such areas as colorectal cancer 
screening, teachers in technology, Super Fund actions, wage record 
information system, defense of medicine and medical malpractice, grain 
dust explosion, policy with regard to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. 
The GAO in the last couple of years, picking up on this need that is 
currently unmet, has begun with some studies in the areas, for example, 
of biometrics, protecting against cyberattack. They have under way 
studies looking at smuggling of weapons of mass destruction and 
containing forest fires.
  I do not think there is anyone in this body who could argue that we 
do not need to be well informed in such areas. Whether it is aviation 
safety or AIDS education or Alzheimer's disease or testing in American 
schools, we need technological assessment. This legislation, this 
amendment to this appropriations bill, would provide that through the 
organ of the General Accounting Office.
  Because there has been resistance to reviving OTA, the Office of 
Technology Assessment, as it was, a number of us have been exploring 
other approaches, recognizing that every year that goes by without this 
capacity for in-house technological assessment represents lost 
opportunities, opportunities to save lives, to protect our towns and 
cities, and to commercialize new discoveries. This amendment will 
provide that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State 
(Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress a number of 
years ago, I served on the OTA with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton) and the bipartisan group that made the decisions. There were 
four Democrats, four Republicans from the Senate and the House. It was 
not a partisan committee. It was a committee set up to give us good 
advice.
  A decision was made in 1994 to disband that, and we have since that 
point been really operating more on ideology I think sometimes than on 
real scientific bases. We need that. We appropriate billions of dollars 
on issues like treatment of AIDS and what are appropriate kinds of 
energy questions, and we have no knowledge except for the prejudices of 
one or another Member about what it is. It is very helpful to have a 
nonpartisan group to whom we can hand that problem to and say look, at 
this issue, tell us where we can make the best decisions.
  And I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for doing 
this. I think that we need it, and it is time that we get back on a 
scientific footing in this Congress.
  Virtually every issue facing America today has roots in science and 
technology.
  From battling terrorism, to alternative fuels, from fighting HIV/
AIDS, to stem cell research, not a day goes by that we don't rely on 
science and technology.
  Yet, virtually every day, critical decisions involving science and 
technology are being made using a hodge-podge of data and opinion from 
well-intended groups. They often lack the resources and scientific 
expertise to provide the in-depth analysis we need.
  There's nothing wrong with opinion, but it is not a substitute for 
empirical data and analysis.
  We've got too much at stake as a nation to let things continue this 
way.
  Congress needs credible data. The nation needs confidence that we are 
making decisions based on evidence and not conjecture.
  Today the General Accounting Office provides independent, bi-partisan 
reports to Congress.
  It's time science and technology gets the same level of attention.
  The GAO is a great working model, so let's use it as the home for a 
Center for Science and Technical Assessment.
  We can't hope we get it right when we make a decision.
  There's far too much at stake to do anything but recognize we have a 
problem and a solution is at hand.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to certainly thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing 
this up, as he has spoken to me many times about it. However, I am 
unable to support it at this time, but I wanted to compliment him. I 
understand in his district there is a popular bumper sticker that says: 
``My congressman is a rocket scientist,'' and I think probably the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and maybe the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Burns), who is our one member of the Fulbright Scholarship 
Alumni Association, have some of the greatest intellectual capacity of 
this body.
  However, some background in terms of the Office of Technology 
Assessment. In 1995 on a bipartisan level, we eliminated it, and the 
belief at that time was that there were other committees that we could 
turn to to get technology studies and technology assessment. Some of 
these, for example, are the National Academy of Sciences, the National 
Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National 
Research Council. All of them have hundreds of people who are 
technically educated. And then in addition to that, there are 3,273 
people at the General Accounting Office and 729 at the Congressional 
Research Service. We have not suffered because of the loss of 
technology assessment. It is perhaps true that we could rearrange some 
of the food on the plate and make sure that it does not get shuffled to 
the back burner; but if my colleagues think about it, Mr. Chairman, we 
actually have thousands of people out there

[[Page H5495]]

doing studies, and we just need to make sure that this does not fall 
through the cracks.
  As a result of eliminating the Office of Technology Assessment, we 
have saved $274 million, which is serious money in tight budget times, 
and that is money that we can put into many other worthy causes; and, 
of course, that is what the debate is all about.
  In terms of the specifics of the Holt amendment, it reduces the 
Architect's office $15 million and the printing office another $15 
million; and the problem with that is in terms of the Architect, we are 
actually almost 13 percent below their budget request. If we did cut 
them an additional $15 million, it would be a 19 percent reduction, 
which would result in the RIF, or the reduction in force, of about 67 
people, and this comes from the Architect's office; and it would slow 
down a number of the projects that they are working on. And goodness 
knows, one of the projects that we want to get finished as a committee 
is the Capitol Visitors Center. We want to get that done as quickly as 
possible. A reduction of 67 people could hurt making those deadlines.
  In terms of the printing office, we have reduced this account by 
about 2 percent below last year's level. If we accept the Holt 
amendment, it would result in an additional cut of 17 percent. And 
these are things that have to be done anyhow, Congressional Records, 
bills, resolutions, amendments, hearing volumes and reports and so 
forth; and that is what the printing office does with that.
  So with those words, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to reject the Holt 
amendment.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Holt 
amendment to create the Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment.
  In this day and age it is imperative that Members of Congress 
understand technology and the rapidly changing world of innovative 
advances. But what we really need is fair and balanced information to 
make those decisions.
  This new initiative is a bipartisan office that will quickly respond 
to Congress and our inquiries into new technology. This office will 
provide Congress with the basic on how the technology works, how new 
technology integrates with current policy, how the new technology will 
affect business.
  This office is vitally important because if Congress makes the wrong 
decision or advances the wrong technology we could set our country back 
a few years. We could hurt business and let our international 
competitors take over a technology sector. We could slow innovation and 
hurt what is still one of our greatest economic engines which is the 
research and development of new technology.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Center for Scientific and 
Technical Assessment so that we are all educated when we make decisions 
on technology and technology policy.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Holt amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 108-590.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. 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. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ___. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 1 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today, first of all, to congratulate the 
gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Kingston) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for crafting a bill that actually 
spends less money than it did last year. My amendment is not in any way 
intended to slight the chairman or ranking member. They are good 
friends and work hard at this, and they have done in many respects an 
excellent job. I know it is a difficult task to draft, and I want to 
express my appreciation for their hard work.
  However, I am going to offer again, as I have on many of the other 
appropriations bills, an amendment to cut the bill by 1 percent. I know 
in committee how it works. In committee, it is difficult to get these 
bills out, and you have to get them out. So you make compromises, and 
you give a little here and you give a little there, and they usually 
come out, in my opinion, at least at a higher figure than is desirable 
if we are serious about trying to balance the budget.
  So we do the best we can in committee and bring it to the floor, and 
I am asking for us to consider cutting one penny on every dollar so we 
can move towards that elusive idea of a balanced budget. If we would do 
just this 1 percent on each of the appropriations bills, it would have 
a tremendous impact on moving towards that balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage an aye vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from Colorado that, as he 
knows, I always appreciate his ``let's go at it one more time and try 
to find some more money to reduce,'' and I have in the past supported a 
number of the Hefley amendments. This one, however, I find myself on 
the opposite side of and have to oppose.
  The reason I have to oppose this, Mr. Chairman, is that we on the 
House control the House side. The Senate controls the Senate side. If 
we were to accept the Hefley amendment, this would tie one of our hands 
behind our back in terms of a level playing field with the Senate. This 
would result in a $10 million cut to the House.
  One of the problems that we have as House Members is we often lose 
our staff to the Senate because they see bigger responsibility, bigger 
title, but most importantly, bigger salary, and we have to keep our 
salary levels up in order to maintain good people on the House side. 
That alone makes me say I think we have to hold off on this.
  There are other reductions that would come from this bill, I think 
approximately $27 million total, so another $17 million would come out 
of the Architect and the Library of Congress and so forth. But we have 
already cut those from their requests, in many cases from their last 
year's funding level, and I am not sure we could get another $17 
million out of there. If we could go back and find it, though, I would 
certainly support the Hefley amendment, but at this point we are not 
able to do so.
  I want to point out one example. We are trying to privatize the power 
plant, which we think it would be a good thing in terms of streamlining 
the Office of the Architect. Things like that we are doing in the 
spirit of fiscal restraint, and we are going to continue on that 
pathway. But, unfortunately, at this time we have to reject his 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the 
amendment as well, although I share the very deep respect and warm 
regard for the author of the amendment.
  I concede that 1 percent is not a whole lot of money in the scheme of

[[Page H5496]]

things, but the fact is that your own chairman has very skillfully 
already cut the spending in this bill.
  As was said, this bill is already $395 million below what was 
requested, so I think we want to acknowledge and almost reward the 
committees when they do cut below last year's level. Imagine, it is 
below last year's appropriation level, and the fact is that it is as 
low as we can go, because if it goes any more, even a 1 percent cut 
will trigger reductions in our workforce.
  We are also told it would compromise our plans to upgrade security, 
and it would slow down or cancel investments to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the legislative branch's operations.
  It is based on two assumptions, which I think we are going to find 
are not entirely the case. One is that the large budget deficits in 
growth in Federal spending is the exclusive result of discretionary 
spending increases. That is not the case. And, two, that there is 
enough waste, fraud and abuse that a 1 percent cut could actually 
improve government efficiency. I think we are going to find that is not 
the case as well.
  The fact is that discretionary spending is the one portion of the 
Federal budget that has grown the least and is subject to the greatest 
level of scrutiny and control by the Congress through our 
appropriations bills.
  I have to say, we ought to be boasting about the fact that we have 
the most honest and professional public employee workforce in the 
world. I am proud of the people who toil long hours to serve our needs 
and ensure that this body operates efficiently and effectively. Any 
waste, fraud and abuse that exists is far more likely to be the result 
of conflicting, outdated or inconsistent Federal policies.
  I cannot understand why we are spending taxpayer money on many other 
things that I would like us to look at, such as national roads and 
national forests. We encourage timber harvests and then cover the costs 
of the building of roads that do not necessarily have to be built and 
that cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. We have enormous 
agricultural support subsidies to any number of industries. In fact, 
there will be a number of programs in the next appropriations bill that 
we will consider, the agriculture bill, that we ought to look at, 
entitlement programs. But I do not think a 1 percent across-the-board 
cut to the workforce in the legislative branch is warranted at this 
time. I urge Members to reject the amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of any two gentleman that I hate being 
on the opposite side of more than these two gentlemen, because they are 
so conscientious.
  Let me say that I think there are ways that we can get at this 1 
percent without doing all the damage that has been suggested. For 
instance, I have not used frank mailing in years. Maybe we do not need 
as big a frank mailing budget. I have never had my full complement of 
staff that they allow us to have. Maybe we do not need as many staff as 
they say we can have.
  There are things like that that I think we could do to bring this 
budget down. I give several hundred thousand dollars each year back 
into the pot that I simply do not spend, because that is a budget that 
I can control. So if I mean what I say about balancing the budget, I 
feel I ought to try to control it. That has amounted to many millions 
of dollars over the time I have been here. So there are ways.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage an aye vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 1 offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt); and Amendment No. 2 offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.


                    Amendment No. 1 Offered by Holt

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 252, not voting 66, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 359]

                               AYES--115

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Filner
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--252

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baird
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher

[[Page H5497]]


     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--66

     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bass
     Bell
     Bishop (UT)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Collins
     Conyers
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Engel
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keller
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Peterson (PA)
     Quinn
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott (VA)
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1916

  Mrs. MYRICK, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. MOLLOHAN and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 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 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 278, not voting 68, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 360]

                                AYES--87

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hooley (OR)
     Hulshof
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Lampson
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Wamp

                               NOES--278

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burns
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--68

     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bass
     Bell
     Bishop (UT)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Collins
     Conyers
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Engel
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Peterson (PA)
     Quinn
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott (VA)
     Shays
     Shuster
     Stark
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1925

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________