[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.

                          ____________________