[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 5493, H.R. 5711, H.R. 5681, H.R. 5682, H.R. 5717, AND
TWO COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS
=======================================================================
MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Held in Washington, DC, July 14, 2010
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-123 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
Vice-Chairman Ranking Minority Member
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts KEVIN McCARTHY, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
Jaimie Fleet, Staff Director
Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director
MARKUP OF H.R. 5493, H.R. 5711, H.R. 5681, H.R. 5682, H.R. 5717, AND
TWO COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2010
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:10 a.m., in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Brady, Capuano, Gonzalez, Davis of
California, Davis of Alabama, Lungren, and Harper.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Khalil Abboud,
Professional Staff; Tom Hicks, Senior Elections Counsel; Matt
Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson,
Press Director; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Shervan
Sebastian, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Ryan Caimi,
Intern; Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director; Karin
Moore, Minority Legislative Counsel; Salley Collins, Minority
Press Secretary; and Mary Sue Englund, Minority Professional
Staff.
The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
Administration to order.
The first item on the agenda today is H.R. 5682, to improve
the operation of certain House facilities and programs, which I
have sponsored.
This bill would make permanent a temporary provision
allowing the active duty Armed Forces' personnel working in the
House office buildings as congressional liaisons to become a
member of the House staff gym. The practice is now in place and
is working fine, and we propose to make it permanent for the
benefit of military personnel who might prefer to exercise here
rather than at the Pentagon or elsewhere.
The bill also includes a provision to eliminate unnecessary
bookkeeping related to the House Child Care Center. The account
currently supporting the Center is not a revolving fund,
meaning that at the end of the year the accountants must seek
approval and work with the Treasury to transfer unspent
balances forward to the next year. Converting the account to a
true revolving fund will save the House and Treasury staff time
better spent elsewhere. The changes will have no effect on the
Center's staff, the parents or the children.
Finally, the bill includes two technical corrections, and I
know of no controversy, and I urge an aye vote.
I now recognize our new ranking member, Mr. Harper, for any
statement that he would like to make.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to support this resolution providing for
administrative provisions affecting the House.
This resolution authorizes military liaisons to have access
to the House staff fitness center. Given the sacrifice
demonstrated by our Armed Forces each and every day, this seems
a minor privilege to grant to such vital and well-deserving
members of our society and our families.
This resolution also establishes a revolving fund for the
House Child Care Center and codifies certain practices related
to the CAO's allocation of care and repair of furniture for use
in the House of Representatives.
These are all sensible and appropriate changes, Mr.
Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support them.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Any other comments?
The chair now lays before the committee the bill, H.R.
5682, to improve the operations of certain facilities and
programs of the House of Representatives, and for other
purposes, which is before the members.
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and
open to amendment at any time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.004
The Chairman. Is there any debate? Any amendments?
Hearing none, if there are no amendments, I move to order
H.R. 5682 reported favorably to the House.
The question is on the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed? No.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably to the House.
The next bill is H.R. 5681, which I sponsored to improve
certain administrative operations of the Library of Congress.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.007
The Chairman. The first section of the bill authorizes the
Library of Congress to dispose of surplus or obsolete property
through interagency transfers, trades, sales, and other
appropriate methods. The proceeds from these transactions will
be made available to the Library to acquire similar but
modernized items to replace property that was sold, transferred
or traded.
Section 2 clarifies that the Library may use any available
funds to pay for student loan benefits for employees regardless
of the source of their salaries within the Library. Funds for
student loan repayments for all employees of all Library
service units will now be drawn from the same fund, making
repayment easier to administer and more accessible to
employees.
The last section makes available certain unobligated
balances that have expired to be appropriated to the Library
for credit to the Employees' Compensation Fund beginning in
fiscal year 2011.
The chair now would like to recognize Mr. Harper for any
opening statement.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a commonsense bill to improve the administrative
operations at the Library of Congress, and I am pleased to
support it.
This bill authorizes the Librarian of Congress to dispose
of surplus or obsolete personal property and use the proceeds
to purchase similar replacement property. At a time when
Americans want their government to demonstrate fiscal
responsibility, this is a prudent change.
The bill improves the administration of the Library's
student loan repayment program by authorizing use of the
general salaries and expenses account for this purpose. This
sensible change will permit the Library to centrally administer
the program and achieve efficiencies in its operation.
Finally, this bill will help the Library streamline the
process for submitting required payments for workers'
compensation claims by authorizing the Library to use expired
appropriations for such payments. Again, this is a simple,
commonsense adjustment in Library operations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 5681.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Any other debate? Are there any amendments?
If there are no amendments, I move to order H.R. 5681
reported favorably to the House. The question is on the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed? No.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably to the House.
The next item on the agenda is H.R. 5717, the Smithsonian
Conservation Biology Institute Enhancement Act. This important
legislation will upgrade the Smithsonian Institute's notable
scientific and educational facilities and its unique animal
conservation facility of Front Royal, Virginia.
The legislation has three primary elements.
The first would authorize $1 million in fiscal year 2010,
which has already been appropriated, $1 million in fiscal year
2011, and $3 million in later fiscal years to plan, design, and
construct a Smithsonian facility at Front Royal, which would
include laboratories and offices for the purpose of conducting
research and educational programs.
Second, it would authorize the Board of Regents to enter
into agreements for the provision of housing and other services
to participate in these programs at no cost to the Smithsonian.
George Mason University, located in Northern Virginia, has
entered into an agreement to use Virginia State revenue bonds
to construct a dormitory and food services facility for
students participating in the program.
The Smithsonian has frequently entered into cooperation
agreements with learning institutions, including universities,
to enhance its mission, though this is the first time that
institution will allow an outside entity to construct the
building on property it controls. After 30 years' ownership of
this facility, it would enhance the Smithsonian without the
government or the Smithsonian having spent any of their own
funds.
Finally, the bill would authorize the Smithsonian to plan,
design, and construct animal holding and related programs
facilities at the site from non-Federal sources. The cost,
which is estimated to be between $1 to $2 million, would be
paid for by the Smithsonian private trust fund.
Bipartisan staff in committee has been briefed and visited
the Front Royal site last month. This legislation enhances the
responsibility and contributions we all expect from the
Smithsonian.
Mr. Harper, I recognize you for any statement you may wish
to make.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Smithsonian Institution is an invaluable part of our
national heritage and our ongoing commitment to historical
preservation and scientific advancements. I am pleased to
discuss this legislation, sponsored by the congressional
members of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, which will help
further the Institution's founding mission to support and
increase the diffusion of knowledge.
This legislation supports the Smithsonian's important
conservation biology work conducted at the National Zoological
Park, located in Front Royal, Virginia, and it strengthens
their collaborative partnership with George Mason University in
these efforts.
The planned renovation and construction, which leverages a
modest Federal investment with significant non-Federal funds,
will enhance the education and professional training programs
currently under way.
I am pleased to support this bill, which helps the
Smithsonian maintain its well-deserved international reputation
for excellence in scientific discovery and advancement and its
continued commitment to the environment we must steward. I
appreciate the chairman's bringing up this legislation today,
and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5717.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Any other debate?
The chair now lays before the committee the bill H.R. 5717.
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open
to amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.010
The Chairman. If there are no amendments, I move to order
H.R. 5717 reported favorably to the House. The question is on
the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed? No.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably to the House.
The next item is Committee Resolution 111-9, which allows
funds from the MRA to be used for a new category of advertising
on the Internet.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.011
The Chairman. This is a new tool for Members who want to
notify constituents of official events and services supported
by the congressional offices.
One thing all Members can agree on is they need to reach
out to our constituents and for our constituents to reach out
to us quickly and in an effective way. With more people relying
on electronic media as their primary source of communication
and information, it is necessary that our own regulations
reflect these needs.
I would like to thank Mr. Lungren for working with me on
this and in a timely manner.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Lungren for any opening
statement.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being late. I was at another hearing, and I
am sorry. No disrespect meant to you or my colleagues.
As I understand, we are talking about the Franking
Commission issue right here, and I would like to say that I
appreciate you adding this important issue to our agenda.
The Franking Commission is very important. A lot of people
are not aware of it, but it is important to the House because
the Commission does review the primary way that all Members
communicate with their constituents.
Having said that, I would like to take a brief moment to
discuss the long-standing request before this committee to
update the existing advertising regulations.
As our constituents become increasingly reliant on various
sources of information, we are trying to update ourselves in
terms of being able to respond to them. It is critical that
this committee allow Members to utilize new and emerging
technologies that will help them communicate more effectively
with their constituents. Unfortunately, the rules in the past
have allowed only a limited use of this advertising and
prohibited Members from taking full advantage of new media
tools. So that is why I very much appreciate the fact that our
staffs have worked together on this to draft these new
regulations that, I hope, will be approved here today.
I do appreciate your time and the time of all of our
colleagues and our staffs for considering this pending request
to help Members communicate more efficiently and effectively
with their constituents, so I would urge adoption of the
resolution.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Is there any other debate? Are there any amendments?
Yes.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to
clarify for the record that we have agreement on both sides
that these regulations will apply to all advertisements,
including online advertisements, and that the staffs will work
together to reconcile any ambiguities or inconsistencies with
regard to how these new standards are applied, including the
committee handbook.
The Chairman. Yes. Without a problem. Without objection.
If there are no amendments, the question is on agreeing to
the committee resolution.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed? No.
The ayes have it, and the committee resolution is agreed
to. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the
table.
The next item is Committee Resolution 111-10.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.021
The Chairman. In October, 2010, the committee, with the
help of the Chief Administrative Officer and the Office of
Inspector General, developed a new set of voucher documentation
standards for processing payments from the Members
Representational Allowance. They were designed to address the
needs to safeguard House accounts from fraudulent activities by
implementing stronger financial controls and greater
transparency.
In the past few months, the committee has heard from
Members about how we can retain the financial accountability
brought by the standards but make adjustments so that Members
can better address the needs of their staffs and their
constituents. In developing these revisions, which are
incorporated in the committee resolution before us, I have
worked with my friends of the minority as well as with the
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Inspector
General, the House Chiefs of Staff Association, the Committee
and Leadership Managers Association, and the Professional
Administrative Managers Association. I would like to thank them
all for their input.
Additionally, I would also like to ask for Mr. Lungren's
assistance in properly educating Members' offices about these
changes in order to make their implementation as effective as
possible.
I now would like to recognize Mr. Lungren for an opening
statement.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Our voucher documentation standards have needed adjustment,
and I am very pleased to support this effort.
Additionally, I am appreciative of the fact that our staffs
did work together so well to address some of the substantial
concerns raised by Members and their staffs. It seems to me if
we have our documentation in conformity with that required by
the IRS that ought to be sufficient, rather than going beyond
that.
It is my understanding that the changes we are making have
been reviewed by the House Chief of Staff Association and that
they are in agreement with the proposed modifications. I think
that is important because they are the ones that have to
actually deal with it on a day-to-day basis; and in some ways,
without this adjustment, we were actually imposing an
obligation that really didn't add to security or an ability to
justify, appropriately, expenditures but, rather, made it even
more difficult to apply that.
I look forward to the greater efficiency, transparency, and
accountability as we implement these changes and increase the
productivity of this Chamber. The changes will continue to help
us and our staffs to carry out our official duties as Members
of Congress, but they will do so by striking an important
balance between ensuring Member accountability without
creating, as I say, the overly burdensome and bureaucratic
process.
Based on last-minute staff discussions, it is my
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we have language to reconcile
any differences posed in these standards with the relevant
committee handbooks, and I am seeking the chairman's assurance
that the minority will be consulted prior to any of the final
changes.
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Mr. Lungren. With that, I would urge adoption.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Is there any other debate? Are there any amendments?
If there are no amendments, the question is on agreeing to
the committee resolution.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
The ayes have it, and the committee resolution 111-10 is
agreed to; and, without objection, a motion to reconsider is
laid upon the table.
I am told now that we need to take a brief recess,
hopefully a very brief recess, for a moment or two; and we will
get back together as soon as possible. Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
Administration back to order again.
The next item on the agenda is H.R. 5493, introduced by the
delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
I would like to thank the gentlelady for being here and thank
the gentlelady for her patience and also thank her for her hard
work on this bill.
This would authorize two statues representing prominent,
historical people in the District of Columbia to be placed in
our National Statuary Hall Collection at no cost to the Federal
Government. The bill reflects the language of the relevant
sections of title II of the United States Code, which created
Statuary Hall and governs the process by which statues in the
collection are accepted or authorized for replacement by the
Joint Committee on Library. The JCL may order statues to be
located anywhere in the United States Capitol building, which
now also includes the Capitol Visitor Center. There are
currently 100 statues in the collection.
I want to assure members that this legislation has nothing
whatsoever to do with the D.C. voting rights, over which our
committee has no jurisdiction.
The District of Columbia, our Nation's capital, has a
unique history on our American Republic, and recognition of its
distinguished citizens through sculptures to be displayed in
the United States Capitol is long overdue.
The chair would now like to recognize the ranking member
for any opening statement.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We have got a jinx.
Mr. Lungren. Okay.
The Chairman. You did it.
Mr. Lungren. All right. It is working now.
Mr. Chairman, I support a combination of this bill and
5711, which would allow for the District of Columbia and the
Territories all to be able to put one statue in the Capitol.
The reason I say that--and will offer an amendment to that
effect--is that the States of the Union have two statues here
at the Capitol, and that is the way it has always been.
There is a distinction between the States of the Union, the
Territories, and the District of Columbia. One of the concerns
I have is, despite what the chairman has suggested, that there
are those who are attempting to circumvent the Constitution, in
my judgment--that is, to give the District of Columbia quasi-
State status without going through the amendment process of the
Constitution, which is the way it is set out. If you will look
at some official Web sites, you will see even pieces of
legislation with reference to the District of Columbia are
couched as simply an example that the House is moving ever
closer to passing the D.C. Voting Rights Act. There are those
who describe any legislative action in terms of showing that
D.C. is treated similarly to States or, alternatively, that
D.C. is treated differently, that is, in a priority status over
other Territories, and I just believe that is contrary to the
Constitution.
While this bill does not speak to that question, it, in my
judgment, tries to show that there is an equality between the
District of Columbia and the other States. That is why I had
argued for some time when this issue was being brought up and
told my staff that I would strongly support allowing the
District of Columbia and the Territories--American Samoa, Guam,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands--each to have a statue here
in the Capitol. I will just say that I don't object to giving
the District of Columbia and the Territories the opportunity to
display a statue, but I do object to using this process as some
suggestion that the District of Columbia be given a vote in the
United States House of Representatives, because the
Constitution clearly says that the House of Representatives
shall be made up of Representatives from the States.
We have had this argument before, and I think it is an
important argument. I find it difficult when there are those in
the Congress and on the courts who have no difficulty finding
things in the Constitution that are not there, and yet when the
Constitution is fairly clear--well, specifically clear--as to
what the makeup of the House of Representatives ought to be, we
somehow say, ``well, it's like that,'' ``it's similar to,''
``it looks like it; therefore, it ought to be done.''
We had dealt with this issue when I was in Congress the
first time around. I am one of those who supports the idea of
retrocession--that is, allowing the vast bulk of the District
of Columbia to be returned to the State of Maryland where
people will be able to vote for both the Senators and a Member
of the House, much as that part of the District of Columbia
which was returned to Virginia over 100 years ago, and it has
allowed them to participate fully. But I just think that we
ought to combine the two bills, and I will offer an amendment
for that purpose.
With that, I would--I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Any other debate?
I now would like to open the floor for any amendments. Are
there any amendments.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Chairman. Excuse me. The Chair needs now to lay before
the committee the bill H.R. 5493. Without objection, the bill
will be considered as read and is open to any amendments at any
time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.025
The Chairman. Now are there any amendments?
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman and agree that the
amendment be considered as read.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.029
The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is
straightforward. I tried to mention it in my opening comments
so that we wouldn't take a lot of debate on it unnecessarily. I
hope it will be adopted by the committee.
It essentially combines the D.C. statue bill and the bill
granting a statue to each of the Territories, giving both D.C.
and the Territories one statue. This change removes any
hesitation members might feel in voting for a piece of
legislation that they would view as an unintended support for
the D.C. voting rights bill.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment, and I will
yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Any debate on the amendment?
I would just like to add a few things.
I respectfully disagree with the member's amendment. There
are significant differences between the District of Columbia
and other Territories seeking statues.
The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution grants the District
of Columbia three electoral votes. The Territories of the
United States have no electoral votes. D.C. residents, unlike
the residents of the U.S. Territories, all have the obligation
of United States citizenship.
Another difference between D.C. residents and the residents
of the Territories is that D.C. residents are treated the same
as the residents of the other 50 States for tax purposes. In
contrast, the United States generally does not apply its taxes
to the Territories. Additionally, Congress treats D.C. as a
State for purposes of Federal funding and programs.
So I respectfully ask the members to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
The question now is on the amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
If there are no further amendments, I move that House H.R.
5493 be reported favorably to the House.
The question is on the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Lungren. No.
The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the bill is ordered reported favorably to the House.
The next item on the agenda is H.R. 5711, which provides
for one statue each to be placed in the National Statutory Hall
Collection, honoring the citizens of American Territories for
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands.
This bill, like the previous one, reflects the language of
the relevant section of title II of the United States Code,
which created Statutory Hall and governs the process by which
statues in the collection are accepted or authorized for
replacement by the Joint Committee on Library.
The history of these five American Territories is
oftentimes overlooked. By authorizing the placement of a statue
in the National Statuary Hall Collection, each Territory can
now honor a native son or daughter by providing an educational
display to those not familiar with their histories.
I would now like to recognize again the ranking member for
an opening statement.
Mr. Lungren. I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.
It was my hope that we could combine this legislation with
the D.C. statue bill and create some uniformity among like
entities. I understand the gentleman's suggesting there is some
difference among the Territories and the District of Columbia.
I would just point out there is a difference among the
Territories themselves, other than the District of Columbia.
For instance, it may be a little known fact that, in
American Samoa, if you are born in American Samoa, you are an
American national, not an American citizen, unless you are born
of American citizens. If you are born on a Territory of the
United States called Swift Island, the same thing occurs. If
you are born on Guam, you are an American citizen. If you are
born in Puerto Rico, you are an American citizen. If you are
born in the Virgin Islands, you are an American citizen. So we
have made a distinction among those. Historically, we might go
back and take a look at what that is.
So, again, I would have hoped that we would have combined
this legislation with the prior legislation for the reasons
that I had indicated, but, with that, I would I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now lays before the committee H.R. 5711, and
without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open
to amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8123A.033
The Chairman. Is there any debate? Are there any
amendments?
No amendments. I move to order H.R. 5711 reported favorably
to the House.
The question is on the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
According to the chair's opinion, the ayes have it, and the
bill is ordered reported favorably to the House.
All members will have two additional days, provided by the
House rules, to file views. Without objection, the staff will
be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as
may be required to reflect the actions of the committee.
The committee now stands adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]