mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for the time . 
the only point i would like to make is that since 1995 , this appropriation has only grown by 4 percent . 
so in more than 10 years we have only had a 4 percent growth , much less than inflation . 
we have worked hard to reduce the number of copies . 
we have eliminated the bound copies of the & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; congressional record . 
i do not know if people have noticed , but we eliminated that which used to be a tradition , and since 1995 we have reduced the number of copies from 18 , 000 per day to 6 , 000 . 
i mean , that is substantial progress . 
the largest cost of the record is preparing the data for printing and on-line dissemination , and that cost is going to be occurred regardless . 
ms. millender-mcdonald . 
mr. chairman , as the ranking member of the joint committee on printing , i oppose the amendment offered by my friends from arizona ( mr. flake ) and oregon ( mr. blumenauer ) . 
according to the gpo , the congressional printing and binding appropriation supports the distribution of 3 , 994 copies of the congressional record , of which 2 , 293 copies , or more than 57 percent , go to the senate . 
if there are too many copies of the record being charged to the congress , the problem lies in the other chamber . 
mr. chairman , congress has addressed this problem in recent years . 
not long ago , there were 18 , 000 copies of the record produced each day . 
now there are fewer than 4 , 000 . 
the law provides for members to receive three copies , and members who do n't need three copies can reduce printing costs by informing the clerk of that fact . 
this is a reasonable approach , since the record is available on-line , and perhaps for some members the on-line version will suffice . 
but the printed record remains an important resource for many members of both houses , and i do n't believe the proper approach to this question is to reduce funds for the record by 83 percent , as this amendment would do . 
i believe the appropriations committee has looked at this very carefully over the past several years . 
speaking for the minority side of the joint committee on printing , i am certainly willing to examine this question further . 
i urge a `` no '' vote . 
