Although the Joint Committee did not hold hearings specifically dedicated to the issue of congressional staff, witness after witness addressed the subject in conjunction with other reform concerns. Indeed, the hearing record is replete with references to congressional staff in the areas of reducing staff, allocating staff between majority and minority parties, and use of associate staff, among other things. The summary presented herewith is drawn from these various statements.

Congressional Staff Reductions

An overarching theme in the testimony was staffing reductions. Representative Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, captured the predominant temperament of the witnesses when he stated on April 22, ``I think we could do with less staff.''1 However, reasons for reducing staff varied. Some viewed the increases in staff since the early 1960s as simply too steep. As Representative Scott Klug testified on February 4, ``Between 1960 and 1993, the number of lawmakers here in Congress has remained exactly the same, but the congressional staff has grown three times in size;''2 he continued by recommending that Congress downsize in a manner comparable to U.S. industrial giants. Others indicated that large staffs have resulted in the Congress becoming too staff-reliant; Representative John Kasich on March 25 testified, ``It is real easy to [rely] on staff, so we get ourselves in a position where we don't do hands-on things ourselves and you've got staff negotiating all this. It ought to be the Members doing [the negotiating.]''3

Still others saw staff as complicating congressional procedures needlessly; Representative Mike Huffington on February 4 testified that ``bloated'' staff ``duplicate[s] efforts at enormous cost of time and money, in the face of an electorate unwilling to extend us any more of either'' resulting is ``a slowing and dulling of good decision making.''4 David Mason of the Heritage Foundation testified on February 16 that a large staff reduction would have a salacious effect on ``just about every area: reducing incumbent electoral advantages; trimming the length and complexity of legislation; . . . cutting the volume of midnight deals . . . limiting improper interference with regulatory and other executive branch functions. In short, getting rid of some of the help will force the elected officials to do their job: to legislate.''5

However, cautionary voices in staff reductions were also heard. Joint Committee member Senator Harry Reid testified on January 26 that any staff reform must be guided by the role of the Congress in the constitutional scheme:

It is thus imperative to maintain and enhance the institutional independence of the Congress. Apparent gains in administrative efficiency and improvements in institutional organization and procedure must not be allowed to compromise this fundamental principle. On the contrary, any reforms we agree to recommend should improve the structure and processes of the Congress so as to enhance its ability now and in the future to function as an independent and co-equal branch of government. The issue of congressional staff is illustrative of the need to proceed carefully in this regard.''6

On February 16, Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar of the American Enterprise Institute, agreed that the demand to cut congressional staff was overwhelming but urged the Joint Committee ``to avoid the pressure for across-the-board cuts, which . . . would be disastrous . . . . The goal here should be to make sure that Congress can fulfill its roles as the framers set them out, as we all want to see them fulfilled in the most efficient manner possible. You do not want to cut staff where you might have a small dollar savings when it would end up damaging an essential function of Congress.''7 Representative John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, reinforced these sentiments on April 29 when he urged the Joint Committee to base any recommendation for committee staff reduction ``on the basis of a specific analysis of their functions, and not in some across-the-board `meat ax' fashion.''8

Testifying on June 22, Ed Derwinski, former Member of Congress and former cabinet secretary, justified the size of congressional staff as a defensive maneuver: ``I would say that the bloated size of the Congressional staffs borders on a national disgrace. Having said that, though, I think Congress needs those bloated staffs because of the bloated [executive] bureaucracy.''9

A substantial number of witnesses noted that a change in the committee structure and new restrictions on committee assignments would ipso facto result in desired staff reductions. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole on January 26 stated that Members must start making some sacrifices and this meant ``reducing the number of committee assignments . . . . you can reduce the cost, [you can reduce] the number of staff people, and so I think that is an area that we do have an agreement on.''10 Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell on the same day proposed a 10 percent reduction in the committee budgets, which would effectively limit staff, noting that ``our leadership offices should not be spared from these budget cuts.''11 On April 22, Representative George Miller stated that ``if the jurisdictional lines were made functional,''12 committee staffs could be substantially reduced.

Generally the witnesses did not address the issue of personal staff reductions, preferring to limit their testimony to general staff reductions or committee staff reductions. Among those who did approach the issue of personal staffing, Dr. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Dr. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, authors of the Renewing Congress Project, recommended on February 16 that ``measured cuts in personal staffs in the House''13 could be made, specifically reducing from 18 to 15 the maximum number of permanent full-time staff. Also former Member Bill Frenzel on January 28 testified, ``I think we need to reduce the personal staff and expense limits. I will let you be the judge of how much.''14

Majority/Minority Allocation of Staff Positions

The opening statement of Joint Committee member Representative Jennifer Dunn on May 6 encapsulated the issue of partisan staffing allocation: ``Unlike the committee staffs in the Senate, House Committees are not required to provide a fair share of staff resources to the minority party. Earlier this year, I lead an effort to make this reform by requiring that at least one third of the committee staff funding resources go to the minority party. That effort was defeated, unfortunately, largely along partisan lines.''15

Many witnesses, primarily Republicans joined by several outside academic witnesses, urged the Joint Committee to take action to extend the current 2 to 1 allocation of statutory staff between the parties on House committees to the investigative staff as well. Ornstein on April 20 noted that ``[Reallocation of investigative staff] is something that has come up in every one of the proposals in the past. It worked in the Senate. It worked in part because it was less of a partisan atmosphere at the time. It is another lesson, by the way, that has to be learned from the Stevenson Committee. It worked because it was a bipartisan approach.''16

The June 16 testimony of Representative John Mica typified the comments received from Republican Members: ``I believe that if we could move to this method [two majority to one minority and control of one third of each committee budget by the ranking member], and put it in the House rules, or put it somewhere where it had to stand, then that would provide the minority the simple fairness it is looking for.''17

However, not all witnesses felt the minority staffing issue presented a problem. Representative Kika de la Garza, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, testified on May 11 that his Agriculture Committee ``[has] never had any problem. That issue has never come up. I think institutionally . . . that the Chairman should have the responsibility . . . . We have never had any problem, everything has worked well with us. There have never been any movements within the Minority in our committee that [they] wanted to manage this or manage that, control this or control that.''18 In a similar vein Representative John Conyers, Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, testified, ``[N]o Republican on the Government Operations Committee . . . has ever been denied staffing, resources, equipment, travel or approval of hearing requests from this Member. Not a one.''19

Relatedly, several witnesses urged the establishment of non-partisan committee staffs. As Senator Hank Brown testified on February 2, ``I believe there is an enormous value in developing a non-partisan staff . . . . it seems to me quite realistic that a portion of the functions handled by each committee would well be handled by non-partisan permanent staff.''20

Other Staffing Issues

While staff reductions and partisan allocations were the primary subjects of testimony, other areas of staffing were touched on briefly.

The Joint Committee was asked to review the practice of detailing staff to Congress from executive branch and legislative support agencies. Senate Minority Leader Dole on January 26 stated, ``No Senator or Senate committee should accept the services of an individual detailed to such Senator or Senate committee by a Federal agency. That is just one cheap way to expand your staff . . . .''21 On the other hand, Bill Frenzel on January 28 suggested more staff exchanges as a way to lessen the distrust between the legislative and executive branches. GPO Acting Public Printer Michael DiMario on June 10 suggested that GPO detailees be paid by the committees to which they are assigned.

Several witnesses recommended that the associate staff be eliminated. Professor Roger Davidson of the University of Maryland on April 20 testified, ``[Associate staff] is a historical development that occurred at the time [when] many of the younger Members did not have access to the committee staffs in a fair manner. I don't think this is a problem today and I think that the whole phenomenon of associate staff has gone far beyond what is necessary and is duplicative and wasteful.''22 In prepared remarks, Ornstein and Mann concurred: ``We believe [associate] staffs should be cut back substantially. As much as possible staff resources on committees should be at the center, in the full committee and the subcommittees, available to all members but responsible primarily to chairmen and ranking members. The excessive decentralization of staff resources on committees and subcommittees has contributed, in our judgment, to the difficulty committees and their leaders often have at forging consensus and moving to action.''23

Some degree of formal regulation of staff was recommended. Former Member John Marsh on June 22 stated that the increased role of staff in the legislative process necessitates the formal establishment of ``certain guidelines and policies that relate to the conduct of staff members and their proper role and function.''24

Overall Administration of Capitol Hill Operations

The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, on June 17, 1993, conducted a hearing devoted exclusively to the administration of the Hill; at that time, the Director of Non-Legislative Services and two representatives presented testimony. Administration of the Hill issues, however, appeared in other testimony scattered throughout the 6-month hearing phase; these references were rarely the focus of the testimony, were often brief and even of a parenthetical nature. Together the discrete day of testimony and the episodic references form a complete picture of the Hill administrative issues presented to the Joint Committee.

Clearly, administration of the Hill issues were not a priority of the testimony presented by the Senate witnesses; rarely was the topic addressed whatsoever. A notable exception was a theoretical concept put forth on June 17 by Senator Richard Lugar, a member of the Joint Committee: ``If you start from scratch, [the Congress should] literally employ someone to be the manager of the premises and of the activities, with oversight by a revolving group of Senators and Members of the House who come and go as elections occur to oversee the situation.''25

In contrast, administration of the Hill issues were predominantly the province of the House witnesses. A common theme was the annoyance, frustration, and even incredulity regarding the system of separate House and Senate administrative offices performing essentially the same functions. As Joint Committee member Wayne Allard on January 26 noted, ``I can recall a constituent who came to visit the Capitol and found he was dealing with a different set of rules of the House side when he wanted to take pictures of the Capitol and on the Senate side there was another set of rules. It seems to me those two could be consolidated.''26 Similarly, Representative G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery during his testimony on the committee system (May 6), urged the Joint Committee to consider the possible combination of House and Senate services: ``I would hope this committee would ask for an explanation . . . . why does the House and Senate need two fair employment offices? Why do we need two payroll offices? Why do we need two computer centers, two purchasing offices and two page schools? There certainly could be improved cooperation and coordination between the two bodies for more efficiency and [savings of] money.''27

However, others tempered this insistence on unity of administrative services, pointing out historical and institutional reasons for separateness. On the opening day of the hearings, Speaker Foley testified, ``It is also important to recognize that we are not a unicameral body and that there are differences in culture, as I have said, in history between the institutions that make them markedly different in many respects.''28 Lieutenant General Leonard Wishart III, the Director of Non-Legislative Services in the House, while noting that ``there can be efficiencies achieved by combining activities on both sides through both bodies,''29 cautioned that before any changes are made the decision makers must ``understand what the differences [between the Chambers] are and whether or not they should remain different.''30

The operation of the Capitol Hill police, and the perceived lack of oversight by either the House or Senate, was another favored topic. Testimony was typified by Representative Charlie Rose, Chairman of the House Administration Committee, who stated on May 6: ``Lord only knows what [the Capitol Hill police] are doing_I certainly don't. I don't, for example, know the full extent of the police department's ability to do wire taps, or eavesdropping, on members or committees around here. I don't know the extent -- the House Sergeant at Arms certainly can't tell me the extent to which the Senate has electronic equipment, for what use, who runs it, what are the backgrounds of the people who are [operating] it, are they former CIA employees who are working for the Administration or are they really working for us?''31

A third theme evident in testimony before the Joint Committee emerged from the shadow of what Representative Bill Thomas, the ranking minority member of the House Administration Committee on June 17 described as ``a very difficult period over the so-called House Bank, Sergeant at Arms Disbursing Office, and the Post Office.''32 Clearly, witnesses were intent on restoring and preserving the integrity of the House and its operations. The Director of Non-Legislative Services on June 17, in describing the progress of the transfer to his office various House administrative functions to his office, limited his recommendations to the Joint Committee to only one: facilitating the passage of statutes to give his office authority for current and planned responsibility; ``I have the responsibility_a good deal of responsibility -- but don't have the authority, other than moral authority and the authority which I have by virtue of the support from the Subcommittee [on Administrative Oversight of the House Administration Committee].''33 Representative Thomas suggested that day that the Office of Director of Non-Legislative Services will only fulfill its promise if the structure is operated in a non-partisan fashion and is ``truly a shared power structure.''34 The final witness on the Administration of the Hill, Representative Thomas Ridge urged the Joint Committee to be instrumental in setting up an Office of Inspector General in the House. ``We need a structure that will help us, not only restore the credibility that has been eroded the bigger we have gotten over the years, but will also give us some feeling of security, and more importantly to us and to those we represent, a standard and an office of accountability.''35

Support Agencies

Through written questionnaires as well as oral and written testimony, the Joint Committee reviewed the current structures and operations of the Government Printing Office and the four support agencies: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), General Accounting Office (GAO), and Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). In reviewing the support agencies, the Joint Committee addressed the following questions succinctly posed by Representative David Dreier, Co-Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee, at the outset of the June 10, 1993, hearing on the support agencies:

Testifying as a panel at the hearing were the heads of the five organizations: Joseph Ross, Director, CRS; Charles Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States, GAO; Richard Herdman, Director, OTA; Robert Reischauer, Director, CBO; and Michael DiMario, Acting Public Printer, GPO. Each witness described the mission, services, and operation of his agency before responding to diverse questions including how to avoid duplication of agency efforts, how to reduce legislative branch employees, and what actions are being taken to hire and promote women and minorities.

The Joint Committee proceeded with the intent of maintaining the quality of the services these agencies provide Congress while also identifying and incorporating any possible improvements to the efficiency of agency operations and the caliber of information support for the Congress. For instance, after applauding the agencies as representing ``what really is good about this institution,'' Senator Reid addressed the possibility of trying ``to refine things around the edges.''36 He spoke of a need to lessen the workload of some of the agencies, perhaps by allowing only committee and subcommittee leaders to make requests. Both Senator Reid and Co-Chairman Hamilton also emphasized the need to make sure that all the work of the agencies is relevant and helpful to Congress.

Committee Members expressed differing views on whether and how to downsize the agencies. In support of the agencies, Representative Bill Emerson remarked that ``certain of these agencies need to have their functions enhanced rather than limited, and that maybe we should do without certain other things around here in order to give them better resources.''37 While Senator Harry Reid, a joint committee member and chairman of the Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, cautioned against making across-the-board cuts, Co-Vice Chairman Dreier probed the witnesses as to how reductions could be achieved, citing ``a recognition of the fact that we are going to have to make further cuts.''38

Congressional Research Service. In describing the mission of the CRS as set forth in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Director Ross emphasized three aspects of the Service. First, ``the kind of people that we have'' to serve the Congress encompasses experts in all policy areas. Due to their lengthy tenure, CRS staff form part of the ``institutional memory'' of Congress, Ross claimed. Second, these employees are responsive: ``just a phone call away from you, and, of course, right across the street from you.''39 Third, CRS assists only the Congress, working for all Members and committees on a confidential basis.

Ross recalled that during the development of the 1970 Act it was estimated that 1,200 staff would be necessary to fulfill the Service's expanded mission. Nevertheless, since 1980 CRS has had about 800 staff, and ``We're doing even more than we anticipated that we would be able to do,'' Ross testified.40 While over the past decade staff size has been steady, the workload has increased by approximately 6 percent a year. Ross revealed that last year alone CRS responded to nearly 650,000 requests, and ``something over one-half of all of the [requests] we get from the Members are responded to the same day.''41 He also remarked that a hiring freeze imposed a year ago interferes with the progress of programs to achieve greater diversity among staff, and he hoped that such programs could resume.

Ross described a ``rather intricate system'' to avoid duplication of effort with the other support agencies. The system includes regular meetings of liaison groups from the four support agencies and a computerized data base on support agency projects that agencies consult before starting major research.

In conclusion, Ross expressed the Service's ``wish to continue to look for opportunities, to [maximize] efficiencies, and face head on the need to explore ways to literally do more with less. We have established a resource priorities management team to explore and develop options for ensuring the quality of CRS Service within an environment of declining resources.''43

General Accounting Office. The Comptroller General detailed the origin and the evolution of the duties of the GAO. Mr. Bowsher emphasized that the GAO does not make policy, rather ``we go out into the field, and we study these programs, and we report, and we make recommendations.''44 To fulfill its role, greatly expanded since GAO's creation in 1921, the GAO employs a diverse and expert staff located in offices around the nation and in Europe to facilitate field audits. These staff may be detailed to congressional committees. Overall GAO has declined in size from a World War II high of 14,000 to a low of 5,000, which it has maintained for about 20 years. The current budget has grown, however, due to increases in staff salaries and the computerization of agency operations, among other things, Bowsher explained. Moreover, large workload increases have paralleled the growth in the budget, in terms of number of reports produced, audits conducted, and testimonies provided to Congress.

The agency has been working to modernize and improve itself, including the new pay for performance system for compensating employees, the closing of some offices to streamline operations, the installation of more modern equipment, and the development of a total quality management (TQM) program. An early out arrangement, Bowsher testified, could allow for downsizing while protecting the ``gains we have made in our diversity, and also in the talent that we have been able to recruit here in the last 10 years.''45 In conclusion, Mr. Bowsher remarked that ``we're trying to become more efficient, we're trying to reduce our size here because I know that the Congress and the taxpayers want to have a smaller government if at all possible.''46

Office of Technology Assessment. In his testimony, Dr. Herdman emphasized two aspects of OTA that set it apart from the other agencies: 1) the Technology Assessment Board (TAB) and 2) the research and review process. Uniquely among the agencies, OTA has a bipartisan, bicameral board that ``sets policy, approves the process, controls the work flow, approves the projects, and authorizes releases of reports,'' according to Herdman.47 Further, ``the board can protect OTA from influence from interest groups or from other parts of Congress and can restrain and does restrain us from being incautious, going beyond the data and analysis, and making unwise conclusions or making recommendations.''48

In detailing the research and review process, Dr. Herdman described the OTA's staff, panels of advisers, and national review process. First, to supplement its multi-disciplinary staff, OTA frequently contracts outside expert consultants to provide specialized expertise. Second, the OTA forms project advisory panels consisting of OTA staff, outside experts, and concerned stakeholders, who advise, comment, and review the work of the project staff. Third, OTA projects are subjected to a national peer review process, which ``means that we catch any substantial bias, error, or omission . . . And the concerns of the various sectors of the economy can be identified and made known to us.''49

Congressional Budget Office. According to Director Reischauer, ``Compared with the missions of the Congress' other support agencies . . CBO's mandate is relatively narrow. But its subject matter gives it a broad reach, reflecting the extensive array of activities that the U.S. budget covers and the major role the budget plays in the national economy.''50

Director Reischauer's testimony outlined CBO's assistance to Congress. To help with the formulation of the budget plan or budget resolution, CBO prepares baseline budget projections as well as economic forecasts. CBO's economic forecasts traditionally have proven more accurate than those issued by the Office of Management and Budget, according to Reischauer. CBO's Deficit Reduction Volume, a compilation of hundreds of options for tax increases and spending reductions, ``has been used by not only the Congress, but also the Administration, Ross Perot, virtually every outside group that has tried to get involved in putting together a serious deficit reduction plan,'' Reischauer claimed.51 Other CBO products assist Congress with staying within its budget plan, such as cost estimates of bills, estimates of the outlying impacts of appropriations bills, score keeping reports, and sequestration reports. Still other CBO documents and testimony facilitates congressional consideration of policy issues related to the budget and the economy.

Despite the intense focus on the budget throughout the 1980s and 1990s, CBO's size has been fairly level for 8 years. At the same time, the agency has been ``extremely productive'' and its workload has increased considerably, Reischauer stated. As testimony to the good work of the CBO, Reischauer noted the fact that ``virtually all media reports, all business and financial analyses, and even academic studies turn to CBO's numbers and its projections when they want to use objective budget and economic estimates.''52

Government Printing Office. Mr. DiMario described the history of GPO's printing, binding, and distribution services to Congress, Federal agencies, and the public. Currently 15 percent of GPO's total printing and binding workload involves work for Congress, while the other 85 percent consists of work for the executive and judicial branches. However, the GPO sends 75 percent of its total printing and binding workload to private sector printers to take advantage of cost-effective modes of production.

Nevertheless, GPO recorded a net financial loss of $5.2 million for Fiscal Year 1992 and over $8 million during the first half of Fiscal Year 1993, Mr. DiMario stated. In providing an explanation of the losses, including extensive administrative overhead costs, he assured the Committee that ``I've provided a plan of action for GPO to hold the line on costs, including a hiring freeze and a planned reduction in numbers of supervisory personnel . . I also recently implemented a reorganization of GPO to improve operating performance.''53

In response to other congressional concerns, GPO recently implemented a plan to improve the timeliness of printed committee hearings, the lack of information provided in bills to committees and agencies, and the expense of detailing GPO employees to committees. Mr. DiMario also emphasized that funding appropriated by Congress for congressional printing is used only for that purpose, and that funding appropriated to GPO is used only for purposes specified in law. Further, while GPO's use of new technology has helped reduce staff from 8,400 to 4,800 over the last 20 years, Mr. DiMario acknowledged a need to continue to respond to technological gains. ``Congress is indeed making significant strides forward in the utilization of this technology, and has every right to expect to see those strides impact on the course of congressional work provided by GPO,'' he testified.54

The GPO and the Joint Committee on Printing have a close working relationship, Mr. DiMario testified, and currently are addressing the problem of growing non-compliance of certain Federal agencies with the requirement that all printing be performed by or through the GPO. Recently several agencies have developed their own in- house printing capabilities and the ``drain of work away from GPO raises the cost of government printing to the taxpayer in a number of ways,'' Mr. DiMario explained.55


1 Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Committee Structure, p. 98.
2 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of Current Representatives on the Structure of the House of Representatives, p. 58.
3 The Budget Process, p. 15.
4 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of Current Representatives on the Structure of the House of Representatives, p. 241.
5 Ethics Process: Testimony of Former Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff and a Panel of Academic Experts, p. 167.
6 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of House and Senate Leaders, p. 93.
7 Ethics Process: Testimony of Former Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff and a Panel of Academic Experts, p. 30.
8 Committee Structure, p. 623.
9 Interbranch Relations, p. 18.
10 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of House and Senate Leaders, p. 54.
11 Ibid., p. 52.
12 Committee Structure, p. 119.
13 Ethics Process: Testimony of Former Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff and a Panel of Experts, p. 30.
14 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of Former Members of Congress, p. 13.
15 Committee Structure, p. 747.
16 Committee Structure, p. 59.
17 Open Day for Members and Outside Groups, p. 10.
18 Committee Structure, p. 336.
19 Interbranch Relations, p. 58.
20 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Hon. Christopher S. Bond, Hon. Charles E. Grassley, and Hon. Hank Brown, p. 48.
21 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of House and Senate Leaders, p. 55.
22 Committee Structure, p. 59.
23 Committee Structure, p. 506.
24 Interbranch Relations, p. 130.
25 Application of the Laws and Administration of he Hill, p. 95.
26 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of House and Senate Leaders, p. 22.
27 Committee Structure, p. 287.
28 Operations of the Congress: Testimony of House and Senate Leaders, p. 22.
29 Application of Laws and Administration of the Hill, p. 81.
30 Ibid.
31 Committee Structure, p. 297.
32 Application of Laws and Administration of the Hill, p. 87.
33 Ibid., p. 80.
34 Ibid., p. 88.
35 Ibid., p. 99.
36 Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Support Agencies. June 10, 1993. p. 15.
37 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 15.
38 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 23.
39 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 2.
40 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 4
42 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 3.
43 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 4.
44 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 6.
45 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 7.
46 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 7.
47 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 8.
48 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 8.
49 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 9.
50 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 763-764.
51 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 10.
52 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 10.
53 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 12.
54 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 12.
55 Ibid. June 10, 1993. p. 14.

Table of Contents