[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 80 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4929-H4934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4516, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 530 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 530
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4516) making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section
401(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendments under the five-minute rule. The
bill shall be considered as read. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent,
[[Page H4930]]
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the
amendments printed in the report are waived. The Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a
request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce
to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 530 is a structured rule that governs
the consideration of H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2001. The rule waives points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 401(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act related to contract borrowing and credit
authority. The rule also waives points of order against provisions of
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI regarding
unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.
Under the rule, there will be 1 hour of general debate to be equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the rule provides for
consideration of only those amendments listed in the Committee on Rules
report. This type of structured rule has become customary for
Legislative Branch spending bills because of the controversy that often
surrounds them.
In the case of H.R. 4516, we have heard significant criticism about
the funding levels in the bill, but those concerns should be allayed by
this rule which makes in order a bipartisan manager's amendment that
will add an extra $95.8 million to the bill. These extra dollars will
provide for a cost of living increase for House staff and the Capitol
Police, as well as make possible the addition of 48 officers to the
police force. The Library of Congress will benefit from an extra $7.6
million to restore Congressional Research Service staff and provide for
pay raises. The Government Printing Office will get $18.3 million more,
including funds to maintain documents in the depository program that
are only available in paper form. Funds will also be added to the
accounts of the Architect of the Capitol, the General Accounting
Office, and the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition to the manager's amendment which should quell most if not
all of the controversy surrounding this legislation, the rule makes in
order two other amendments. The first is a bipartisan amendment that
would allow Members who do not use their entire budget allowance to
return any unused portion to the Treasury. The savings would then be
devoted to deficit or debt reduction. This concept, which has earned
broad support in the past, encourages Members of Congress to lead by
example and be frugal in their use of taxpayer dollars.
In the same vein of fiscal responsibility, the second amendment would
devote all the savings from successful appropriations amendments that
cut spending to debt reduction, unless the amendment already redirects
the savings to other discretionary programs.
The three amendments listed in the Committee on Rules report may be
offered only by the Member designated in the report and shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report. These amendments shall
not be subject to amendment or to a demand for division of the question
in the House or the Committee of the Whole. Finally, the rule provides
the minority with an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
As a testament to the good work of the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Taylor) and his subcommittee, only nine amendments were filed with
the Committee on Rules. Of those, three were withdrawn and one is the
manager's amendment. On Tuesday, only one Member besides the chairman
and ranking member of the subcommittee testified on his amendment to
the bill. So it would appear that there are few concerns about the bill
and that this rule, even with its limitations, fulfills the needs of
the vast majority of House Members.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2001 Legislative Branch appropriations
bill continues our efforts which began in 1994 to scale back the
Federal Government and balance the budget by cutting our spending
first. Over the last 6 years, Congress has saved the taxpayers $1.5
billion by looking to its own operations, staff and support systems for
places to cut waste and inefficiencies. Since 1994, more than 5,900
positions have been eliminated, and all told we have downsized the
Legislative Branch of government by 21 percent. This year's bill
continues down this path of fiscal restraint, and legislative spending
will be reduced by almost $10 million, even with the added spending in
the manager's amendment. Our efforts prove that Congress is willing to
look in its own backyard and do its part to cut spending, balance the
budget and pay down the debt.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) and the rest of the subcommittee for their hard work to put
together a very lean bill in keeping with their allocation. They were
willing to make the tough choices necessary to maintain fiscal
responsibility and the American taxpayers appreciate it. Even with the
addition of the manager's amendment, total spending on the Legislative
Branch will be reduced from last year.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that is responsive to
the concerns of the Members of this House and it deserves our support.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and support for a reasonable
Legislative Branch spending bill which continues our commitment to a
smaller, smarter government that works for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule as well as to the
Legislative Branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. This rule
is unfair and the bill is a prima facie case of penny wise and pound
foolish. By grossly underfunding the operations of the Congress and its
related agencies in order to live up to the terms of the Republican
budget resolution, the reported bill endangers the safety of every
Member, staff person and visitor to this building and our office
buildings. As reported, the bill could lead to layoffs in our own
offices as well as in all the support agencies of Congress and would
deny cost of living adjustments to those staff who still had a job. The
cuts in the reported bill would have eliminated funding for maintenance
and safety improvements for this magnificent building that we are so
privileged to work in as Members of Congress. In short, Mr. Speaker,
this bill would hamper the ability of the Congress to do its job.
I am frankly amazed that the Republican majority has so little regard
for this institution and the people who work in it.
{time} 1015
The subcommittee chairman told the Committee on Rules that the
Republican majority has saved the American taxpayer $1.5 billion in
legislative branch funding since taking control of the Congress in
1995, but I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, at what cost have these savings
been made.
I can certainly see the costs in the staff who work for us and by
extension, for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, it has become
increasingly difficult to attract or keep experienced staff, especially
in this tight labor market, and especially when the Senate can pay
staff considerably higher salaries.
I have the greatest admiration for the hundreds of young men and
women who work in our offices and on the committees of this body, but
we cannot hope to keep the best and the brightest of them if we cannot
pay competitive salaries.
[[Page H4931]]
Paying the staff who work for us is not a waste of the taxpayers'
money, Mr. Speaker, and losing staff with the expertise and the
complicated subjects we must address certainly will not help us do our
job better. Fortunately, the manager's amendment restores some
essential funding for the operation of the House, including the fiscal
year 2001 COLA for staff and funds that will avert large-scale layoffs.
But this restoration of funds for the House operations, as well as
the operations of the support agencies of the Congress, only came after
the Republican leadership was embarrassed publicly. The manager's
amendment adds $95.8 million to the bill, but, Mr. Speaker, even with
this additional funding, we still face a cut from current services, and
the bill makes no investment for the future of this institution.
As a case in point, I would like to point to the Congressional
Research Service, an organization that is critically important to all
of our personal offices as well as to every committee. Some of the most
valuable assets the House has at its disposal are the senior analysts
at CRS whose institutional memory, extensive knowledge and proven
abilities are at our disposal.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, many of these senior analysts are approaching
retirement and in an effort to properly train their replacements CRS
has undertaken a ``succession initiative.''
This initiative is designed to hire junior employees to work
alongside of the senior analysts they will eventually replace in order
to benefit from the years of experience and knowledge of those
analysts.
This is a wise investment in the future, Mr. Speaker, yet, this bill
and the manager's amendment do not fund the initiative. I have to ask
the Republican leadership if investing in the information resources
this Congress depends on is a waste of the taxpayers' money or if it
helps us do our job better?
Even with the addition of the funds in the manager's amendment, the
Government Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office are
still underfunded if we want them to serve the Congress in the manner
we have come to expect.
I cannot see how shortchanging these organizations ultimately saves
the taxpayer one red cent. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill.
This bill cuts the legislative branch to the quick in order to pay for
an irresponsible Republican tax cut. This bill is merely a symptom of
the Republican majority's refusal to address the real needs of this
country, saving Social Security and Medicare, investing in education,
and providing a prescription drug benefit for senior Americans.
I also cannot support this rule, Mr. Speaker. The Republican majority
on the Committee on Rules needlessly denied Democratic Members the
right to offer amendments to this bill, while at the same time making
an unnecessary political point making Republican amendment in order.
For example, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) sought the right
to offer an amendment which would have stricken a provision in the bill
which would allow the Library of Congress to circumvent the terms of a
negotiated settlement in Cook v. Billington, a class-action suit
brought by African-American employees of the Library.
Why the Republican majority could not allow the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn) to offer this amendment is a question for the ages,
Mr. Speaker, but because of the Republican majority refusal to allow
this matter to be debated, I must oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule for a very bad bill. I urge
Members to oppose the rule and oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I guess what this rule shows today is that no matter how
hard and no matter how many rank and file Members work to try to reach
a bipartisan agreement on appropriation bills, that, in the end, the
majority party leadership insists on following a practice which will,
once again, turn what should have been a bipartisan bill into another
dog fight. I see no constructive purpose to be served by that.
Secondly, it puts provisions in this bill which are absolutely not
germane to this bill.
The problem we have is that we have gone through this session and
time after time after time, we have been told by the majority party
thou shalt not offer nongermane legislative items to appropriation
bills. And, yet, this bill does the very thing which we have been
lectured on repeatedly and puts in order an amendment which most
certainly goes far behind the scope of this bill; that is the so-called
lockbox amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I have no expectation that I will win this point today,
because I know that, especially in an election year, Members,
unfortunately a lot of Members, focus a whole lot more on the political
look of a proposal than they do on the substantive result.
Nonetheless, having the maddening tendency to expect reason and logic
to penetrate legislative debate, I am going to make an argument on it,
and my point is simply this: Right now, when we pass a budget
resolution, that budget resolution gives us a certain number that we
are supposed to work off for the remainder of the year in assigning
priorities to different appropriation subcommittees.
The Committee on Appropriations has to reconcile desires, conflicting
desires, to use every dollar in that allocation for a wide variety of
purposes, thousands of competing demands for those resources. This
amendment will make that process immeasurably more complicated. It will
contribute immeasurably to additional delay in the consideration of
appropriations conference reports and make more likely both a
government shutdown and makes more likely the fact that you will never
get your work done.
And here is why I say that: Right now if a Member offers an amendment
on the floor that cuts a million dollars out of, say, a bomber program
in the House, if this provision were in place, that money would have to
be put in the lockbox, and you could not then spend it. You could not
then spend it for other items in other subcommittee areas.
And then let us say the Senate, if the Senate, operating under the
same rule, cut a million dollars from another weapons system, that
money could not then be spent in conference and yet you would have
lowered the overall amount by $2 million, each body would have lowered
it for a different item, and you would have no way to reconcile that
without cutting other Defense programs that neither House had any
intention of cutting.
This is one of those amendments that looks terrific if you have never
been on the committee that has to work through these compromises, if
you have never served on an appropriations conference committee. This
is one of those amendments that looks fine on the surface, but when you
get into the detail, makes this place an immeasurably more difficult
place in which to get our work done.
Now, if the majority party leadership thinks that is a constructive
thing to do, then it is certainly within their power to impose this
decision on the House. But I, for one, having worked for weeks trying
to negotiate a reasonable compromise on this bill and having thought
that we had done just that until a day ago, I now discover that, once
again, we have got a political amendment coming in from left field.
It is not a constructive thing to do, and I do not intend to vote for
either this rule or this bill if that amendment is adopted.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield as much
time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for
yielding me the time and congratulate her for leading this very
important piece of legislation, which, obviously, based on what I have
heard from the other side, seems to be controversial. I
[[Page H4932]]
am happy we are going to be proceeding with a bipartisan manager's
amendment.
My very good friend, the gentleman from Arizona, (Mr. Pastor) has
been working closely with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor), the chairman of the Subcommittee of Legislative, and I believe
that we will have addressed a number of the concerns that have been
raised by Members so far in that manager's amendment, and I think that
is a positive thing.
I am pleased that this bill, under the leadership of my very good
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and others is continuing to pursue that
goal which we have effectively implemented over the past several years
since we have taken control, and that is making this institution more
open and accountable to the American people while at the same time
ensuring that we have the resources necessary to keep this very
important first branch.
Look at the Constitution, the first branch of the Federal Government
in operation. Now, when we look at the challenges that we have here in
this institution, making sure that we have first-rate Capitol Police,
the Architect of the Capitol, and we know that this work has been going
on outside on the Dome there and it looks as if they are moving ahead
very effectively with that. Now, that symbol to the rest of the world
that we are the beacon of hope and freedom is an important one, and
coverage for that comes within this legislative branch bill.
The Government Printing Office is very important, the General
Accounting Office, and under this manager's amendment that the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) have worked on, it is going to ensure that we do
not have to face layoffs there. I want to specifically raise an issue
which I believe is very important for the people whom I am privileged
to represent and I know for people all over the country.
In the manager's amendment there will be the restoration of $13
million dollars to ensure that our constituents are going to be able to
go to the comfort of their local library and have access to very
important information. I want to do everything that we possibly can to
encourage the accessibility through electronic means of documents that
come from the Federal Government, but we cannot forget the fact that
there are people who do want to have the hard copy, the printed access
to printed material.
I believe that the manager's amendment that the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor)
have worked on will restore those funds which are very important.
I believe this is a fair rule. It is a very balanced rule. It takes
into consideration a wide range of concerns. And I want to congratulate
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for once again keeping us
right on schedule, moving ahead with this very important measure. We
all anxiously look forward to the completion of all 13 appropriation
bills, and I am happy that, when possible, we have been able to work in
a bipartisan way, and I am hoping that we will be able to do that in
the coming weeks.
{time} 1030
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this rule and also the bill, as I
have in committee. I know the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have worked very
carefully to try to design a bill that takes care of the needs of
running the government here, but also at the same time keeping a close
eye on the budget and the constraints.
I also wanted to mention the question of the lockbox, because I think
it is important for us to have this lockbox amendment. The reason why,
as a new Member to the United States Congress in 1993, I remember we
were trying to put in some fiscal discipline and restraint in our
spending.
At the time, one of our fellow class members, Mike Crapo from Idaho,
who is now across the hall, he had an idea we should do something like
this. The reason why is we would debate for hours cutting something
from the budget, something that some Members supported, some Members
did not support. But the idea behind it was that we would fight for two
or three hours in good, honest debate and we would eliminate this item
and save $1 million, $2 million, $10 million, whatever.
Then we would go home and think, boy, that was good, we cut $1
million out of the budget. But we find out we did not cut it out of the
budget, all we did was put it aside. Then the bill would progress
through the system, get into the Senate, and they would spend it
because the bill did not reduce itself in the amount.
Can Members imagine sitting around the table and writing down the
grocery list. They go to the grocery store and say, I am going to buy
some steak. Steak is say $10. I do not really know the price of that.
Number one, I am not running for the Senate, where you have to know the
price of groceries. Number two, we do not buy steak in our family. We
have four kids. We just cannot do it.
But say we are going to buy steak and it is $10, and we go there and
say, we really do not have this money. We need to buy hamburger,
instead. That is $5. We do not say, obviously, that we are going to buy
$10 worth of hamburgers. The point, the purpose of the whole exercise
is to save the money and put the extra $5 in our pocket and use that
for the car payment, the house payment, gasoline, or whatever.
That is what American families do every day. But in the United States
Congress, what we say is we are not going to eat steak, we are just
going to spend an equal amount of money elsewhere. That is ridiculous.
Our whole idea is that when we had a fair debate and an honest vote to
save money, then that money should go into a lockbox and be protected
for social security or Medicare and no other purpose.
For 30 years this Congress on a bipartisan basis raided the social
security trust fund and used the money for other expenses. Our idea is
to put it in that vault and keep it for our retirements, what private
companies do with pension plans. And it makes common sense.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, the example the gentleman gave where one
goes to the grocery store with $10 and decides that they can only buy
or want to buy $5 of hamburger, which we all do, then we may want to
spend that money for gas or for maybe other items in the grocery store.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are asking to do by denying
the Ryan amendment. If we are only able to spend $5 for hamburgers, but
yet we know we have other priorities where we want to spend the money,
in the Committee on Appropriations we want the flexibility to do that.
If we put it in the lockbox, as I understand the amendment, then we
spend the $5 and we will not have the flexibility to pay the gas and
pay the electric bills.
I think what we are asking and saying is that the concept is good,
but in the procedure and the process as we try to work in funding the
government, and programs that people may want or we think are
important, we lose that flexibility. I think that is why the debate is
against the Ryan amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an example. The Slaughter
amendment that was on the floor last week on the arts, the gentlewoman
from New York in an earlier paragraph of the bill tried to cut several
million dollars from one account so that when we got to the next
paragraph in the bill, she could use that money for another purpose.
She was not allowed by the House to consider both items at the same
time.
So the House first adopted the first half of her amendment, and then
had a donnybrook about what would happen to it when we got to the next
paragraph.
[[Page H4933]]
If she had instead told the House that she wanted to cut $22 million
out of the Interior bill so that when we came to this bill we could use
it for border inspectors, for instance, what that lockbox amendment
would say is that we could not transfer that money for that purpose. We
could only use it to reduce the amount of spending in that bill, and we
could not use it for the purpose which was intended, because our rules
prevent us from transferring money from one appropriation bill to
another at that point in time.
That is the problem with the bill. It means that the legislative
intent of the House as expressed by the sponsor, if a majority votes
for that amendment, cannot then be carried out in a subsequent bill.
That is why the lockbox is a well-intentioned idea but it has a
harebrained result, and it does not have diddly squat to do with
Medicare and social security, and the gentleman knows it. If he does
not, he ought to go back and look at the rules.
Mr. PASTOR. Let me make another point, Mr. Speaker. When we adopted
the budget it gave us an allocation for the Committee on
Appropriations, on which my dear friend also serves. We have been
involved in a number of the allocations, how they go up, they go down,
because there are priorities that the majority may want. There are
needs.
Everybody is for reducing the debt. I think that is decided when we
develop or adopt the budget. Once we adopt the allocation, there are
debates in subcommittee, there are debates in committee, and then we
have to go to the floor. Then we have to go to conference with the
Senate.
I believe what this amendment does is basically ties the gentleman's
hands and my hands to be able to debate and determine priorities, and
be able to buy 5 pounds of hamburger, but also spend some additional
money that we may need for other purposes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the way I look at it is that the intent is to put the
money in fact in Medicare as opposed to the NEA or the AmeriCorps or
public broadcasting or whatever else. The idea behind it is to say
Medicare is a much higher priority, and we are comfortable in making
that blanket statement.
As the gentleman knows, we can continue in the Committee on
Appropriations on the subcommittee and the full committee level to move
monies back and forth, and we can have offsets within the title of a
bill, or even on the House floor with it.
But I do not consider it a big partisan issue. I think now the Vice
President has actually endorsed this idea, so I do not consider this a
partisan thing whatsoever. But I do think that it is just an idea that
would further protect Medicare and social security. That is why I have
supported it.
Mr. PASTOR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is an idea, but once
we adopt the amendment it becomes part of the law. I think the intent
is great, but the result if adopted is going to hinder the gentleman
and hinder me in the appropriation process to be able to allocate money
for those priorities that we may have.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule.
There are going to be three amendments. One will be an amendment
supported by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the ranking
member, and myself. We have worked hard since the original 302
allocations were given our committee, and they have been raised. We
have been successful in that effort, and the amendment that we will
take up first will be to debate and to offer the House the changes that
we have made.
If we do not pass the rule, we cannot debate the other amendments,
and they will have debate, and then we can let the House work its will
on the other two amendments that we have. We think that this is a good
bill. We think that the technology that we have used is enabling the
House, like the rest of the country in its use of technology, to be
more efficient and carry on the work of the Congress. So I urge passage
of the rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule. I have no
further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It addresses the major points of
controversy in a bipartisan manner. The Committee on Rules and the
House leadership have responded to the concerns about the funding
levels for the personnel who support this institution.
That is why the rule makes in order a manager's amendment to add
resources to support the Capitol Police, House staff, CRS employees,
and others who work hard to make the legislative branch a safe and
efficient work environment, as well as a top tourist attraction for our
visitors.
In addition, the rule offers my colleagues the opportunity to vote
for greater fiscal responsibility, not only through passage of the
underlying bill, but also through amendments that would allow us to
devote more resources to that reduction.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this fair rule, and urge those
who talk the talk about fiscal responsibility to walk the walk and
support the Leg branch appropriations bill.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule that is under
consideration and urge all of my colleagues to join me. In addition, I
must voice my support of the U.S. Copyright Office. While great efforts
were made in funding this bill, I urge my colleagues to restore the
minimum necessary funding which the Office requires for its operations
on behalf of the public interest during the House-Senate conference.
Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee retains jurisdiction over
copyright law. I think I speak for all who are privileged to serve on
this committee by acknowledging that we could not function effectively
without the assistance of the Copyright Office. The Office works with
our constituents--individuals as well as businesses and the high tech
community--who register original works of authorship for protection
under title 17 of the U.S. Code. The advice and counsel afforded the
Congress by the Register's policy staff have been indispensable in our
efforts to develop good copyright law through the years. The United
States is the world leader in the development and export of
intellectual property, including copyrighted works. We cannot take the
sustenance of this vital component of our national economy for granted;
and as such, we cannot take the services of the Copyright Office for
granted.
I have great respect for our appropriators, and I acknowledge that
they have an unenviable task. That said, the cuts contemplated in the
bill before us are based on erroneous assumptions. To begin with, the
Copyright Act prescribes a two-year process by which new fees are
established. The Office raised fees only last July. In addition, it is
in the process of reviewing a new fee schedule which, if approved by
Congress, will take effect in 2002.
In light of this background, Mr. Speaker, the cuts set forth in this
bill are untenable. A full $5-million hit will result in a 38 percent
reduction in the net appropriations of the Office. In lay terms, this
translates into a 27 percent staff reduction, or 130 employees. Again,
the Office cannot raise fees until 2002 at the earliest, so the revenue
cannot be made up or redirected from elsewhere. This would include
tapping the so-called ``No Year Account'' of roughly $2 million, which
is being held to offset expected deficits in 2002. Even if the Office
uses these funds, there will still be staff reductions totaling 78
workers in the upcoming fiscal year, and another 52 workers in 2002.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about all of $5 million for a government
entity that provides critical services to the Congress and the public.
If we are to continue as the world leader in the development and export
of intellectual property we must ensure that the Copyright Office is
adequately funded. It is my greatest hope that upon the meeting of the
Legislative Branch conference, they will have the ability to re-visit
this issue and fully restore Copyright Office funding.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and urge each of
my colleagues to pass this rule. However, tonight I also appear before
you in support of full funding for the U.S. Copyright Office.
The bill that the House will consider later tonight, as explained to
me, represents a 38 percent reduction in the Office's total net
funding. In human terms, this corresponds to a pink slip for at least
one of every four employees at the Office. And siphoning money from the
Office's ``No Year Account'' will only delay
[[Page H4934]]
the inevitable; roughly the same number of people would lose their jobs
through Fiscal Year 2002.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about all of $5 million for what amounts
to a tiny government entity. Tiny, but important. The Copyright Office
registers works submitted for copyrights and makes these works
available to the Library of Congress for its collections and exchange
programs. The resulting cuts set forth in the bill would greatly
compromise the ability of the Office to provide a timely and accurate
public records of copyright ownership. Applications for registrations
would plummet, thereby generating irreplaceable losses to the
collections of the Library of Congress. The mandatory deposit system,
along with public information services, would suffer. And from our own
little corner of the world, we in the Congress would be denied
necessary counsel from the leading federal entity on copyright law and
policy.
Mr. Speaker, copyright industries constitute the largest segment of
our national economy. While I both respect and admire the work of the
appropriators, in this instance I believe the Congress is acting in a
penny-wise but pound-foolish manner. While I support passage of the
rule and the forthcoming bill, it is my hope that during the conference
it is possible to restore the necessary funding for the U.S. Copyright
Office.
Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 173, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 311]
YEAS--234
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--173
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--27
Archer
Baker
Cook
Cummings
Engel
English
Fattah
Filner
Fossella
Hobson
Hunter
Klink
Kuykendall
McCollum
McCrery
Mollohan
Porter
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Tauzin
Thomas
Towns
Vento
Visclosky
Wise
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1100
Messrs. MOAKLEY, UDALL of New Mexico, DOGGETT, and RAHALL changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________