[Pages H6213-H6226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to House Resolution
169 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 1854.

{time} 1217

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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for the legislative branch
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Linder in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June
21, 1995, amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 104-146 offered by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] had been disposed of.

de novo vote on amendment offered by mr. fazio of california, as
amended

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the Chair
will now put the question de novo.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] be allowed to speak out of
order for 2 minutes in order to underscore and explain the amendment
that is about to be voted on.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will only
consent to this request if we are given equal time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would amend my request.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request now is that the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Houghton] will be given 2 minutes, and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Packard] will be given 2 minutes.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] will be
recognized for 2 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Packard] will be recognized for 2 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, rather than exercising my right to speak
for 2 minutes, maybe I can handle this through a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Am I right that this is a revote on the Fazio
amendment, amended by me yesterday?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding me the time.
I would reserve the balance of my time if the gentleman has yielded
it to me.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close on this, so I will
reserve the balance of my time.
parliamentary inquiry

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, under what authority would
the gentleman have the right to close on a unanimous-consent request
that was divided?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] is the
manager of the bill.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. But this is not on the bill. Under what
authority would he have the right to close? This is a unanimous-consent
request.
The CHAIRMAN. This is additional controlled debate, permitted by
unanimous consent, on an amendment to the bill.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I know we have had a lot of
discussion this morning about Members [[Page H 6214]] who are aggrieved
by the circumstances that occurred when this was last voted yesterday,
and I certainly relate to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] and their concerns, but
I think there is another individual Member who has been aggrieved as
well, and I think that is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] worked very hard to bring
to the floor a compromise amendment which allowed for a reduction in
OTA of some $7 million, and yet under the aegis of the Library of
Congress, kept this very important scientific advisory entity in
existence. He worked his side of the aisle, and he found a majority; he
found it once, and I believe he found it twice.
He brings the perspective of perhaps the most successful businessman
in this institution to this issue. He has made clear that he believes
cutting our research and evaluation capability is not the way to
downsize an institution, even the Congress of the United States.
I hope when all Members choose their decision to vote now for the
third time on this issue, they will affirm his position, they will vote
to support his perspective and, I think, as well, will vote to confirm
the fact that when you work the system right here in the Congress, no
one, majority or minority, should be able to deprive you of having your
day in court, the court of public opinion here on the floor of the
House of Representatives.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Houghton-Fazio amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that will preserve
OTA but transfer it to the Library of Congress.
The committee, in their bill, wants to allow the functions of OTA to
be done at the Library of Congress or at other agencies that do
scientific studies and reports that duplicate what now the OTA does,
but the bill eliminates OTA.
This amendment will preserve OTA, but transfer it to the Library of
Congress. We think that if we are going to streamline, downsize, and
consolidate duplicating services, the committee bill already does that.
I must mention that the Speaker very strongly does not support this
amendment and very strongly does not support gutting the Library of
Congress. This amendment will take $16.5 million out of the Library of
Congress. The Library of Congress would have to discontinue many of its
functions in terms of its basic and core functions, in terms of
cataloging. It would prevent a full quarter of the cataloging necessary
for its new holdings, and it would also take away some of the services
to the public. It would cut the preservation program by 15 to 20
percent.
It would also cut the infrastructure support, the automation program,
personnel, and procurement processes. It would deeply hurt the Library
of Congress.
I urge the Members to vote against this amendment and to defeat the
amendment to preserve the OTA, and to support the Speaker.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The Chair will now put the question de novo.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that he was in
doubt.

recorded vote

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 204, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 410]

AYES--220

Abercrombie
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--204

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--10

Ackerman
Chapman
Harman
Laughlin
Moakley
Parker
Schumer
Serrano
Solomon
Torres

{time} 1241

Mr. SMITH of Texas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall
410 [[Page H 6215]] to restore funds to the Office of Technology
Assessment. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed
in House Report 104-146.

amendment offered by mr. clinger

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Clinger: Page 20, after line 10,
insert the following:
In addition, for salaries and expenses of the Congressional
Budget Office necessary to carry out the provisions of title
I of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 104-
4), as authorized by section 109 of such Act, $1,100,000.
Page 26, beginning on line 12, strike ``operation and
maintenance of the American Folklife Center in the
Library;''.
Page 26, line 19, after the first dollar figure, insert the
following: ``(less $1,165,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Clinger] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5
minutes.
Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the
amendment and would request the allocation of time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset I say that anybody who supported the
unfunded mandates legislation which we passed earlier this year and
which passed by an overwhelming vote, 390 Members in favor of that
legislation, should indeed support this amendment. As I said at the
time we debated the unfunded mandates legislation, this could be an
effective way to reorder the Federal, State, and local relationship. It
could also be an effective way to relieve the burdens which we imposed
on State and local governments, but only if we were able to implement
the law properly, and the CBO plays a vital role in the implementation
of the unfunded mandates legislation. CBO must do the estimating as to
whether or not the threshold of $50 million nationwide impact is
reached or not. If it is not reached, then there is not a point of
order lies. If it is reached, then a point of order does lie. The whole
credibility of the unfunded mandates legislation would be called into
question if those estimates are not accurate. If, in fact, they can be
challenged or questioned or found to be somehow ineffective, then I
think we lose the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
What we have done is provide an offset of $1,100,000. That is not
really sufficient to do the job CBO is charged to do under this
legislation, but it will give them a good start on accomplishing that.
We offset it from the Folklife Center in the Library of Congress. This
is a program that is not authorized, it was not reauthorized. It is a
program that receives a large amount of private sector funding, and we
would encourage that to continue. It is also a program that frankly
should go into the private sector for funding.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, my concern is about the Folklife Center, which I know
through personal experience to be a most useful entity and function of
the Library of Congress. I visited with Chairman Clinger and Chairman
Packard about this issue, and they have assured me, and I would like to
engage the gentleman from California in a brief colloquy, that this
function will not be decimated, that it will simply be rearranged. Am I
correct in that understanding?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I think the American Folklife Center is
important and ought to be retained. I cannot assure the gentleman from
Missouri that it will be retained, because that will be a function of
trying to work out this cut to the library appropriation. But certainly
I would work toward that end.
Mr EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
I know his commitment to the Folklife Center, and would like, as the
process moves forward, to continue to work with him, and also in the
authorization process, to ensure that this most vital function is
indeed retained.
I thank the gentleman for his generosity in yielding.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], a very valued member of the
committee.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, why are we cutting the American Folklife
Center? It is a great program, but I think the money can be raised from
the private sector. It does not have to come from the governmental
sector. More importantly, this money was deauthorized and is not
authorized. This money is appropriated but does not have the proper
authorization at this point.
Why reprogram dollars to the Congressional Budget Office? I think the
answer is very simple. Without this amendment, the unfunded mandates
legislation that we passed in a bipartisan manner, both Houses of
Congress, signed by the President, will have no teeth, because the CBO,
who does the estimating on the costs of each mandate so that we will
know what they will cost States and localities and the private sector,
will not be able to do it. It will be gutted completely.
Let us not undo the unfunded mandates reform that a bipartisan
Congress and the President passed this spring and the President signed
into law. Without this amendment, that is exactly what we are doing. So
I rise in support of the Clinger amendment.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I simply want to say at this point I am in a difficult position. I
have been urging the chairman of this committee to provide additional
funding to CBO. I do think they are going to need at least $2.5 million
to take on their new responsibilities. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Davis, I think just outlined, as Chairman Clinger has, the
responsibility that we have to give CBO the resources to do what we
have just asked them to do in the first 100 days of this Congress.
But I do not want to do it on the back of the Folklife Center. The
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the House
Committee on Oversight, tells us that they will take up the
authorization of this entity in due time. But if this amendment is
adopted, there is obviously insufficient support for it, and therefore
he may not even take up the authorization.
I think people who believe that the Folklife Center has value, as I
do, ought to vote against this amendment, and we ought to find
additional 602(b) allocations to this subcommittee to help CBO when we
get to conference. This is obviously a conferrable item with the
Senate, a joint item we will both have to consider.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spratt].
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the Members of the House who do
not know what the American Folklife Center is, I did not either, until
I came on the House a couple years ago and we had an authorization bill
under suspension, and I was told at the door that this was Lawrence
Welk's homestead all over again. So like a hoard of other people, I
voted no, only to get back to my office and have a phone call from a
constituent, who happened to be chairman of the board of the American
Folklife Center.
I learned out in a hurry what it was all about. I want to say now I
am a believer. I have seen it. There are about 12 full-time equivalents
there. Last year they served the needs of 9,000 researchers, a
wonderful repository of American folklife and folklore.
One small example of what they do: Years ago, wax cylinders were made
recording Indian chiefs and Indians of western tribes, recollections of
their [[Page H 6216]] tribe, native music and things of this kind.
These were languishing somewhere in the Library of Congress. This
organization brought them forth, perfected them, made them into
digitized CD-ROM's, and now we have that resource preserved. We need
some organization that is committed to this. For $1.25 million, surely
we can continue this kind of enterprise.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds merely to say
last year the American Folklife Center raised $330,000 in private
funding. It obviously does attract a great deal of private support. The
other point I would make is that under our amendment, we do in no way
limit the Library of Congress in the ability to apply funds to that
purpose, if they so choose.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard], the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I will take a short time just to say I am
not going to actively oppose this amendment, but I do have some
concerns about continually raiding the Library of Congress. The last
amendment that passed was $16.5 million. This is another $1.165
million. That does give me some concerns. I hope we can find a way to
protect and preserve the American Folklife Center.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the motives of the
gentleman. He has to find money for the unfunded mandates. But clearly
the American Folklife Center is not the place to cut, and would be a
devastating cut. What we are basically doing is hurting the culture,
the diverse culture, of this country.
This Library of Congress Folklife Center has 1.5 million manuscripts,
sound recordings, photographs, films, and periodicals. It is unique in
the world. It reveals our history through collections of conservations,
arts, crafts, songs, traditions of everyday Americans, our cowboy
history, our native American history, our Mexican-American history.
I have had many constituents call with great concerns about what this
cut would do. This is not the right thing to do. We should not go after
this center that is good, that is well-managed, and I urge my
colleagues to defeat the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Clinger amendment because I
believe there is nothing more sacred to the people of this country than
our rich, diverse culture.
The American Folklife Center housed in the Library of Congress
maintains 1.5 million manuscripts, sound recordings, photographs,
films, and periodicals. It is unique in the world. It reveals our
history through collections of conversations, arts, crafts, songs, and
traditions of everyday Americans.
My State of New Mexico has a particularly diverse history. Ranchers
rose every day of their lives to herd cattle and sing songs around the
campfire during cattle drives and the Folklife Center provides the only
recordings and conversations we have of this folk cultures.
Mexican-Americans in New Mexico settled this country long before
Columbus landed on Plymouth Rock. Their rich contributions to our
culture should be and are chronicled in the John Donald Robb collection
of Spanish-American folksongs and similar artifacts.
New Mexico is also blessed with a rich Native American culture. The
American Folklife Center documents that culture with early recordings
of Zuni songs and folklore, which date back to 1890. There are also
recordings from the eight Pueblos in northern New Mexico, and materials
from the Mascalero and Chiricahua Apache peoples.
As a nation, we have done more to destroy native American culture
than to preserve it; recent appropriation bills would kill all funding
for the National Museum of American Indian that would have been built
here in Washington. Let's do the right thing and preserve the American
Folklife Center collection of native American culture.
The American Folklife Center brings history to life like no other
museum we have. It keeps pieces of our history alive for future
generations to understand. When our children want to know what songs
their relatives sang, or what native American language sounded like 100
years ago, the Folklife Center can provide that information.
The center has been part of the Library of Congress since 1928--it
survived the Depression and post-World War II downsizing, surely we can
preserve it now.
It is internationally renowned and heavily used. It's the sort of
education that we must continue to cherish and fund.
The center's budget includes not just programs but collections. Its
Archive of Folk Culture contains nearly 1.5 million sound recordings,
photographs, manuscripts, and other unique materials representing
American and (to a smaller extent) world folk music, folklore, and
folklife traditions.
The Archive has been part of the Library since 1928, surviving the
1930's, the post-WWII downsizing, and other vicissitudes. It is
internationally renowned and heavily used. Users include researchers,
publishing and record companies from the private sector, and members of
the communities documented in the collections. Its American Indian
holdings alone are unparalleled in the world; its African-American
holdings are unequalled. Every State, every region, and nearly every
ethnic group are likewise represented.
The collections-based portion of the center's budget amounts to
approximately three-fourths of the total budget; the other one-fourth
covers programs and general operations overhead.
The center in 1994 raised or leveraged funds amounting to about
$350,000, or one-third again the appropriated budget. Fund-raising will
continue to increase. But fund-raising for the basic collections
support is difficult if not impossible. That base of public support,
for the center and the Library as a whole, is what the public as well
as donors expect the Congress to fund.
Some supporters of the idea of removing the center's budget cite the
Western Folklife Center in Elko, NV, as an example of a folklife center
succeeding on private funding. This is not true, as the artistic
director of the Western Folklife Center, Hal Cannon, testifies. First,
that center has benefited greatly from tax-based support--Federal,
State, and local. Second, the Western Folklife Center does not have the
responsibility for a unique and heavily used national archive of 1.5
million items; the personnel to support such a collection adequately--
acquisitions, processing, preservation, reference services--cannot be
maintained by raising private funds.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], a very valuable member
of the committee, a supporter of this legislation, and a cosponsor of
this legislation.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, in March the President signed the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act into law. We all debated that issue on the floor,
and we are all well aware we needed to take action that would require
us under the new law to come up with money to pay for the studies that
CBO had to do.
That is basically what we are doing here today, is meeting our
obligation to come up with some money. It is probably not enough money.
We will have to do this again. It is unfortunate we have to take the
money from the American Folklife Center. I understand that and am
sympathetic to this. Somebody needs to speak on behalf of local
government, county government, and State government on this issue. We
have to do an assessment of the mandates so that we can get an actual
cost. That is basically what we are doing today. We are doing it for
local and State governments, and we need to be supportive of that
amendment.
In addition to that, it has been mentioned, and I will reiterate for
the Members on our side, this is an activity that has the support of
the private citizens, and they can raise the money and it is a way for
us to go. I am just saying we can move to the private sector and we can
raise some money to help this American Folklife Center, as well as the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] mentioned that we might be able
to conference this and work out another solution. If we can do that,
that is great.
But we have to fulfill our commitment on the unfunded mandate. The
President signed the law. We in Congress need to come up with this
component to make it happen. So ask all Members to vote in support of
the amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Portman], an architect of the unfunded mandates legislation
and a strong supporter of this amendment.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, by necessity. Let me say
I think the Folklife Center can get a lot more in private funding. They
did raise $330,000 in 1994, three times what they raised in 1990. The
one in the western region does it entirely by private funds. I think
that offset can be handled. [[Page H 6217]]
If you voted for the unfunded mandate bill, you should vote ``yes''
on this amendment.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate the importance of the Folklife
Center. I think we all understand we ought to fulfill our
responsibility to CBO to allow them to do the workload we have just
given them, and I am certainly hopeful we will do that in conference.
But I would not want Members to vote for this amendment, because if
they do, they will end up doing in the Folklife Center at a time when
it may be impossible to resurrect it and bring it back as an authorized
entity.
The American Folklife Center has been an integral part of the Library
of Congress since 1977, but really 1928 as the archives of folk
culture. Its budget includes not just programs, but collections; 1.5
million sound recordings, photographs, manuscripts, films, videos,
periodicals, and other unique materials representing American and to
some smaller degree world folk music, folk lore and folk life
traditions.
This is something we ought not to be doing in for $1.5 million. This
is an entity that ought to be preserved. They will be raising more and
more private fund sector funds, as the library in general is, but if we
do them in, they will not be in a position to do that. I urge Members
defeat this amendment.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we will be delaying
votes until the end. Does the rule call for this vote to be a 15-minute
vote?
The CHAIRMAN. This vote will be a 15-minute vote. Amendments 8
through 11 will then be debated and the votes held until the end.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260,
noes 159, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 411]

AYES--260

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--159

Abercrombie
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonilla
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Callahan
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gordon
Graham
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCrery
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torricelli
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--15

Ackerman
Browder
Chapman
Ford
Johnson (CT)
Laughlin
Lazio
Moakley
Parker
Pelosi
Richardson
Schumer
Serrano
Stokes
Torres

{time} 1314

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Lazio of New York for, with Mr. Moakley against.

Messrs. BISHOP, EWING, POMEROY, and EDWARDS changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, PORTER, and LIGHTFOOT changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed
in House Report 104-146.

amendment offered by mr. orton

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Orton: Page 25, strike lines 14
through 20. Page 32, line 16, strike ``$16,312,000'' and
insert ``$23,312,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Utah [Mr.
Orton] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes. Who
seeks time in opposition?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair will repeat, the request for recorded votes on the next
four amendments will be postponed until completion of amendment No. 11,
pursuant to House Resolution 169.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
(Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H 6218]]

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 45 seconds.
Before beginning, Mr. Chairman, since the House continues to waive
its own rules prohibiting committees from meeting in voting session at
the same time we are in voting session on the floor, I am currently
missing recorded votes in the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services on a bill of which I am a cosponsor, to be here to present
this amendment on the floor.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is deficit neutral. It is also simple. It
shifts $7 million of increased spending on the Botanic Garden to
restore $7 million of cuts in the Federal depository library program.
Since 1985 the Federal depository library program has been a
partnership between the Federal Government and 1,400 libraries around
the Nation to provide the public with local access to Government
information and documents.
There is widespread use of these libraries, Mr. Chairman. One hundred
sixty-seven thousand Americans per week utilize these collections. The
legislation before us would cut 50 percent of funding from these
libraries. Overall, this bill cuts only 8 percent of legislative branch
appropriations, and actually increases spending on the Botanic Garden
by over 200 percent.
The Botanic Garden in the 1995 appropriation was $3 million. In 1996
it is $10 million. The $7 million increase is the first of a 3-year $21
million appropriation for construction on the Botanic Garden. The
future of the garden is uncertain. It is listed for transfer from the
Congress to the Department of Agriculture. The House is also
considering proposals to privatize or move the garden.
Cutting spending is tough business. In doing so, we must set
priorities. In this Member's opinion, funding 14,000 libraries is a
higher priority than constructing improvements on a building with a
very uncertain future. Even the Architect of the Capitol, in testifying
before the committee, stated the construction improvements would be of
low priority, and the Botanic Garden would be subject to consideration
for privatization.
Mr. Chairman, I will refer to two letters which will be included,
urging support for my amendment. One is from the American Library
Association, and the other is a letter from both the American
Association
of Law Libraries and the Association of Research Libraries.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a sensible, deficit-neutral approach
that will restore $7 million in critical funding to the Federal
Depository Library Program--a true hallmark of our democratic society.
Since 1895, this community-based partnership between the public and
private sectors has provided unfettered public access to Government
information--access that is vital to effective citizen participation in
the democratic process. The Federal Depository Library Program is a
partnership between 1,400 designated depository libraries and the
Federal Government--the sole purpose of which is to disseminate
Government information to the public, free of charge.
To give you an idea of the widespread use of the services provided by
this program, the Public Printer testified earlier this year that more
than 167,000 persons utilize Federal Depository library collections
nationwide each week.
The GPO's 1996 request for the Depository Library Program was $2
million less than the funding level for the previous year. The Public
Printer testified that this request was sufficient to maintain program
responsibilities, while also managing the transition to the appropriate
use of electronic media.
But, now these facilities are being asked to accommodate a 50 percent
increase in electronically formatted copies, while taking a 50 percent
cut in their funding source. While overall, the fiscal year 1996
legislative branch appropriations bill only represents an 8 percent cut
from last year's funding level.
The purpose of the committee's 50 percent reduction in funding is to
hasten the transition to electronic publishing, by requiring that
executive branch agencies reimburse the GPO for the costs of producing
and distributing paper and microfiche documents to depository
libraries. The reduction in funding is a disincentive for Government
agencies to participate in the Federal Depository Library Program.
This will result in a drastic reduction in the number of printed
documents produced by the agencies, and will ultimately hinder free
public access to Government information. Also, these deep cuts will
result in new costs to depository libraries, as more time and effort
will have to be expended to locate and acquire Government agency
information products.
The president of the American Library Association testified earlier
in the year that additional equipment and support would have to be
provided to the depository libraries in order to implement the overly
aggressive electronic program proposed in this legislation.
Furthermore, some of the smaller, rural, public libraries don't have
the necessary resources or the technology that the larger, research
libraries have.
But, the GPO and the depository libraries recognize the increasing
need to move to an effective, electronically-based program, and they
are making great strides in new technology. The GPO Access System was
created to provide no-fee, online dissemination--via the Internet--of
such publications as the Congressional Record and the Federal Register.
Now, the public has free access to this service, either through on-site
equipment at depository libraries or through off-site electronic
gateways established in cooperation with the libraries.
As important as this transition to electronic dissemination of
information is, one must realize that not all Government information
can be distributed electronically. Since the informational needs of
each community are different, it is important to maintain a variety of
formats--including print and microfiche.
The distribution of electronic copies has been steadily increasing,
with about 454,000 copies projected for fiscal year 1996--a 50-percent
increase over fiscal year 1995.
If we are to expect our Federal depository libraries to provide free,
convenient access to Government information, we must allow for a more
sufficient period of transition to an electronically-based program.
My amendment restores $7 million to this vital program, asking our
depository libraries to take a more reasonable cut of 22 percent from
the GPO's request.
I would now like to discuss the source of this critical funding.
The fiscal year 1995 appropriation for the Botanic Garden was $3.23
million. This legislation provides an appropriation of $10.053 million
for fiscal year 1996; that represents a 200-percent increase at a time
when other agencies and operations are being asked to take their share
of cuts.
The $7 million increase over last year has been provided for a
renovation of the Botanic Garden's conservatory. This is one of three,
annual $7 million expenditures to carry out this renovation. It would
be nice to find the funding for this renovation, but we must set
priorities for our limited resources.
During hearings before the legislative branch appropriations
subcommittee, the question was raised as to whether this renovation
expenditure should be reconsidered in light of suggestions to privatize
the Botanic Garden. Questions were also raised as to the primary
function of the Botanic Garden.
The Architect of the Capitol agreed that the Botanic Garden's
function is limited, and that the only reason for housing the facility
in its current place is for historical reasons.
One of the members of the subcommittee suggested that the Botanic
Garden might be able to serve its function better if it were privately
funded. It was also suggested that services could be obtained from
local landscape and nursery contractors.
Finally, the Architect was asked the following question: ``If the
committee asked the Architect's office to reduce their budget by 10,
15, 20, or 25 percent for the next budget year, would this (Botanic
Garden) be a low-priority item that you would recommend spinning off to
privatize?''
The Architect's response: ``It would.''
One must ask the question: Should we be spending valuable resources
on renovating a facility whose ultimate fate has not been determined?
We are faced here with a question of priorities--increased funding
for a limited facility in Washington, DC, or a much needed investment
in the 1,400 depository libraries throughout the country.
Let us ease the transition of our depository libraries to electronic
dissemination of information, and assist these facilities in carrying
out their primary objective--which is to provide vital Government
information to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the information I referred to.
The information referred to is as follows:

American Association

of Law Libraries,

Washington, DC, June 20, 1995.
Hon. William Orton,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Orton: On behalf of the American
Association of Law Libraries and the Association of Research
Libraries, we would like to express our gratitude to you for
offering an amendment to H.R. 1854 to restore $7 million to
the Government Printing Office's Salaries and Expenses (S&E)
appropriations. As you know, this [[Page H 6219]] fund
supports the Depository Library Program which provides
government information in all formats to over 1,400
Congressionally designated depository libraries.
We are very concerned that the proposed fifty percent
reduction in funding for S&E, shifting the cost burden to
agencies as an unfunded mandate, will drastically reduce the
number of documents disseminated to the American public
through depository libraries. Further, we believe that the
need for a well-studied transition period Must be recognized
as the government converts to an effective electronically-
based environment.
Thank you again for offering this amendment to restore
funding for the Depository Library Program. We are very
appreciative of your efforts and grateful for your support.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Oakley,
Washington Affairs Representative.
Prudence S. Adler,
Association of Research Libraries,
Assistant Executive Director.
____

American Library Association,

Washington, DC, June 20, 1995.
Hon. William Orton,
U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Orton: On behalf of the American Library
Association, I write to tell you of our support for your
amendment to restore $7,000,000 to the Superintendent of
Documents Salaries and Expenses Appropriation as the House of
Representatives considers H.R. 1854, the Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY96. The House Appropriations Committee
cut this appropriation by 50 percent from the FY95 funding
level, a cut far in excess of the overall 8 percent reduction
in the bill for the Legislative Branch. Additionally, H.R.
1854 amends the statute governing the Depository Library
Program, a procedure not appropriate on an appropriations
bill.
The SuDocs Salaries and Expenses appropriation funds the
Depository Library Program which provides government
publications in print, microfiche and electronic formats to
constituents through the nearly 1,400 Congressionally
designated depository libraries. This drastic cut does not
provide for the orderly transition that the government must
follow to assure that its statutory requirements are
fulfilled to disseminate government information to the public
under Title 44, United States Code.
While intended to encourage agencies to publish
electronically, this slash in the appropriation will more
likely result in a great reduction in the number of printed
documents made available to the public. Agencies have not
budgeted in FY96 for depository copies. Agencies may well
shirk their responsibilities to disseminate agency
information and the number of fugitive documents--those that
escape the program--may increase enormously.
Additionally, the deep cuts in appropriations for the
Depository Library Program will result in an unfunded mandate
for the state and local governments that support
depositories, and result in additional costs to participating
libraries as more time and effort will be invested to locate
and acquire publications. Many libraries will not have the
money to buy the equipment and paper needed to provide on-
demand print service to the public.
A 1992 survey of depository libraries confirmed that
participating libraries make significant contributions in
personnel, equipment, facilities, and resources (including
resources beyond those provided by the Government Printing
Office) to carry out their part of the partnership with the
government to ensure that the American people have equitable
and ready access to federal information.
The likely result of the change in funding and the shift to
an electronic Depository Library Program is a loss of
information to the American public as the government
undergoes a transition from a print-based to an electronic
environment. In 1994, GPO acquired, cataloged, and
distributed approximately 21 million copies of 65,000
documents to depository libraries for about $1 a copy. Of
these titles, only 306 were in electronic format.
In addition, the GPO Access System now provides 24-hour no-
fee public access through depository libraries and gateways
to the Congressional Record, Federal Register, text of all
published versions of bills introduced in Congress, the
History of Bills, the U.S. Code, and Public Laws of the 104th
Congress. GPO plans a gateway in every state. But that
development is in jeopardy because Congress required GPO
Access to be funded by cost savings from the GPO's
distribution of publications. With the reduction you are
being asked to vote on today, GPO will no longer be able to
support and expand the resources of GPO Access.
The American Library Association is also very concerned
about the Appropriations Committee's decision to publish only
on CD-ROM the Serial Set and the bound Congressional Record.
Everyone does not have access yet to a computer for their
information needs. The elimination of the print format of
these very important titles will create information have-
nots. Further, these two publications are at the core of
Congressional information and serve as the official record of
the daily activities of Congress. The longevity and
durability of the CD-ROM format remain untested. In addition,
the paper format has always served as the permanent and
official record.
Congress should hold hearings and study the cost
effectiveness and impact of these policy changes on public
access to government information.
The American Library Association deeply appreciates your
willingness to offer an amendment to restore funds to the
appropriations for the Depository Library Program. ALA is a
nonprofit educational organization of 57,000 librarians,
library trustees, and friends of libraries.
Sincerely,
Arthur Curley,
President, American Library Association.

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear to the Members of the House, we
are not going to cut in this bill our commitment to the depository
libraries. What we are doing in this bill is requesting that the
agencies of Government, including the administration agencies in the
executive branch, as they provide documents printing for depository
libraries, they will have to pay for their own print on paper rather
than having the GPO pay for it out of their own funds. Therefore, the
work will still be done. It is just that we are transferring the costs
to those that require the printing to be done.
In reference to the conservatory, this is a historic building. We all
see it. It is the glass building right here close to Capitol Hill. It
is falling apart. We simply have to preserve and protect it, as well as
to repair it, or else it will simply not be able to be visited by
people who want to visit the exhibits, because of safety reasons.
We have worked out a program where we have cut them back in their
request for construction money from $28 million to $21 million. If we
take this $7 million away, then we may lose the private funds that are
being raised and contributed for the purpose of the National Garden,
but we also undercut the entire process of renovation. We think that
would be a very sad mistake.
Mr. Chairman, it is only right that the agencies that request the
printing to be done pay for their own requests. That is all our bill
does. This would frustrate that process. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Orton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot promote the general welfare unless the
citizens are informed. Our people cannot fruitfully engage in the
pursuit of happiness in this complicated information age unless they
are informed. For the past 100 years Congress has paid for Government
publications to be sent to depository libraries located in each of our
districts across the country. The depository library program ensures
that ordinary citizens can have access to Government information, but
H.R. 1854 reverses 100 years of precedent by having executive branch
agencies reimburse the Government Printing Office for their
publications. I assure the Members, no executive branch agency will
have it as a priority. They will not do it.
H.R. 1854 also mandates a massive shift from print to electronic
dissemination of information. However, in promoting a ``cyber
government'', the bill ignores the fact that we cannot electronically
reach most of our constituents through these libraries. They are not
wired. They do not have the ability to receive electronic information.
Mr. Chairman, information must be produced not only in electronic
formats, but also in traditional print formats, in order to accommodate
the wide range of the majority of our people's needs and abilities.
Many citizens are not yet ready to use Government information in an
electronic format. Most libraries do not have the capacity to receive
it that way.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1854 also eliminates the availability of free
copies of the Congressional Record that we send to our public schools,
hospitals, and nonprofit libraries, not to mention free copies of
bills, reports, and other documents that we supply. These proposed
changes do not take us anywhere. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
amendment.
[[Page H 6220]]

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the bill number is H.R. 1854. The concept
driving this amendment is truly circa 1854. No one is talking about
cutting off depository libraries from getting information. In fact, we
want to promote it. What we do not want to encourage is a central paper
printing process which then produces a bulk paper product, which is
then shipped across country, and then made available at a depository
library. That is what we are trying to change.
More than 90 percent of the libraries transmit, send, and receive
electronic data today. What we are trying to do is tell the executive
branch agencies we are not going to fund them. I have no quarrel with
where the money comes from, the Botanic Garden, that is a secondary
issue. It is up to those people to decide what they are going to do.
I object strenuously, that they are taking money from congressional
sources and funding an executive branch agency when they do not want to
spend the money themselves. We should not be forced to pay the money
for the executive branch to pay for perpetuating an 1854 paper world.
What we want to do is get up to speed in sending that same data
electronically, and by CD ROM. If taxpayers want a hard copy at the
depository library, the library will produce it there. Taxpayers do not
pay for shipping wood, printed on wood, across country. That is what
they did in the 19th century.

What we are trying to do is stop that. This amendment perpetuates it.
It is wrong. It may be revenue neutral, but the concept is wrong.
Unfortunately, I am going to ask Members to vote against the amendment
of the gentleman from Utah.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has 1 minute
remaining and the right to close.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman, I would say we do need to
gear up the electronic highway, we do need to transmit information
electronically. Hopefully, this will save us costs. However, the
reality is costs and transition time to shift to an electronic-based
program, while placing an additional burden on the libraries in the
immediate future.
Demand for electronic copies is projected to increase by 50 percent
in just 1 year. A 50-percent cut in funding right now will make it
impossible to meet this demand.
Also, Mr. Chairman, the informational needs of each community are
different. Not every community in America has an off ramp from the
electronic highway. Not all Government information can be distributed
electronically. It is critical to provide documents and Federal
information by print, microfiche, and CD ROM. The result of a 50
percent budget cut would be significant reduction of services and
elimination of some Federal depository libraries.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues postpone the $7 million
capital construction to the building of uncertain future, and let us
continue to fund the Federal depository libraries. I urge support for
my amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the committee removed from the conservatory
construction funds $7 million in this year 1995 rescission bill. We
have already cut them back $7 million. To cut them back an additional
$7 million would be simply gutting the renovation process.
Let me speak very briefly to the idea of access to the electronic
equipment and information, Mr. Chairman. Virtually all, over 90 percent
of the depository libraries, have access to electronic information
through Internet and other electronic access equipment. To say that
they cannot access it is simply not true. Furthermore, we ought to push
them toward access. We ought to nudge them toward putting in the
equipment that would give them access to electronic information and
facilitate that process.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, if we move this process to the electronic age,
we will save more than the $7 million that we are trying to save in
paperwork that is now being printed. We will save it with the
electronic age.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah
[Mr. Orton].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] will be
postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed
in House Report 104-146.

amendment offered by mr. klug

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 34, line 24, strike out
``3,900'' and insert in lieu thereof ``3,550''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Klug] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California
[Mr. Packard] and the fine work the Committee on Appropriations has
done to this point in trying to execute one of the key platforms of the
Republican agenda, now that we have taken control of the House, and
that is a trend toward prviatization.
This appropriations bill we have in front of us today does it when it
comes to the beauty shop and barber shop here in the House, the
elimination of the folding room, and we all hope the eventual sale of a
powerplant that the U.S. Congress actually owns and operates.
I have to tell the Members that I think this amendment is far too
timid when it comes to the matter of the Government Printing Office.
Mr. Chairman, the Government Printing Office has 4,000 employees in it,
which essentially serve at the will of Congress itself to print
documents connected to our business here. I think we have to ask
ourselves why it is in 1995 that we run a printing plant.
There are 115,000 private printers in the United States. Assuredly
one of them is capable of printing the Congressional Record at much
more reduced costs than what we presently pay the Government Printing
Office on a regular basis. Since 1991 the GPO has lost money every
year. For my colleagues here in 1994, they may remember the bizarre
situation where GPO lost business and suddenly decided it had to raise
rates in order to make up for the shortfall. What business in America,
if they lose business, would suddenly increase their costs?
{time} 1330

This amendment we have in front of us, Mr. Chairman, will reduce the
Government Printing Office staffing levels. The Subcommittee on
Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations has already reduced it
from 4,200 to 3,900. This amendment will reduce it by another 350
slots. In the long run, what we hope we will accomplish is a glide path
to force the Government Printing Office to essentially become a
procurement agency in the next several years and to close down the
printing function altogether. In fact, the committee report itself
directs the Public Printer to study the outsourcing of both security
personnel and custodial care which account for 144 of the 350 positions
that we are discussing today.
I think this amendment is absolutely crucial if we are going to be
serious about privatization in this House.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. [[Page H 6221]]
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talks about a printing plant. I hope the
gentleman has visited that plant. In point of fact, it is in the
Internet, it is on the World Net. It, in fact, has the state of the art
technology in terms of information transfer available to it.
Individuals anywhere in this country can get the Congressional Record
and other Government documents in their home and can print it,
presuming that they have the proper facilities, as we get it ourselves.
The fact of the matter is, in addition, 80 percent of the GPO's
workload is contracted out right now to the private sector. The fact of
the matter is there are certain things; namely the Congressional Record
and other documents that we need inhouse for security reasons or other
reasons.
The gentleman talks about a glide path. Approximately 5,000 employees
3 years ago, down to 4,104. This bill brings them down to 3,900. They
are on a glide path, they are reinventing, they are downsizing.
This will cost 20 million additional dollars. The reason being,
because it will require RIF's, 554 to be exact if they come down that
fast, and there will be a tremendous cost, not a cost savings.
This is a bad amendment, it is not timely, and it will undermine the
ability to get the information that this Congress needs in a timely
fashion.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], who has been an absolute tireless champion on
reform of the Government Printing Office and has been a mentor on this
issue since I first got here in 1990.
(Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Wisconsin.
As the ranking Republican Member on the House-Senate Joint Committee
on Printing, I have been alarmed with the dramatic losses being
incurred by the GPO. The gentleman from Maryland asked if anybody has
been down to the GPO. I have, many, many times.
This year the GPO estimates its losses to be nearly $10 million. The
Joint Committee has requested four different studies over the last
several years to be conducted by the GAO, and Arthur Andersen, and the
Public Printer's GPO 2000 study, to determine the cause and options to
reduce these losses. This is $10 million.
I think it is far more sensitive to employees to really gradually try
to reduce the work force, if we can, than at a future date to be forced
to totally eliminate the entire agency.
The gentleman from Maryland has indicated that the argument that we
are going to have RIF's here and it is going to cost money--that is
false and shortsighted. We do not have to go to RIF's. The GPO can do
it. It is not required to utilize RIF's. Even if the GPO chooses to do
so, the amendment will still save taxpayers over $6 million.
We are talking about 350 positions. This has been a glidepath but,
again, this agency has lost over $10 million. They are under orders
from the Joint Committee to quit losing money, and it is not the fault
of the employees. It is that the GPO is the victim of a technological
revolution in regard to printing.
The gentleman's amendment is in good standing. It is the continued
way to go to save money. We will await the studies and see if we can
make further savings. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition
to the Klug-Roberts amendment. The Government Printing Office has
served our country for 100 years and they still have a vital role.
Just to clarify for the American people, to give them a sense of what
this agency does on a daily basis, they produce 20,000 copies of the
Congressional Record, 32,000 copies of the Federal Register, 26,000
copies of Commerce Business Daily and process nearly 2,000 orders from
the American people. All of this is being done despite a 50-percent
decrease in staff since 1975.
I would submit that in fact the committee considered this issue very
thoroughly. They made reductions to the tune of 200 positions that are
being reduced. This amendment would add to that 350, and rest assured,
you cannot do 550 positions without some additional cost. You cannot do
it all through attrition. There will in fact be some cost as a result
of RIF's.
But the final point I would like to make is this: They do it
efficiently. They produce the overnight service, the 24-hour turnaround
that is required to meet our needs. There is no plant, no facility on
the east coast, in the mid-Atlantic area that has shown the capacity to
deliver this work product in a timely, efficient, and most importantly
consistent manner as the Government Printing Office.
I believe I would have to return to the old adage: ``If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.''
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I assume I have the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], a member of
the committee, has the right to close.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me respond to a couple of points, if I can, Mr. Chairman. First
of all the argument that nobody on the east coast is capable of doing
this work.
Somewhere in India or Bangkok today a reporter from the Wall Street
Journal will file a story, it will be edited in New York, sent up on a
satellite dish, and the Wall Street Journal will end up on my doorstep
the next morning in Madison, WI. Assuredly somebody is capable on the
east coast of publishing the Congressional Record overnight.
In terms of the cost of RIF's, let's make it very clear on the
arithmetic for everybody who is in this Chamber today. On the average
it costs us $55,000 an employee at the Government Printing Office. The
one-time cost if we have to end up paying those people a RIF is
$25,000. That means at a minimum we save $30,000 a year on each single
employee. It does not cost us money. It saves us $6 million.
In the long run if what we are interested in is attempting to save
money and to move toward privatization, then it is clear we have got to
be very aggressive on privatizing services in the Government Printing
Office, and RIF'ing, and eliminating another 350 positions is exactly
the way to do it.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], a former chairman of the
Joint Committee on Printing.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I
would love to let the Wall Street Journal print the Congressional
Record if we could sell ads, but that is another day.
The point is clear: In my opinion, as for 4 years I was chairman of
the House Administration Committee and either chairman or vice chairman
of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Government Printing Office is
on a glide path as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] so well put.
It will cost money. It will cost money if we have to reduce under this
amendment as quickly as this amendment says we should.
I am in sympathy with the objects that the gentleman who authored
this amendment had. But let me tell you a little story. The other
night, the White House wanted something printed in color and they were
a little afraid to work it through the Government Printing Office, so
they went to Kinko's to get 30--however many copies they needed--
Kinko's in Washington. Kinko's could not handle it as quickly as they
wanted it, so they farmed it out all over town.
It wound up costing $30,000. It would have cost $5,000 if it had been
procured, and that is what GPO basically is today, is a procurement
shop. It would have been $5,000 if it had been procured through GPO, in
color. It would have been $3,000 if it had been done in black and
white. THe quick turnaround time necessary for printing the documents
that we use in this institution is what keeps this work force alive and
in necessary for us.
My colleagues, I beg you, let's don't speed up the glide path that
the Government Printing Office is on now. You are going to pull a nose
dive off that is [[Page H 6222]] going to have a crash and is going to
cost us a lot more than if the normal path that has already been set up
for many years now is followed.
The Government Printing Office is basically a procurement shop. I do
not want the Defense Department being able to go out and choose
whatever printer it wants to print its business. I want the Government
Printing Office to be competitively bidding those jobs out in the
private sector as it has been for years. I hope that will continue. I
respectfully ask my colleagues, please don't vote for this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] will be
postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House
Report 104-146.

amendment offered by mr. christensen

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Christensen: Page 49, after line
25, insert the following new section:
Sec. 312. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the salaries or expenses of any elevator operator
in the House of Representatives office buildings.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Christensen] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
(Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the time has come for Members of Congress to start
pushing their own buttons. Yes, that grievous, arduous task of pushing
your own elevator button. No, my amendment does not propose to
eliminate elevators, nor does my amendment require the Members to take
the steps from here out. All my amendment requires is that we begin
pushing our own elevator button.
Last week a young woman who had been visiting my office commented to
my staff that she was shocked to see that we still had elevator
operators in the House office buildings. She remarked, ``I though you
guys got rid of those the first week.''
Well, if we the Members of this body have heard that comment once, we
have heard it too many times. My amendment very simply would eliminate
funding for the 10 elevator operators in the House office buildings,
not the Capitol, just the House office buildings.
Each and every day this body convenes in committees and task forces
all over the Capitol to make tough choices about changing the way our
Government does business. We were elected to change the way our
Government does business because it is no longer acceptable to
Americans for us to mortgage the future of our Nation and our children.
My amendment is not going to bring the deficit down a whole lot. It
is not going to work on the debt, but it is going to save the taxpayers
$263,000 this year in salary and benefits.
I understand some very well-intentioned Members may suggest that we
should commission a study on this issue. A study. How anyone could
suggest a study to examine how to eliminate 10 elevator operators and
keep a straight face while saying it is beyond me. With a $5 trillion
debt, the last thing we need is another study.
In our economy, when businesses are forced to downsize, it is the
perks that go first: company cars, expense accounts, and corporate
country club memberships, all cut back in the name of the bottom line.
By what justification can any of us say that we must downsize
Government but keep House elevator operators?
I will be the first to admit that many of the people who run the
automatic elevators are good,
decent people. However, we must remember that any time a company is
forced to downsize, many kind and friendly people may lose their jobs
as well.

It might be argued here today that the purpose of the operators is to
assist Members in arriving at the floor in time for votes. But I submit
that my amendment has no bearing whatsoever on the elevator operators
in the Capitol Building. It only affects those in the House office
buildings.
I also remind Members that there are already elevators set aside for
Members only to use, the speed of which remains the same no matter who
pushes the button.
In closing, I will again remind all assembled here that our Federal
Government is broke. We are nearly $5 trillion in debt. At a time when
we are asking Americans to tighten the belt and make do with less,
surely this body can make do without elevator operators.
My colleagues, the time has come for us to begin pushing our own
buttons.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend yielding, and I know
he is into sacrifice.
Am I correct that the gentleman's office is on the first floor of the
Longworth?
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. The gentleman is correct. I am on 1020 Longworth.
Mr. HOYER. Am I correct that the gentleman does not need an elevator,
therefore, because he is at street level? He just walks right out?
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Reclaiming my time from my friend from Maryland, it
is correct that I am on 1020 Longworth, but the issue is not whether I
am on the first floor or the seventh floor or in Rayburn or in Cannon.
Mr. HOYER. You want to give it up for the rest of us.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. The issue is that it is time for us to push our own
automatic elevator buttons.
Mr. HOYER. I understand.

{time} 1345

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Virtually every Member that does work in the Longworth Building would
not want to have the elevators made more inconvenient. There has never
been a time on the floor of this House when the whole issue of being
able to get here to vote on time is more graphic than it was yesterday
and today.
And to even consider making it more difficult for our Members to meet
the time frame of getting here to vote by virtue of eliminating
elevator operators, that only operate for Members at least during the
time that we have a vote call, this would not be the right time.
We have not asked for a study. We have simply asked the chief
administrative officer of the entire House of Representatives, to
review the process of elevators and elevator operators and give us a
recommendation as to how it can be improved. That is not going to be a
long study and expensive study. We expect that to come back to us. We
will readdress this issue at the appropriate time in the future.
Mr. PACKARD. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Clement].
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen]. We have already cut the elevator
operators from 150 a few years ago down to 22. The gentleman is not
giving us any credit for that.
And I might say for the elevator operators, these are good people.
They have families. They are working. And what are we doing in the U.S.
Congress? I thought we were going to put our emphasis on finding ways
to build self-esteem and self-worth. We cannot all be chiefs; we need a
lot of Indians. And we all do different things to get the job done and
accomplish the mission.
Let us give our elevator operators a break. I do not see the
gentleman from Texas putting a cap on these people [[Page H
6223]] making $10 million or more, yet we want to single out the
elevator operators who give information, they give advice, they give
directions, and they are trying to make a difference.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new issue. It is an issue that
is easy to make fun of. The American public hears you have got push-
button elevators. What do you need an operator for? Like all the
elevators around the country, they are run by computers and the
computers cannot tell, they are not as sophisticated as human beings
still.
And human beings, as the chairman has pointed out, can make a
difference, can make judgments, can make sure that people get up and
down the 7 floors of the Longworth Building or the 6 floors or the 5
floors of the Cannon and Rayburn Buildings so that Members can get to
the floor on time.
We have just had a substantial incident where a number of Members
were late getting to the floor. We had a big confrontation about that
and the Speaker told us, voting in a timely fashion is important. We
want to limit it to 17 minutes. This facilitates that at a relatively
small cost. Why? Because the computers cannot tell as well as human
beings can how to accommodate the 15-minute voting patterns.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have, with all due respect, seen a lot of
bonehead amendments in the years that I have been here, but this one
ranks up at top.
The elevator operators on the House side work very hard. They are
scared to death about this. They are scared to death about losing their
jobs. And, frankly, we need them. Those of us who are in the Longworth
Building, many times we run down the steps because the elevators are so
difficult to get in that building. Without the elevator operators, we
would probably miss half the votes.
So, I can think of nothing more that is so silly. The savings is next
to nothing. All it is doing is making a lot of loyal government
employees, who work hard and are not paid much, frightened to death and
making it impossible for Members to vote in a timely fashion.
If there was ever a vote that did not make sense on the merits, this
is it. It does not make sense from a monetary point of view. It saves
us nothing. It does not make sense from an efficiency point of view.
I very, very strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to defeat this amendment. It may play great with the folks back home,
saying we have cut out fat. This is not fat. This is necessary. I urge
defeat of this amendment.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. For any Member to suggest that they are going to miss votes
because they cannot push their own button, but they need an elevator
operator to push the button, is ludicrous. What is this country coming
to when you cannot push your own automatic elevator button?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has 1
minute remaining and has the right to close.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of my amendment and I guess it
would just be the fact that it is not about the families, because they
are good people. They are very good people. But when you downsize, you
have to make some cutbacks and some people have to find other work. So,
I would urge support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon].
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Christensen] is mistaken. This is not a tough vote at all. It is not
tough to cut out jobs; to inconvenience the Members when we have only
17-minutes to get to a vote. It is a cheap-shot vote. It is a bad vote.
It is not a tough vote.
The elevator operators here control the traffic and the flow of the
crowd during the times of votes. It is very important that they do
that. I would urge the Members to vote down this amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In writing this bill we have not approached it to save jobs, per se.
We have tried to streamline and improve the operation of Government.
And the time will come when we will reevaluate the operators after we
have upgraded the elevators and made them work better for the Members.
But for the time being, this is not the time to make it more difficult
for the Members and to eliminate the elevator operators in this
amendment. I urge a strong no vote on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen] will
be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed
in House Report 104-146.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Zimmer

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

Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Zimmer: Page 49, after line
25, insert the following new section:
Sec. 312. Any amount appropriated in this Act for ``HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members'
Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for
fiscal year 1996. Any amount remaining after all payments are
made under such allowances for such fiscal year shall be
deposited in the Treasury, to be used for deficit reduction.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Zimmer] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5
minutes. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, together with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp]
and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], I am proposing an
amendment that addresses an issue that has caused great confusion,
consternation, and rancor in this House.
Many of us have gone to great lengths not to spend the money that is
available for our office expenses because we believe that frugality
begins at home. We believe that we cannot credibly ask for major cuts
in programs that affect our constituents unless we cut programs that
affect us and reduce spending in our own offices.
I have saved more than $500,000 in my 4 years in Congress, and many
of my colleagues have save more. But there has been persistent
uncertainty about what happens to the money that we do not spend.
This amendment ends that uncertainty by explicitly dedicating the
money we save to deficit reduction. Simply put, this amendment gives
Members a real incentive to do the right thing.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak not so much in opposition as to
explain the circumstances. In my opinion, this amendment simply does
not do anything that is now not being done through the normal process.
There has been the mistaken idea, and I had that mistaken idea for
many years when I first came here, and I think many of my colleagues
had the [[Page H 6224]] idea, that there was a slush fund out there
that all the extra money that we did not spend in our official expense
or our other office expense allowances, clerk hire and so forth, if
there were surpluses at end of the year, that money would be turned
back to the slush fund that the Speaker or somebody else in the House
would control.
That is simply not true. The fact is that when I do not spend money
out of my official accounts, it is never withdrawn from the Treasury.
It is never spent from the Treasury.
Members need to know that what we do not spend, what is surplus at
end of the fiscal year out of our official moneys, and that is for all
three accounts, never comes out of the Treasury.
That includes the mail account, that includes the official expense
account, and that also includes the clerk hire account. What is not
spent, there is nothing written out of the Treasury. So there is
nothing to return to the Treasury as this amendment would request.

We cannot return to the Treasury money that has never been withdrawn
from the Treasury. So in my judgment, this amendment has absolutely no
meaning in terms of changing existing policy. It will still remain the
same.
With that explanation, I oppose the amendment because I think it
simply adds a layer of redundancy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I am proud to join in cosponsoring the amendment with Mr. Zimmer. I
introduced this bill as H.R. 26 on the first day of Congress. It has
121 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans. The idea has been endorsed
by the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste,
and the Concord Coalition, because it does address the deficit.
We should vote for this for two reasons, and I strongly disagree with
the analysis of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. One is
because we should lead on deficit reduction. We should take the first
step. If American families are tightening their belts, Congress
certainly can do the same thing. And voluntarily return money. I
voluntarily returned $677,000 over the last 4 years.
Second, in response to the gentleman from California, [Mr. Packard],
this is a truth-in-budgeting amendment. It is outrageous that somebody
could say we need to appropriate less money in the appropriations
process and count on the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], or the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], or the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Browder], or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] to return money
to pay for these other people spending more.
I thank the chairman and the sponsor of the amendment and join
proudly in a bipartisan way to urge passage.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I, too, at one time introduced a bill to do exactly what the
gentleman from Indiana has done, but I was wrong. I simply
misunderstood the process, and I now know what the process is. The
money never goes out of the Treasury.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Thomas].
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I too, do not rise in opposition or in
support of this particular amendment. I would tell the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] he does not return money to the Treasury.
First of all, no money is appropriated for individual offices. There
is no appropriation for the 21st District of California, for example.
There is no appropriation for Members' offices. There is an
appropriation to the House in support of our official duties.
Members draw down on that account. If they do not use all of the
money, it means they did not draw down all of their call on that
account. They do not return money to the Treasury. Having said that,
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] knows that I have been working
with our lawyers and others to try to figure out a way to make this
happen. We are talking about even fundamentally changing the way in
which we appropriate so that Members who do not draw down their account
to the maximum amount available under law, can go back home and say:
That amount I did not draw down is designated to go to deficit
reduction.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is a positive. That is an incentive and it
is probably a better goal than just going back into the Treasury to be
churned for other expenditures.

{time} 1400

So that is why I am not opposing this measure, but you have got to
have an understanding, folks. Your concept of the way this place works
in flat-out wrong.
What we need to do is to make sure that what you are talking about,
in fact, becomes reality, and I pledge my support to continue to work
on this.
And the reason I am not opposing the gentleman from New Jersey is
because if, in fact, it is possible, within the context of this
appropriations bill, to make some determinations without having to go
to statute, at least, he says, it is to go to deficit reduction instead
of the general treasury. That is a modest step forward, if we can make
it happen.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp].
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding me this time.
I join him in urging support of this amendment, as well as the
gentleman from Indiana.
I agree with much of what the gentleman from California said. He is
correct in that these funds are not office- or district-specific.
However, the fact is if all of the offices collectively do not use the
appropriated amount, these funds can be reprogrammed.
In the past, I would submit that that has occurred in this House, and
what this amendment would do is it would change that procedure so those
leftover funds are not reprogrammed.
In the beginning of this session, during the debate on the rules
package, I came to the floor and requested that we have an independent
audit of House operations to include an examination of where these
funds go, because it has been blurred and made difficult for us to find
this out.
So I would urge support of the amendment.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the sponsor of
this amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], and also
the author of H.R. 26, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], for
allowing me to speak on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Zimmer amendment.
As a new Member of Congress, I have discovered there are few clear
choices when it comes to balancing the Federal budget. This amendment
is a simple, commonsense proposition for Members of the House to claim
they support this goal. Each year many Representatives have money left
over in their office budgets. This money goes back to the general House
fund for use on other projects.
The Zimmer amendment would require Representatives to apply all
excess funds from their office budgets each year to the Federal debt.
In essence, Members of Congress would be making their contribution to
the ultimate goal of balancing the budget, a goal which many of us
support.
I ask Members who came to Congress as a result of the 1994 elections
to carefully consider this amendment. The American people sent us here
to reduce the deficit and change the way Congress does its business.
The Zimmer amendment accomplishes both goals.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, this is a familiar fight for the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer],
and other people in my class because we actually began it back in 1990.
I understand the point of the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], that it is
certainly not the intention, his intention, nor the intention of his
colleagues to turn around and reprogram money. [[Page H 6225]]
It seems to me if there is a question or if there is essentially some
sense of indecision about whether or not this is binding, then we
should clearly err on the side of deficit reduction. Let us remove any
sense of temptation that presently exists for the Committee on
Appropriations to reprogram any of this money. Let us settle it once
and for all.
Like my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], I have
worked very hard in my office to hold down expenses and have had the
lingering suspicion over the least 4 years much of the money I saved
somehow gets spent someplace else.
Let us say to the Members of Congress, if you are careful enough to
hold down travel and careful enough to hold down salaries of your staff
and careful enough to watch the kind of monies spent throughout your
House operations, then at the very least all the incentives should be
in place to save money rather than spend it.
I strongly support the Zimmer amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon].
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, and Members, I, too, join in the opposition
to this amendment. I really think, after listening to the dialogue
here, that the problem could be corrected by allowing Members to put
out a press release saying that they returned money to the Treasury.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in my concluding remarks, I want to simply remind
Members that we went to special efforts to give Members credit for not
spending all of their funds. The report provides that there will be a
letter that would indicate that they have not spent all of their funds;
they can use it for whatever purpose that they wish.
Any amount left in the appropriations account, in this account,
remains in the treasury. It is never spent out of the treasury and thus
it is available for deficit reduction.
The absolute intent of this amendment is being realized in the
existing process.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] will be
postponed.

announcement by the chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the
following order: Amendment No. 8, offered by the gentleman from Utah
[Mr. Orton]; amendment No. 9, offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Klug]; amendment No. 10, offered by the gentleman from Nebraska
[Mr. Christensen]; and amendment No. 11, offered by the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first such vote in this series.

amendment offered by mr. orton

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman
from Utah [Mr. Orton] a recorded vote 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.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. Those in support of the demand for a recorded vote will
rise and be counted. The Chair will count all Members standing in
support of the request for a recorded vote.
This is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair advise us as to how the vote
turned out on the voice vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair said in the reading of the announcement that
the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has not yet been ordered.
The pending business before the committee is a request for a recorded
vote.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand this is not necessarily a
parliamentary inquiry. Was it the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Utah [Mr. Orton]?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
expressing concern on voting procedure

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of
order for 1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. The concern I have, I would say to the acting ranking
member and the chairman, is that if one of our colleagues requested a
vote and expected that vote to occur and is now off the floor, I think
it would be somewhat unfair of us not to--here is the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. Orton].
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. I know my
colleagues were glad to hear from me.
The CHAIRMAN. Any Member may make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on my amendment.
Pending that, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the point of order and
demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104,
noes 321, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 412]

AYES--104

Abercrombie
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bishop
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Cardin
Clyburn
Condit
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Doyle
Duncan
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Geren
Gordon
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Mascara
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Mfume
Minge
Montgomery
Nadler
Oberstar
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Rahall
Reed
Richardson
Rose
Sabo
Sawyer
Schroeder
Shays
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Stenholm
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thornton
Thurman
Towns
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weller
Williams
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--321

Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake [[Page H 6226]]
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--9

Ackerman
Clayton
Laughlin
Moakley
Parker
Scarborough
Schumer
Serrano
Torres

{time} 1430

Mr. WISE and Mr. MARTINEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. ESHOO, Messrs. PAYNE of Virginia, BAESLER, FARR, NADLER, LEWIS of
Georgia, MFUME, FOGLIETTA, CRAMER, TAYLOR of Mississippi, OBERSTAR,
KLECZKA, MASCARA, SHAYS, and TOWNS, Ms. LOFGREN, and Messrs. BORSKI,
TAUZIN, BACHUS, GORDON, MARKEY, SKELTON, RICHARDSON, and LUTHER changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________