[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 80 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4934-H4957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 20001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4516.
{time} 1103
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr.
Hansen in the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
[[Page H4935]]
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present the Legislative Branch
appropriation bill for fiscal year 2001. First, I want to begin by
thanking the members of the Subcommittee on Legislative for their hard
work in writing this bill. They include the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Wamp), the vice chairman; the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis), a long-time member of the subcommittee; the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Granger); and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Then we have the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the ranking
member, who has worked hard with the committee and myself to prepare
this bill; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who are our other members of the
subcommittee.
I also want to thank the full committee chairman, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
full committee ranking minority member for their assistance.
The bill was considered and ordered reported by the full committee on
May 9. The bill was actually reported to the House May 23, 2000.
Mr. Chairman, the bill continues the program begun in the 104th
Congress to right-size the legislative branch of government. We have
become more efficient, with a smaller workforce, and use technology
wherever we can, as long as it helps us to do our jobs better. We have
done those things.
Since fiscal 1995, the last year of the other party's control of the
House, we have reduced the legislative branch appropriation in real
terms by a very significant amount. Had spending on legislative branch
followed the old trend that we were on long before the Republican
majority took over, the bill would total over $2.2 billion, fully $400
million higher than the bill we brought to the House today.
Together, Mr. Chairman, with my predecessor subcommittee chairman,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh), we have saved the taxpayers nearly $1.5 billion in
the last 6 years, if all the Senate operations are included.
Since the early 1990s, legislative branch employment has been reduced
by a full 8,217 full-time jobs. That is a reduction of 21.5 percent of
our entire workforce. In comparison, the executive branch has only
reduced their workforce by 10 percent, and the Judiciary has actually
increased by 13.2 percent.
The fiscal year legislative branch appropriation bill totals $1.8
billion in new obligation authority, of which $1.1 billion is for
congressional operations, exclusive of Senate items. This includes
operations of the House, Congressional Budget Office, several joint
items, the Architect of the Capitol, and congressional printing. The
balance of the bill, $705 million, is for the operations of other
legislative branch agencies, such as the General Accounting Office,
Library of Congress, and the Superintendent of Documents.
The bill is actually $281 million below the budget request, a 13.4
percent reduction, and is $105 million below the current fiscal year,
including the pending supplement, a 5.5 percent reduction.
Mr. Chairman, those are the general parameters of the bill. I am not
going into the details because I do have an amendment. Since the bill
was marked up by the subcommittee, we have worked hard to raise the 302
allocations. We have succeeded. Our new allocation has given us the
ability to present to the House a bill that both saves the country
money by using technology, as technology has made our entire country
more efficient, it is working in the legislature, and still enable us
to carry on the work of the Congress and its agencies. Consequently, I
have asked the Committee on Rules to allow, and the rule does allow, a
manager's amendment, which I will offer at the conclusion of debate.
This amendment has been worked out in a bipartisan manner. It
reflects guidance from the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and our leadership; it incorporates
several suggestions made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
the ranking member of our full committee; and the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). We are happy to
offer this amendment.
This amendment will avoid unwise and counterproductive layoffs, will
maintain capitol security, building maintenance, and research and
oversight capabilities at the Congressional Research Service and the
General Accounting Office. It will provide the House with the staff,
resources, and research capabilities needed to conduct our business. It
will provide the necessary security to protect visitors, Members, staff
and legislative activities.
There will be no need for layoffs, no need to withhold cost of living
or merit increases for those who are eligible or otherwise deserve such
salary adjustments. There will be no reductions in force in any of the
legislative branch agencies. There will still be an overall estimated
decrease of 536 FTEs. However, these staff reductions can be achieved
through buyouts and attrition.
Mr. Chairman, I will defer further explanation until the appropriate
time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the manager's amendment. As my
colleagues know, as we came out of the committee, the Committee on
Appropriations, there were great concerns over security, maintenance of
the buildings, and whether or not the supportive agencies that support
this Congress were funded appropriately.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for working on this bill,
the manager's amendment, in a very bipartisan manner. The gentleman
from North Carolina has involved me in all the negotiations and working
on this manager's amendment, so I want to thank him for the bipartisan
workmanship he has provided.
Mr. Chairman, with the additional money that has been found, we have
now been able to restore in the Member's account monies that would
allow the Members to give cost of living to the staff. It will ensure
that the new Members and the transition costs that they will encounter
will be met. It also restores money for equipment purchases in the
Members' offices. And as far as Members' offices are concerned, it
brings the money that is needed for personnel and equipment.
As it deals with the police, it restores all the COLAs, all the
additional benefits that are needed and required, and it brings the
current staff on board to 1,361. There will be no RIFs. The current
class of about 96 trainees will be incorporated, and it will allow an
additional class of 48 trainees. So the issue of security is addressed.
And I would tell my colleagues that I think that it is restored to the
level that we want.
I would like to make a comment on the police. In the past, there has
been some concern over management and administration. In this bill, we
have language that fences some of this money so that, hopefully, we can
get the cooperation of the police board and the new chief as we solve
security problems. As we are able to install more security equipment,
we need to look at what other policies we can change so that we can
maintain the security that is desired, at least two people at the door,
but, at the same time, minimize overtime and additional personnel.
We need to work together to ensure that the Capitol and the House
buildings are secured, but we need to ensure that policies are
implemented that answer the problems of not only more personnel but the
working relationship with the police board, the chief, and the
appropriate House committees so we can ensure that we are secure but
the monies are used effectively.
{time} 1115
To CBO we restore funding for 215 full-time employees, and we believe
that attrition will cover this and CBO is allowed discretion.
The Architect, his budget avoids RIFs and allows for next year's new
Members' transition and funds the daytime cleaning services, something
we were concerned about as this bill left the committee.
CRS, very important to us. They have an accession program in place.
[[Page H4936]]
This bill, if adopted by the manager's amendment, will restore all the
CRS staff. It allows a pay increase and it will allow the accession
program to continue.
There are some cuts in the GPO and also the GAO, but we are working
with them to ensure that the programs that are in place would allow
them to deal with this budget and be successful in providing services
to the Congress.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are supportive of the manager's amendment. We
would ask our Members to support it in order that this House will
continue to provide its services to its constituents.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the chairman of
the subcommittee and the ranking member, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Pastor).
Part of the dialogue this morning is on the Capitol Police purchasing
American-made motorcycles. We went through this some years back. In
fact, they did get the use of a Harley-Davidson to use on the Capitol
Grounds.
The upshot was that the officers involved in the trial period really
love the new cycle. It would be equipped so they could use it for
traffic stops and other type of police functions.
However, before the order actually went through, there was a row with
the company and the equipment and the deal, and I think it was for
eight cycles at that point, fell through. But I think it is time that
we revisit the issue.
For visitors coming to the Nation's Capitol to see our Capitol Police
on Kawasakis and Hondas is quite embarrassing, at least to this Member.
I think that we do have American-made cycles that will fit the bill and
the subcommittee; and the language that is being inserted in the bill
will at least have the Chief of the Capitol Police look at it and
possibly buy American and have our Capitol Police persons ride on a
new, decent, operative motorcycle.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me engage in a
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor), last year during the debate on the 2000 Legislative
appropriation bill, the Capitol Police were directed to look into the
possibility of using American-made motorcycles in their security
mission.
Is it not true that they have recently advised us of the current
status of this directive?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman,
yes, and I have a letter from Chief Varey of the Chief of the Capitol
Police received today. I include a copy of the letter for the Record:
U.S. Capitol Police,
Office of the Chief,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
Hon. Charles H. Taylor,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As you may recall, the Conference Report
for the Capitol Police Fiscal Year 2000 General Expenses
appropriations contained the following language:
``With respect to vehicles, the conferees recognize the
need of the Capitol Police to upgrade and possibly expand
their existing fleet of motorcycles to help fulfill their
security mission, and provide $103,000 for that purpose from
existing funds.''
In response to this provision, the Department has surveyed
the product lines of sixty motorcycle dealers and
manufacturers who reportedly manufacture motorcycles in the
United States which meet the specific needs of the
Department's smaller sized motorcycles. As a result of this
survey, only two United States manufacturers--Harley-Davidson
and Buell--offer motorcycles which satisfy the Department's
criteria in terms of engine size, body weight, and DOT street
certification.
Following this survey, on May 12, the Capitol Police met
with representatives from Harley-Davidson to discuss the
Department's need to upgrade and expand its motorcycle fleet.
As a result of this meeting, Harley-Davidson has agreed to
provide the Department with two, smaller displacement models
for testing and evaluation--the Harley-Davidson Sportster 883
and the Buell Blast 492. Arrangements are currently underway
to deliver these motorcycles to the Department for its
assessment.
Additionally, the Department has identified the need to
upgrade its current fleet of the larger Harley-Davidson
FLHTPI Electra Glide--a 1450 cc model utilized by the
Department for special events, traffic enforcement and
motorcades. It is the Department's intent to purchase six new
Electra Glides while trading-in its three, older model
Electra Glides to reduce the procurement costs of the new
motorcycles and to avoid incurring unnecessary parts and
maintenance expenses.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you or your
staff, should you so desire, and I will be pleased to forward
the results of the product test and evaluation exercise for
your review and information.
Sincerely,
James J. Varey,
Chief of Police.
The Chief says that they have identified two United States
manufacturers, Harley Davidson and Buell, who have motorcycles that
satisfy the Department's criteria.
The Capitol Police have made arrangements to test these vehicles, and
they will report the results to our committee for our review.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman
for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the
chairman of the subcommittee and ranking member of the subcommittee for
having produced a bill under difficult, severe limitations and to
compliment them on the manager's amendment that will be offered to
solve some of the problems that were created by the first bill.
I rise at this time since the distinguished ranking member has raised
the issue of the Capitol Police. We should be very proud of all of our
Capitol Police officers. They are very well-trained. They are certainly
dedicated to their mission here in the Capitol.
But one of the concerns that I have and the Congress has had is the
fact that we could bring our Capitol Police force into a more modern
age. There is technology available that would make them far more
effective than they are today. Congress has provided additional funding
to do this. But the previous management of the Capitol Police force,
for some reason, just decided not to go ahead and move into the state-
of-the-art technology.
I think that is a mistake. Just adding more people does not
necessarily get the job done if we do not provide the technology that
they need to do their job.
To give my colleagues an example of what I am talking about, with
this bill that we will pass today, there will be 1,241 members of the
Capitol Police force. This is a substantial number, but they do have a
substantial obligation and responsibility.
But compare that to some other cities in the United States. Nashville
Davidson, with a population of 510,000 people, has only 38 more sworn
police officers than our Capitol Police force. Portland, Oregon, with
503,000 people, only has 962 sworn police officers, compared to our
1,241. Ft. Worth, Texas, with a population of 491,000, has less sworn
officers than the Capitol Police force. In my area in Florida, the City
of Tampa, which is an extremely large city, has only 916 sworn police
officers.
These cities tend to get the job done, but most of them have taken
advantage of the new technology that we have been trying to get the
management of our Capitol Police to employ. And they have not done that
yet.
The amendment that the managers will offer today will help improve
the funding available for our Capitol Police force, and I think that is
good. I am a very strong advocate and supporter of that manager's
amendment. But I must say that I think, once again, we should be
reminding those who administer and manage our Capitol Police force, not
the police officers themselves but those in supervisory positions,
ought to take advantage of the funding that we have made available for
new technology that makes the job easier for those who wear the uniform
and guard this Capitol of ours.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
[[Page H4937]]
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee
for working through this compromise. This bill is far preferable to the
original bill that was brought to the House. It meets our duty to
provide for adequate police protection on the Capitol Grounds.
There are still some problems with it because it does not allow the
hiring of as many Capitol Police as the Department feels necessary. But
it is certainly preferable to the original bill.
I would say that there are also some other problems which need to be
corrected between now and final passage of this bill. The General
Accounting Office will have to impose an immediate freeze and reduce
their employment level by 160 people. That is not a good idea because
they are supposed to be our watchdog on financial and management
affairs, and we are crippling the very agency that is charged with the
responsibility to help us save taxpayers' money.
The Congressional Research Service accession plan is not funded, and
I think that is a serious mistake. There are a number of other
shortcomings with the funding level in the Copyright Office and some
other areas.
I would be willing to support this bill if it stays in the condition
that it is right now, but I will not support it if damaging amendments
are attached, such as the lockbox amendment, because people need to
understand how it works.
It sounds enticing to say we are going to have a lockbox and every
time you cut money on the floor on an amendment that is going to go in
a lockbox and is not going to be used. But under our rules, if you are
considering a HUD appropriation bill and you want to cut an item in HUD
so that you can put the money into another item in a different
appropriation bill, such as education or defense, right now we can do
that under our rules. We can cut the money on the floor and then, in
conference, that money can wind up somewhere else, either in the same
bill or in a different appropriation bill, or it may not be spent at
all.
But under the lockbox provision, you could not cut money in one bill
and expect to try to use it in another. You would be precluded from
doing that. That would make our problem in getting conference reports
out in a timely fashion immeasurably more difficult and I think it
would increase the likelihood that we never finish our budget work. It
would increase the likelihood of more controversy and even, God forbid,
Government shutdown.
So I would urge Members to recognize that sometimes what is
underneath the surface is not as pretty as what it would appear to be
on the surface.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield,
ofttimes people are relatively insensitive to the specifics of such a
proposal as it might apply to legislative branch, which is this bill.
Should we pass this amendment that is being proposed today, what that
does to us as we go to conference with the other body on just the
legislative branch proposal puts the House at a considerable
disadvantage. There are any number of issues that underlie that that we
ought to be thinking about. And this is not a partisan consideration.
It affects the House of Representatives. And that should be paramount
in our minds.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
The other problem with it is that we are assigned a specific number
under the budget act, and let us say one subcommittee is given a $3
billion allocation, and just because this House takes an action to
temporarily cut that bill by $50 million does not mean that the Senate
is going to follow suit.
If the Senate has another higher level for that same bill, then when
we go into conference we will have lost $50 million that the House
wants to apply to its priorities and that will make the gap between us
and the Senate much larger. And I do not think we want to do that after
the experiences we have had the last 2 years in trying to get
appropriation bills passed in a speedy fashion.
So this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with party. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. It has everything to do with
how much you understand the details of how the budgeting process works.
Because if you understand that and if you have ever had to manage a
bill on either the majority or the minority side of the aisle, you will
understand this is not a workable process.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to identify myself with the comments that I have
heard this morning from both sides of the aisle relative to this bill.
When we wrote this bill at the subcommittee, where I serve with the
distinguished chairman and the ranking member and some very thoughtful
Members, I spoke with great reservations about the allocations that we
had with respect to this bill.
The balancing act that we have is that the American people expect us
to do our job to the fullest extent. And without the resources of
Congressional Research Service, without the Capitol Hill Police to
adequately protect all of the grounds and the people and the millions
of visitors that come through here every year, we cannot adequately do
our job. And so, that is the balancing act. Yet, we must lead by
example on tightening our belts as tight and as slim as we can without
crossing the line of inefficiency.
Sometimes we cannot afford not to invest in these resources. And that
is where we find ourselves. So this manager's amendment restores the
necessary money for us to feel like we are doing our job effectively
and efficiently, which is what the people demand.
{time} 1130
I want to applaud our leadership for finding the extra money, working
in a bipartisan way, staying cool, working together, because, as the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, at this point my reservations
have diminished and we can support this bill collectively in a
bipartisan manner knowing that we are doing what is right, because
these are critical needs. Our Capitol Hill Police deserve our
appreciation. They deserve to be called by their first name. They
deserve to be recognized on a daily basis for laying their life down.
They stand between any threat to not only us but all the people in this
great place. It is important that we appreciate them. It is important
that we fund them adequately.
The folks at the Library of Congress deserve our support. Encourage
them to be more efficient but support these critical missions of the
legislative branch through this bill. I hope in a bipartisan way the
whole House will now come together and rally around this bill and
support it enthusiastically because I think it strikes a careful
balance between efficiency and funding the essential services that the
American people expect to see and to benefit from through the United
States Congress.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on the job that he has
done.
During committee markup of this bill, the subcommittee chairman urged
the members to support it despite in my opinion, which the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has also reflected, its substantial flaws,
saying at that point in time we were in the second round of a 10-round
fight. In my opinion, the committee got knocked out in the third round.
Having struggled to its feet, the committee now offers a somewhat
better bill if the manager's amendment is adopted. But, in my opinion,
this bill is still not a winner. We should knock it out again and
demand even better for the people we serve.
As members recall, the committee bill was so underfunded that it drew
widespread, justified criticism. It would have cut over 1,700 employees
from an already pared down legislative branch. It would have denied
COLAs to the employees who remained. It would have dramatically
impaired our ability
[[Page H4938]]
to function, and not because the legislative branch is overfunded. It
is not overfunded. This subcommittee has in the past under Democrats
and Republicans been quite frugal. The committee's report admits that
the cuts were, and I quote, ``not necessarily reductions the committee
would have made if not constrained by the budget resolution.'' This is
the immaculate-conception argument that has been used repeatedly with
respect to our appropriation bills. Translation: these cuts were
required to finance the GOP's election-year tax cuts.
The most egregious cut in the committee bill, of course, has been
discussed. It would have cut 438 Capitol Police officers from the
rolls, 338 by a reduction in force. Let me say something with respect
to the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) observations. I do not have
figures yet as to uniformed personnel, but our Committee on House
Administration of which I have the privilege of being the ranking
member, has authorized 1,511 personnel for the Capitol Police. Why?
Because unlike the cities that the gentleman from Florida mentioned, we
have millions, yes, millions of visitors to this Capitol complex every
year, our constituents from all over the country.
The bill as it was originally presented by the committee would pare
security back below where it was 23 months ago, before our review
generated by the deaths of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. The
committee refused the Police Board's request for 100 new officers that
the two postshooting reviews urged are needed to make the Capitol safe
for visitors, staff and Members. Today's somewhat better bill, if the
manager's amendment is adopted, funds 1,354 officers on the rolls,
about 160 less than are authorized; it fills at least some of the 100
or more vacancies expected next year; and funds a class of recruits
that just started training. But in my view, Mr. Chairman, it fails to
provide adequate security for thousands who work in or visit the
complex, including the police, themselves, on a daily basis.
Police funding is not the only problem with this bill. The committee
bill would have slashed spending for the General Accounting Office,
which helps us find waste, fraud and abuse in Federal spending, so
deeply as to cut 707 staff. The manager's amendment somewhat solves
that problem, and I congratulate the ranking member and the chairman
for supporting it. But the somewhat better bill still cuts GAO by $8.7
million below this year and 230 FTEs. So it is not like we are making
anybody whole here. In 1999, GAO recommendations yielded savings of $57
for every $1 we spent on the GAO. That is a good return, 57 to 1. I
believe our taxpayers would think if we saved $57 by spending $1, we
are ahead of the game.
The committee bill also took, in my opinion, a meat-axe to the
Government Printing Office, lopping over 25 percent of its funding and
400 staff. The Senate bill increases GPO spending, only by four-tenths
of a point, but increased it. The committee bill would have effectively
ended the depository library program used by thousands and thousands of
Americans weekly in most of our districts, eliminated entire classes of
congressional printing and even printing for next January's
inauguration which we know is coming.
The improved bill still cuts GPO by 7.4 percent and 176 FTEs,
including RIFs for 13 people who compile the Congressional Record
Index. It restores most cuts to the depository program, I am referring
to the manager's amendment, but still cuts printed publications, the
kind most library customers actually want to read, going into libraries
by 15,000. It restores the inaugural printing, but leaves Members
without publications like ``Our Flag.'' It may sound silly, but every
school child in America loves that publication and learns more about
the flag. It cuts ``How Our Laws Are Made'' and delays reprinting of
the only official version of the U.S. Code.
The committee bill would have cut 156 staff from the Architect's
office, many of them custodians and laborers who perform the basic
maintenance of the Capitol. The somewhat better bill does fund the
Architect staff but rejects his request for 13 FTEs to work on life
safety matters, including fire safety which should be a priority for
this institution.
Overall, the bill still cuts 368 FTEs legislative-branch wide, after
we have under the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina and
his predecessors made substantial cuts every year over the last 5 years
and indeed, as Mr. Lombard knows, even before that under Democratic
control.
Mr. Chairman, I regrettably cannot support this bill even with the
manager's amendment. It shortchanges Capitol security and life safety
programs, depository-library patrons, oversight of Federal spending and
other functions to pay for election-year tax cuts. For most accounts,
the Senate figures are where we should be after conference.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Defense.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if I read the lock box amendment right, I
have a great concern about what they are trying to do. Much of the
legislation we have passed initially is for negotiation purposes. We
normally take projects out. We have taken as many as four destroyers
out and over $1 billion normally in the subcommittee. But there are
times when amendments have been offered on the floor and we have lost
as much as $1 billion on the floor, but we go to the Senate and then we
renegotiate the amount of money we have. As I understand the amendment,
we would lose that money and we would lose the flexibility to negotiate
with the Senate, or the other body; and they would have the same
problem over there.
So this really, I think, could be detrimental to good government
rather than help government. It certainly would not help us because in
the end we would be determining on the floor, we would be reducing the
amount of money when really all people want to reduce is one particular
system which later on may want to be increased again. This really
worries me.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I did not have the opportunity because of time constraints
to mention this amendment, but I agree wholeheartedly with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, one of the senior members of the Committee
on Appropriations, and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
who have correctly pointed out the deficiencies of this lock-box
amendment. I hope the chairman of our committee also believes that this
would be harmful to our decision-making process and our flexibility,
and would undermine our ability to make judgments on priorities as we
proceed through the process, which is of course the point the gentleman
from Pennsylvania made.
This amendment, of course, did not come out of the subcommittee, did
not come out of the full committee, but was made in order by the
Committee on Rules. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, correctly observed the harmful
effects that this would have on the entire House in a bipartisan way. I
join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania in urging our colleagues to
reject this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In response to the comments of the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I would refer all of the Members of the
House to the adverse report that the Committee on Appropriations did
report on H.R. 853, which would have created this lock box. It is a
very good description of why it is not workable.
Mr. MURTHA. I appreciate both gentlemen's comments. I would hope the
House would be very careful in not adopting something that could be
very detrimental to our flexibility in the long run, hurt our national
security and I am sure have the same impact on any other bill that we
take before the Congress.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me
to speak this morning.
[[Page H4939]]
Mr. Chairman, I think the task that the subcommittee has labored over
is often mischaracterized, it is misconstrued and it is thankless, I
think, for the public and for oftentimes Members of this assembly. But
it is key what they do to enable us to do our job as Members, to
represent our constituents; and there are critical elements in this
budget that enable us to protect and serve the public, their physical
safety when they are here in Washington, D.C., and to provide
information.
One particular item of focus for me deals with the adequate funding
for the Congressional Research Service. I would like to thank the
subcommittee for restoring the additional $7.5 million. Before funding
was increased, CRS was slated to have had to fire over 110 individuals,
drastically reducing their ability to provide valuable research and
assistance. And although I am pleased that the funding was increased, I
am disappointed to see that the funding has not yet met the requested
level and that without this additional money, it is going to be
difficult or impossible for CRS to continue to provide for its
carefully crafted multiyear CRS succession initiative.
I think it was very thoughtful on the part of the Congressional
Research Service to try and deal with a potential catastrophe with 50
percent of their staff nearing eligibility for retirement or already
eligible. The notion of being able to do some thoughtful overhire,
bringing in some junior members to get the expertise, to be able to
meet the needs of Congress in providing nonpartisan, thoughtful,
analytic benefit to help us do our job is smart.
I appreciate the fact that last year they were forced into sort of a
Hobson's choice. There was a difficult additional cut that was laid
upon them, and in their wisdom they elected to suspend this process. I
do not think they should have been put in that box, I think that that
was a false economy; but I think that that does not release us from the
obligation as a Chamber to be able to provide those resources for them.
{time} 1145
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to be able to continue
to provide adequate research ability for the entire Congress to have
this multidisciplinary expertise across all policy issues; that is an
unusually broad range of expertise within this single institution, and
it is given in a highly personal way. I think we have all been well
served by the dedicated men and women who provide it.
I do hope that this budget continues to be a work in progress, and I
hope that we will make progress in terms of adequately providing for
this succession for CRS.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support the manager's
amendment, if that is adopted, and the Ryan amendment defeated, that we
support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as indicated before, we have nine steps in
appropriating money, and three of them in the House, three in the
Senate, then we go to conference, then we come back to the House and
the Senate, and the President then signs the bill.
It is a long process, and we try to improve the legislation as we
move along. We think that the manager's amendment will be positive in
this area.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on the subject of funding for
the Capitol Police.
This Congress should take every opportunity possible to salute the
police officers of this nation, as I do for those who serve my
Congressional District in Orange County.
Our nation loses an officer almost every other day; we've lost three
Capitol officers in the line of duty. And that doesn't include the ones
who may be assaulted or injured.
The calling to serve in law enforcement comes with bravery and
sacrifice.
The thin blue line protecting our homes, our families, and our
communities--and the foremost symbol of American freedom and
democracy--pays a price, and so do the loved ones they leave behind
when tragedy strikes.
They shouldn't have to do this dangerous job with inadequate
resources.
We have a responsibility to see that law enforcement--particularly
those who guard the Capitol--have the resources they need.
I want to recognize my colleagues for their support of necessary
funding for the U.S. Capitol Police force.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill's treatment of the Copyright
Office is just another example of voodoo economics. Time and time
again, the majority signals that it just does not care about the
creative community. The majority continually tries to shut down the
National Endowment for the Arts in its quest to eradicate free
expression, and now this. The majority is taking five million dollars
from the Copyright Office--and for no good reason other than perhaps to
eliminate the copyright protection for that free expression.
In the Information Age, copyrights have become the most important
protections that creators can have for their work. In fact, piracy on
the Internet is the number one fear that artists have, and the
Copyright Office is the best shield against those pirates.
Unfortunately, while recent congressional mandates--such as the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Satellite Home Viewer
Improvement Act--have imposed dramatic new responsibilities on the
Copyright Office in the form of new studies and reports, the majority
failed to provide additional funds so it could carry out those duties
without somehow interfering with its responsibilities to copyright
holders. Clearly, this is an impossible task for any agency. This bill
just adds fuel to the fire.
By cutting its funding, the Majority expects the Copyright Office to
make up the difference by keeping more of the royalties it collects.
That's just passing the buck. Those royalties are for the people who
create the music, movies, books, and art that drive our culture--not
for government salaries. And this is in the midst of a $200 billion
budget surplus.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns about
the serious, negative consequences that H.R. 4616 will have on the
operations of the U.S. Copyright Office. While it appears we will not
have the opportunity to resolve these concerns before the House votes
on H.R. 4616, I ask the bill's sponsors to address these concerns
during conference.
H.R. 4616 cuts the Copyright Office's total net appropriations by 38
percent, or over $5 million. As I stated, the consequences of these
budgetary cuts are serious: the Copyright Office may be forced to fire
as many as 130 people, and certainly will not be able to perform a
variety of critical functions.
Though not a high-profile agency, the Copyright Office provides a
variety of very important, useful services to this Congress and the
American people. The Copyright Office provides legal and policy advice
to the Congress on copyright issues, advice on which the Congress
relies on an almost daily basis. The Copyright Office advises foreign
governments on the development of copyright laws, and plays an integral
role in inter-agency deliberations over intellectual property trade
matters. It undertakes studies and rule-makings at the direction of
Congress, and is currently engaged in a variety of important studies
mandated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In fiscal year 1999
alone, the Copyright Office registered over one-half million
copyrighted works. It administers the collection and distribution of
royalties under compulsory licenses, and in doing so processes filings
from tens of thousands of cable operators, satellite carriers, and
equipment manufacturers. It conducts Copyright Arbitration Royalty
Panels, or CARPs, to settle disputes over copyright royalties. Perhaps
most importantly, the Copyright Office plays a key role in ensuring
that our Library of Congress contains the most comprehensive collection
of creative works in the world.
As I indicated, the $5 million cut in its $12 million net
appropriation will cause a reduction in force of 130 Copyright Office
employees. To put it another way, this reduction works out to cutting
27 percent of the entire Copyright Office staff. Such a drastic cut in
personnel will render the Copyright Office unable to perform many of
the critical functions I have discussed. I don't even know how they
will begin to decide which congressional mandates to ignore, or whose
requests for policy support it will not honor.
It seems to me ``penny-wise but pound foolish'' to save $5 million by
drastically reducing the services rendered by the Copyright Office. In
fact, pound for pound, the Copyright Office is easily one of the most
efficient and effective agencies in the entire federal government.
Simply put, it does a terrific and important job with already limited
resources, and there is not a pound of fat to cut.
I recognize that the intent of these cuts was not to gut the
operations of the Copyright Office. In fact, H.R. 4616 attempts to
enable the Copyright Office to cope with this serious budgetary
shortfall in the out years by suggesting that it raise fees to cover
the shortfall.
[[Page H4940]]
Unfortunately, the Copyright Office cannot, either as a legal or
practical matter, raise its fees to cover the shortfall.
Effective July 1, 1999, the Copyright Office implemented a 3-year
schedule of fees that raised fees for a variety of services from 50
percent to 220 percent. As a practical matter, the Copyright Office
cannot turn around and raise its fees yet again: a comprehensive
economic analysis undertaken pursuant to the recent fee increases
indicated that higher fee increases would not be paid by the public,
and thus would result in a decrease in fee revenue. I must remind my
colleagues that, due to treaty obligations, we have a voluntary system
of registering and recording copyrights.
Thus, fees can only be increased so high before copyright holders
simply stop registering and paying. The economic analysis undertaken by
the Copyright Office indicates that the recently implemented fee
increases reach that maximum level of acceptance.
As a legal matter, the Copyright Office cannot simply raise its fees
yet again. The Copyright Act mandates a procedure that the Copyright
Office must follow in setting new fees, and this process takes
approximately two years to implement. Thus, while H.R. 4516 assumes
that the Copyright Office will make up for a fiscal year 2001 budget
shortfall by raising fees, the Copyright Office would not legally be
able to raise fees until fiscal year 2002.
In closing, I urge that the $5 million cut in the Copyright Office
budget be restored, if not now then during conference consideration of
H.R. 4516. It seems a small expense to provide such important services.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, for his hard work in preparing this bill
and bringing it to the floor today. I certainly appreciate all the
effort that has gone into making this look easy.
I wanted to talk briefly about one very important element of this
bill, and that is the power plant which makes the Capitol run, and
which will ultimately power and cool our new visitors center. What is
also of interest to me is the fact this is the last power plant in
Washington, D.C. which is fueled partially by burning coal. There used
to be others--the GSA had two coal-burning plants, and Pepco also used
to burn coal to generate energy. As a result of a need to meet Clean
Air requirements in the District (which is in non-attainment for
ozone), particularly on emissions of NOX, which is an ozone
precursor, those plants now rely on natural gas or distillate oil to
generate energy.
In addition to knocking down NOX emissions, natural gas
also has benefit of reducing emissions of sulfur dioxides and PM, both
of which are generated from burning coal or fuel oil.
For these reasons, I was pleased to learn that of the seven boilers
that fire the Capital plant, five of them have already been converted
to run on natural gas and/or fuel oil. It is my understanding that this
conversion has already resulted in greatly reduced emissions, to the
benefit of all those who live and work in this area.
In addition to the obvious public health benefit, I think it is
important that we here in Congress lead by example, as we have in the
conversion of these boilers. As we debate proposals and pass laws which
lead to stringent air quality controls on the private sector, it is
critical that we demonstrate that we are serious about this, and are
willing to take the same kind of steps here in our own backyard.
For these reasons, I was pleased to read in the Capitol Hill Master
Plan that as part of the expansion of the West Refrigeration Plant,
``the historical reduction in reliance on coal will be continued,
resulting in the complete phase-out of use by the year 2003. The boiler
system will be converted to run on natural gas and fuel oil.''
This is a continuation of the positive steps which have been taken to
both modernize our power facilities, and reduce harmful emissions in
the process. Now, I am aware that there has been an interest expressed
by several Members and Senators in retaining a coal element of this
plant, and that various options which entail ``cleaner-burning coal are
now under evaluation. I would anticipate that once the review of these
options are completed, the original phase-out proposal will be
recognized as the most practical, both from cost and air quality
standpoint.
I had originally considered offering an amendment to ensure that the
phase out and conversion timetable over to the cleaner fuels remained
on track. While I will not be doing so today, I will remain interested
in monitoring the developments surrounding the expansion of the Capital
plant, and the ongoing conversion to natural gas and cleaner fuels. We
have an obligation to lead by example, on air quality as on so many
other issues, and so I look forward to working with the Chairman and my
colleagues in the future to see to it that this comes to pass. I submit
a copy of my amendment to be placed in the Record.
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . No funds appropriated in this Act may be used to
develop or implement any plan for fuel use at the Capitol
Plant other than the fuel use plan set forth in the Capitol
Plant Master Plan prepared by the Architect of the Capitol,
dated May 11, 2000.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 4516 is as follows:
H.R. 4516
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives,
$749,210,000, as follows:
house leadership offices
For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law,
$13,998,000, including: Office of the Speaker, $1,711,000,
including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker;
Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $1,677,000, including
$10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office
of the Minority Floor Leader, $2,039,000, including $10,000
for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the
Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip,
$1,427,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the
Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the
Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $1,065,000, including $5,000 for
official expenses of the Minority Whip; Speaker's Office for
Legislative Floor Activities, $399,000; Republican Steering
Committee, $744,000; Republican Conference, $1,220,000;
Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, $1,315,000;
Democratic Caucus, $649,000; nine minority employees,
$1,196,000; training and program development--majority
$278,000; and training and program development--minority,
$278,000.
Members' Representational Allowances
Including Members' Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and
Official Mail
For Members' representational allowances, including
Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail,
$400,527,000.
Committee Employees
Standing Committees, Special and Select
For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special
and select, authorized by House resolutions, $89,896,000:
Provided, That such amount shall remain available for such
salaries and expenses until December 31, 2002.
Committee on Appropriations
For salaries and expenses of the Committee on
Appropriations, $20,231,000, including studies and
examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal
services for such committee, to be expended in accordance
with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for
services performed: Provided, That such amount shall remain
available for such salaries and expenses until December 31,
2002.
salaries, officers and employees
For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as
authorized by law, $86,369,000, including: for salaries and
expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not more than
$3,500, of which not more than $2,500 is for the Family Room,
for official representation and reception expenses,
$14,286,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of
Garages, and including not more than $750 for official
representation and reception expenses, $3,596,000; for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, $54,997,000, of which $1,054,000
shall remain available until expended, including $24,912,000
for salaries, expenses and temporary personal services of
House Information Resources, of which $24,327,000 is provided
herein: Provided, That of the amount provided for House
Information Resources, $5,760,000 shall be for net expenses
of telecommunications: Provided further, That House
Information Resources is authorized to receive reimbursement
from Members of the House of Representatives and other
governmental entities for services provided and such
reimbursement shall be deposited in the Treasury for credit
to this account; for salaries and expenses of the Office of
the Inspector General, $3,197,000; for salaries and expenses
of the Office of General Counsel, $806,000; for the Office of
the Chaplain, $140,000; for salaries and expenses of the
Office of the Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian
and $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, $1,172,000; for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Law Revision
Counsel of the House, $2,045,000; for salaries and expenses
of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House,
$5,085,000; for salaries and expenses of the Corrections
Calendar Office, $832,000; and for other authorized
employees, $213,000.
[[Page H4941]]
allowances and expenses
For allowances and expenses as authorized by House
resolution or law, $138,189,000, including: supplies,
materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims,
$1,960,000; official mail for committees, leadership offices,
and administrative offices of the House, $410,000; Government
contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and
other applicable employee benefits, $135,426,000; and
miscellaneous items including purchase, exchange,
maintenance, repair and operation of House motor vehicles,
interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to heirs of
deceased employees of the House, $393,000.
child care center
For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives
Child Care Center, such amounts as are deposited in the
account established by section 312(d)(1) of the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, 1992 (40 U.S.C. 184g(d)(1)),
subject to the level specified in the budget of the Center,
as submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives.
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 101. During fiscal year 2001 and any succeeding fiscal
year, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives may--
(1) enter into contracts for the acquisition of severable
services for a period that begins in one fiscal year and ends
in the next fiscal year to the same extent as the head of an
executive agency under the authority of section 303L of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 253l); and
(2) enter into multi-year contracts for the acquisitions of
property and nonaudit-related services to the same extent as
executive agencies under the authority of section 304B of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 254c).
Sec. 102. (a) Permitting New House Employees To Be Placed
Above Minimum Step of Compensation Level.--The House
Employees Position Classification Act (2 U.S.C. 291 et seq.)
is amended by striking section 10 (2 U.S.C. 299).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to employees appointed on or after
October 1, 2000.
JOINT ITEMS
For Joint Committees, as follows:
Joint Economic Committee
For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee,
$3,072,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.
Joint Committee on Taxation
For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on
Taxation, $6,174,000, to be disbursed by the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House.
For other joint items, as follows:
Office of the Attending Physician
For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of
the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his
assistants, including: (1) an allowance of $1,500 per month
to the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $500 per
month each to three medical officers while on duty in the
Office of the Attending Physician; (3) an allowance of $500
per month to one assistant and $400 per month each not to
exceed 11 assistants on the basis heretofore provided for
such assistants; and (4) $1,159,904 for reimbursement to the
Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and
equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician,
which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable
appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries,
allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be
available for all the purposes thereof, $1,835,000, to be
disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.
Capitol Police Board
Capitol Police
salaries
For the Capitol Police Board for salaries of officers,
members, and employees of the Capitol Police, including
overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, clothing allowance
of not more than $600 each for members required to wear
civilian attire, and Government contributions for health,
retirement, Social Security, and other applicable employee
benefits, $70,120,000, of which $33,586,000 is provided to
the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, to be
disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House,
and $36,534,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper of the Senate, to be disbursed by the Secretary of
the Senate: Provided, That, of the amounts appropriated under
this heading, such amounts as may be necessary may be
transferred between the Sergeant at Arms of the House of
Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
the Senate, upon approval of the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
general expenses
For the Capitol Police Board for necessary expenses of the
Capitol Police, including motor vehicles, communications and
other equipment, security equipment and installation,
uniforms, weapons, supplies, materials, training, medical
services, forensic services, stenographic services, personal
and professional services, the employee assistance program,
not more than $2,000 for the awards program, postage,
telephone service, travel advances, relocation of instructor
and liaison personnel for the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, and $85 per month for extra services
performed for the Capitol Police Board by an employee of the
Sergeant at Arms of the Senate or the House of
Representatives designated by the Chairman of the Board,
$6,549,000, to be disbursed by the Capitol Police Board or
their delegee: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the cost of basic training for the Capitol
Police at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for
fiscal year 2001 shall be paid by the Secretary of the
Treasury from funds available to the Department of the
Treasury.
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 103. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2001 for the
Capitol Police Board for the Capitol Police may be
transferred between the headings ``salaries'' and ``general
expenses'' upon the approval of--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, in the case of amounts transferred from the
appropriation provided to the Sergeant at Arms of the House
of Representatives under the heading ``salaries'';
(2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, in the
case of amounts transferred from the appropriation provided
to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate under
the heading ``salaries''; and
(3) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives, in the case of other transfers.
Sec. 104. (a) Appointment of Certifying Officers of the
Capitol Police.--The Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S.
Capitol Police, or when there is not a Chief Administrative
Officer the Capitol Police Board, shall appoint certifying
officers to certify all vouchers for payment from funds made
available to the United States Capitol Police.
(b) Responsibility and Accountability of Certifying
Officers.--
(1) In general.--Each officer or employee of the Capitol
Police who has been duly authorized in writing by the Chief
Administrative Officer, or the Capitol Police Board if there
is not a Chief Administrative Officer, to certify vouchers
pursuant to subsection (a) shall--
(A) be held responsible for the existence and correctness
of the facts recited in the certificate or otherwise stated
on the voucher or its supporting papers and for the legality
of the proposed payment under the appropriation or fund
involved;
(B) be held responsible and accountable for the correctness
of the computations of certified vouchers; and
(C) be held accountable for and required to make good to
the United States the amount of any illegal, improper, or
incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or
misleading certificate made by such officer or employee, as
well as for any payment prohibited by law or which did not
represent a legal obligation under the appropriation or fund
involved.
(2) Relief by comptroller general.--The Comptroller General
may, at the Comptroller General's discretion, relieve such
certifying officer or employee of liability for any payment
otherwise proper if the Comptroller General finds--
(A) that the certification was based on official records
and that the certifying officer or employee did not know, and
by reasonable diligence and inquiry could not have
ascertained, the actual facts; or
(B) that the obligation was incurred in good faith, that
the payment was not contrary to any statutory provision
specifically prohibiting payments of the character involved,
and the United States has received value for such payment.
(c) Enforcement of Liability.--The liability of the
certifying officers of the United States Capitol Police shall
be enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as
currently provided with respect to the enforcement of the
liability of disbursing and other accountable officers, and
such officers shall have the right to apply for and obtain a
decision by the Comptroller General on any question of law
involved in a payment on any vouchers presented to them for
certification.
Sec. 105. Chief Administrative Officer.--(a) There shall be
within the Capitol Police an Office of Administration to be
headed by a Chief Administrative Officer:
(1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall be appointed by
the Comptroller General after consultation with the Capitol
Police Board, and shall report to and serve at the pleasure
of the Comptroller General.
(2) The Comptroller General shall appoint as Chief
Administrative Officer an individual with the knowledge and
skills necessary to carry out the responsibilities for
budgeting, financial management, information technology, and
human resource management described in this section.
(3) The Chief Administrative Officer shall receive basic
pay at a rate determined by the Comptroller General, but not
to exceed the annual rate of basic pay payable for ES-2 of
the Senior Executive Service Basic Rates Schedule established
for members of the Senior Executive Service of the General
Accounting Office under section 733 of title 31.
(4) The Capitol Police shall reimburse from available
appropriations any costs incurred by the General Accounting
Office under this section.
[[Page H4942]]
(b) The Chief Administrative Officer shall have the
following areas of responsibility:
(1) Budgeting.--The Chief Administrative Officer shall--
(A) after consulting with the Chief of Police on the
portion of the budget covering uniformed police force
personnel, prepare and submit to the Capitol Police Board an
annual budget for the Capitol Police;
(B) execute the budget and monitor through periodic
examinations the execution of the Capitol Police budget in
relation to actual obligations and expenditures.
(2) Financial management.--The Chief Administrative Officer
shall--
(A) oversee all financial management activities relating to
the programs and operations of the Capitol Police;
(B) develop and maintain an integrated accounting and
financial system for the Capitol Police, including financial
reporting and internal controls, which--
(i) complies with applicable accounting principles,
standards, and requirements, and internal control standards;
(ii) complies with any other requirements applicable to
such systems;
(iii) provides for--
(I) complete, reliable, consistent, and timely information
which is prepared on a uniform basis and which is responsive
to financial information needs of the Capitol Police;
(II) the development and reporting of cost information;
(III) the integration of accounting and budgeting
information; and
(IV) the systematic measurement of performance;
(C) direct, manage, and provide policy guidance and
oversight of Capitol Police financial management personnel,
activities, and operations, including--
(i) the recruitment, selection, and training of personnel
to carry out Capitol Police financial management functions;
and
(ii) the implementation of Capitol Police asset management
systems, including systems for cash management, debt
collection, and property and inventory management and
control; and
(D) the Chief Administrative Officer shall prepare annual
financial statements for the Capitol Police and provide for
an annual audit of the financial statements by an independent
public accountant in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
(3) Information technology.--The Chief Administrative
Officer shall--
(A) direct, coordinate, and oversee the acquisition, use,
and management of information technology by the Capitol
Police;
(B) promote and oversee the use of information technology
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of programs of
the Capitol Police; and
(C) establish and enforce information technology
principles, guidelines, and objectives, including developing
and maintaining an information technology architecture for
the Capitol Police.
(4) Human resources.--The Chief Administrative Officer
shall--
(A) direct, coordinate, and oversee human resource
management activities of the Capitol Police, except that with
respect to uniformed police force personnel, the Chief
Administrative Officer shall perform these activities in
cooperation with the Chief of the Capitol Police;
(B) develop and monitor payroll and time and attendance
systems and employee services; and
(C) develop and monitor processes for recruiting,
selecting, appraising, and promoting employees.
(c) Administrative provisions with respect to the Office of
Administration:
(1) The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to
select, appoint, employ, and discharge such officers and
employees as may be necessary to carry out the functions,
powers, and duties of the Office of Administration but he
shall not have the authority to hire or discharge uniformed
police force personnel.
(2) The Chief Administrative Officer may utilize resources
of another agency on a reimbursable basis to be paid from
available appropriations of the Capitol Police.
(d) No later than 180 days after appointment, the Chief
Administrative Officer shall prepare, after consultation with
the Capitol Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police,
a plan--
(1) describing the policies, procedures, and actions the
Chief Administrative Officer will take in carrying out the
responsibilities assigned under this section;
(2) identifying and defining responsibilities and roles of
all offices, bureaus, and divisions of the Capitol Police for
budgeting, financial management, information technology, and
human resources management; and
(3) detailing mechanisms for ensuring that the offices,
bureaus, and divisions perform their responsibilities and
roles in a coordinated and integrated manner.
(e) No later than September 30, 2001, the Chief
Administrative Officer shall prepare, after consultation with
the Capitol Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police,
a report on the Chief Administrative Officer's progress in
implementing the plan described in subsection (d) and
recommendations to improve the budgeting, financial,
information technology, and human resources management of the
Capitol Police, including organizational, accounting and
administrative control, and personnel changes.
(f) The Chief Administrative Officer shall submit the plan
required in subsection (d) and the report required in
subsection (e) to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and of the Senate, the Committee on
House Administration of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.
(g) As of October 1, 2002, unless otherwise determined by
the Comptroller General, the Chief Administrative Officer
established by section (a) will cease to be an employee of
the General Accounting Office and will become an employee of
the Capitol Police, and the Capitol Police Board shall assume
all responsibilities of the Comptroller General under this
section.
Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office
For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service and
Special Services Office, $2,201,000, to be disbursed by the
Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That no part of such
amount may be used to employ more than 43 individuals:
Provided further, That the Capitol Guide Board is authorized,
during emergencies, to employ not more than two additional
individuals for not more than 120 days each, and not more
than 10 additional individuals for not more than 6 months
each, for the Capitol Guide Service.
Statements of Appropriations
For the preparation, under the direction of the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, of the statements for the second session of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress, showing appropriations made,
indefinite appropriations, and contracts authorized, together
with a chronological history of the regular appropriations
Acts as required by law, $29,000, to be paid to the persons
designated by the chairmen of such committees to supervise
the work.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as
authorized by section 305 of the Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), $1,816,000.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public
Law 93-344), including not more than $3,000 to be expended on
the certification of the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office in connection with official representation and
reception expenses, $25,100,000: Provided, That no part of
such amount may be used for the purchase or hire of a
passenger motor vehicle.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Capitol Buildings and Grounds
capitol buildings
salaries and expenses
For salaries for the Architect of the Capitol, the
Assistant Architect of the Capitol, and other personal
services, at rates of pay provided by law; for surveys and
studies in connection with activities under the care of the
Architect of the Capitol; for all necessary expenses for the
maintenance, care and operation of the Capitol and electrical
substations of the Senate and House office buildings under
the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, including
furnishings and office equipment, including not more than
$1,000 for official reception and representation expenses, to
be expended as the Architect of the Capitol may approve; for
purchase or exchange, maintenance and operation of a
passenger motor vehicle; and not to exceed $20,000 for
attendance, when specifically authorized by the Architect of
the Capitol, at meetings or conventions in connection with
subjects related to work under the Architect of the Capitol,
$41,953,000, of which $4,280,000 shall remain available until
expended.
capitol grounds
For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of
grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office
buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $4,557,000, of which
$25,000 shall remain available until expended.
house office buildings
For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the House office buildings, $29,685,000, of
which $123,000 shall remain available until expended.
capitol power plant
For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating,
power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water
and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office
buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds
about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air
conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of
such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and
Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water
for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, the
Union Station complex, the Thurgood Marshall Federal
Judiciary Building and the Folger Shakespeare Library,
expenses for which shall be advanced or reimbursed upon
request of the Architect of the Capitol and amounts so
received shall be deposited into the Treasury to the credit
of this appropriation, $38,555,000, of which $200,000 shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That not more than
$4,400,000 of the funds credited or to be reimbursed to this
appropriation as herein provided shall be available for
obligation during fiscal year 2001.
[[Page H4943]]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Congressional Research Service
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated
Constitution of the United States of America, $66,200,000:
Provided, That no part of such amount may be used to pay any
salary or expense in connection with any publication, or
preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of Public
General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress
unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either
the Committee on House Administration of the House of
Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration
of the Senate.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Congressional Printing and Binding
(including transfer of funds)
For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and
the distribution of Congressional information in any format;
printing and binding of Government publications authorized by
law to be distributed to Members of Congress, $65,457,000:
Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for
paper copies of the permanent edition of the Congressional
Record for individual Senators, Representatives, Resident
Commissioners or Delegates authorized under 44 U.S.C. 906:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available
for the payment of obligations incurred under the
appropriations for similar purposes for preceding fiscal
years: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 2-year
limitation under section 718 of title 44, United States Code,
none of the funds appropriated or made available under this
Act or any other Act for printing and binding and related
services provided to Congress under chapter 7 of title 44,
United States Code, may be expended to print a document,
report, or publication after the 27-month period beginning on
the date that such document, report, or publication is
authorized by Congress to be printed, unless Congress
reauthorizes such printing in accordance with section 718 of
title 44, United States Code: Provided further, That any
unobligated or unexpended balances in this account or
accounts for similar purposes for preceding fiscal years may
be transferred to the Government Printing Office revolving
fund for carrying out the purposes of this heading, subject
to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate.
Administrative Provision
Sec. 106. (a) Congressional Printing and Binding Through
Clerk of House and Secretary of Senate.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of title 44,
United States Code, or any other law, there are authorized to
be appropriated to the Clerk of the House of Representatives
and the Secretary of the Senate such sums as may be necessary
for congressional printing and binding services.
(2) Preparation of estimates.--Estimated expenditures and
proposed appropriations for congressional printing and
binding services shall be prepared and submitted by the Clerk
of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the
Senate in accordance with title 31, United States Code, in
the same manner as estimates and requests are prepared for
other legislative branch services under such title, except
that such requests shall be based upon the results of the
study conducted under subsection (b) (with respect to any
fiscal year covered by such study).
(3) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply with
respect to fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal year.
(b) Study.--
(1) In general.--During fiscal year 2001, the Clerk of the
House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate
shall conduct a comprehensive study of the needs of the House
and Senate for congressional printing and binding services
during fiscal year 2003 and succeeding fiscal years
(including transitional issues during fiscal year 2002), and
shall include in the study an analysis of the most cost-
effective program or programs for providing printed or other
media-based publications for House and Senate uses.
(2) Submission to committees.--The Clerk and the Secretary
shall submit the study conducted under paragraph (1) to the
Committee on House Administration of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration
of the Senate, who shall review the study and prepare such
regulations or other materials (including proposals for
legislation) as each considers appropriate to enable the
Clerk and the Secretary to carry out congressional printing
and binding services in accordance with this section.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``congressional
printing and binding services'' means the following services:
(1) Authorized printing and binding for the Congress and
the distribution of congressional information in any format.
(2) Printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol.
(3) Preparing the semimonthly and session index to the
Congressional Record.
(4) Printing and binding of Government publications
authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress.
(5) Printing, binding, and distribution of Government
publications authorized by law to be distributed without
charge to the recipient.
This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Operations
Appropriations Act, 2001''.
TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES
BOTANIC GARDEN
salaries and expenses
For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and
operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings,
grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange,
maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor
vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on
the Library, $3,216,000.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not
otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance
of the Union Catalogs; custody and custodial care of the
Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and
repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the
custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the
American Folklife Center in the Library; preparation and
distribution of catalog records and other publications of the
Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and
expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not
properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by
the Board, $269,864,000, of which not more than $6,500,000
shall be derived from collections credited to this
appropriation during fiscal year 2001, and shall remain
available until expended, under the Act of June 28, 1902
(chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150) and not more than
$350,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal year
2001 and shall remain available until expended for the
development and maintenance of an international legal
information database and activities related thereto:
Provided, That the Library of Congress may not obligate or
expend any funds derived from collections under the Act of
June 28, 1902, in excess of the amount authorized for
obligation or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided
further, That the total amount available for obligation shall
be reduced by the amount by which collections are less than
the $6,850,000: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, $10,459,575 is to remain available until
expended for acquisition of books, periodicals, newspapers,
and all other materials including subscriptions for
bibliographic services for the Library, including $40,000 to
be available solely for the purchase, when specifically
approved by the Librarian, of special and unique materials
for additions to the collections: Provided further, That of
the total amount appropriated, $2,506,000 is to remain
available until expended for the acquisition and partial
support for implementation of an Integrated Library System
(ILS): Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, $5,957,800 is to remain available until
expended for the purpose of teaching educators how to
incorporate the Library's digital collections into school
curricula, which amount shall be transferred to the
educational consortium formed to conduct the ``Joining Hands
Across America: Local Community Initiative'' project as
approved by the Library: Provided further, That of the total
amount appropriated, $404,000 is to remain available until
expended for a collaborative digitization and
telecommunications project with the United States Military
Academy and any remaining balance is available for other
Library purposes.
Copyright Office
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office,
$38,771,000, of which not more than $26,000,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be derived from collections
credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 2001 under
17 U.S.C. 708(d): Provided, That the Copyright Office may not
obligate or expend any funds derived from collections under
17 U.S.C. 708(d), in excess of the amount authorized for
obligation or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided
further, That not more than $5,783,000 shall be derived from
collections during fiscal year 2001 under 17 U.S.C.
111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), and 1005: Provided further,
That the total amount available for obligation shall be
reduced by the amount by which collections are less than
$31,783,000: Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of
the amount appropriated is available for the maintenance of
an ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright
Office of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training
nationals of developing countries in intellectual property
laws and policies: Provided further, That not more than
$4,250 may be expended, on the certification of the Librarian
of Congress, in connection with official representation and
reception expenses for activities of the International
Copyright Institute and for copyright delegations, visitors,
and seminars.
Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
salaries and expenses
For salaries and expenses to carry out the Act of March 3,
1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 U.S.C. 135a),
$48,507,000, of which $14,135,000 shall remain available
until expended.
Furniture and Furnishings
For necessary expenses for the purchase, installation,
maintenance, and repair of furniture, furnishings, office and
library equipment, $5,394,000.
[[Page H4944]]
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 201. Appropriations in this Act available to the
Library of Congress shall be available, in an amount of not
more than $199,630, of which $59,300 is for the Congressional
Research Service, when specifically authorized by the
Librarian of Congress, for attendance at meetings concerned
with the function or activity for which the appropriation is
made.
Sec. 202. (a) No part of the funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by the Library of Congress to administer any
flexible or compressed work schedule which--
(1) applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the
grade or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15; and
(2) grants such manager or supervisor the right to not be
at work for all or a portion of a workday because of time
worked by the manager or supervisor on another workday.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``manager or
supervisor'' means any management official or supervisor, as
such terms are defined in section 7103(a)(10) and (11) of
title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 203. Appropriated funds received by the Library of
Congress from other Federal agencies to cover general and
administrative overhead costs generated by performing
reimbursable work for other agencies under the authority of
31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536 shall not be used to employ more than
65 employees and may be expended or obligated--
(1) in the case of a reimbursement, only to such extent or
in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; or
(2) in the case of an advance payment, only--
(A) to pay for such general or administrative overhead
costs as are attributable to the work performed for such
agency; or
(B) to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in
appropriations Acts, with respect to any purpose not
allowable under subparagraph (A).
Sec. 204. Of the amounts appropriated to the Library of
Congress in this Act, not more than $5,000 may be expended,
on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in
connection with official representation and reception
expenses for the incentive awards program.
Sec. 205. Of the amount appropriated to the Library of
Congress in this Act, not more than $12,000 may be expended,
on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in
connection with official representation and reception
expenses for the Overseas Field Offices.
Sec. 206. (a) For fiscal year 2001, the obligational
authority of the Library of Congress for the activities
described in subsection (b) may not exceed $92,845,000.
(b) The activities referred to in subsection (a) are
reimbursable and revolving fund activities that are funded
from sources other than appropriations to the Library in
appropriations Acts for the legislative branch.
Sec. 207. Section 1 of an Act to authorize acquisition of
certain real property for the Library of Congress, and for
other purposes, approved December 15, 1997 (2 U.S.C. 141
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(c) Transfer Payment by Architect.--Notwithstanding the
limitation on reimbursement or transfer of funds under
subsection (a) of this section, the Architect of the Capitol
may, not later than 90 days after acquisition of the property
under this section, transfer funds to the entity from which
the property was acquired by the Architect of the Capitol.
Such transfers may not exceed a total of $16,500,000.''.
Sec. 208. The Librarian of Congress may convert to
permanent positions 84 indefinite, time-limited positions in
the National Digital Library Program authorized in the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996
for the Library of Congress under the heading, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' (Public Law 104-53). Notwithstanding any other
provision of law regarding qualifications and methods of
appointment of employees of the Library of Congress, the
Librarian may fill these permanent positions through the non-
competitive conversion of the incumbents in the ``indefinite-
not-to-exceed'' positions to ``permanent'' positions.
Sec. 209. During fiscal year 2001 and fiscal years
thereafter, the Librarian of Congress may transfer among
available accounts amounts appropriated to the Library and
amounts appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol for the
mechanical and structural maintenance, care and operation of
Library buildings and grounds, with the approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. Amounts so transferred shall be merged with
and be available for the same purpose for the same period as
the appropriation or account to which transferred. This
transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer
authority provided by law. The Librarian shall consult with
the Architect of the Capitol before proposing transfers
involving amounts appropriated to the Architect.
Sec. 210. The Library of Congress may for such employees as
it deems appropriate authorize a payment to employees who
voluntarily separate before January 1, 2001, whether by
retirement or resignation, which payment shall be paid in
accordance with the provisions of section 5597(d) of title 5,
United States Code.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Library Buildings and Grounds
structural and mechanical care
For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and
structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library
buildings and grounds, $15,133,000, of which $5,000,000 shall
remain available until expended.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Office of Superintendent of Documents
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents
necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of
Government publications and their on-line access to the
public, Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and
designated depository and international exchange libraries as
authorized by law, $11,606,000: Provided, That travel
expenses, including travel expenses of the Depository Library
Council to the Public Printer, shall not exceed $175,000:
Provided further, That amounts of not more than $2,000,000
from current year appropriations are available for the cost
of publications distributed in prior years: Provided further,
That any unobligated or unexpended balances in this account
or accounts for similar purposes for preceding fiscal years
may be transferred to the Government Printing Office
revolving fund for carrying out the purposes of this heading,
subject to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and Senate.
Government Printing Office Revolving Fund
The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make
such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and
in accord with the law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 9104 of title 31, United States Code, as
may be necessary in carrying out the programs and purposes
set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for the
Government Printing Office revolving fund: Provided, That not
more than $2,500 may be expended on the certification of the
Public Printer in connection with official representation and
reception expenses: Provided further, That the revolving fund
shall be available for the hire or purchase of not more than
12 passenger motor vehicles: Provided further, That
expenditures in connection with travel expenses of the
advisory councils to the Public Printer shall be deemed
necessary to carry out the provisions of title 44, United
States Code: Provided further, That the revolving fund shall
be available for temporary or intermittent services under
section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates
for individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay for level V of the Executive
Schedule under section 5316 of such title: Provided further,
That the revolving fund and the funds provided under the
headings ``Office of Superintendent of Documents'' and
``salaries and expenses'' together may not be available for
the full-time equivalent employment of more than 3,285
workyears (or such other number of workyears as the Public
Printer may request, subject to the approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives): Provided further, That activities financed
through the revolving fund may provide information in any
format: Provided further, That the revolving fund shall not
be used to administer any flexible or compressed work
schedule which applies to any manager or supervisor in a
position the grade or level of which is equal to or higher
than GS-15: Provided further, That expenses for attendance at
meetings shall not exceed $75,000.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office,
including not more than $10,000 to be expended on the
certification of the Comptroller General of the United States
in connection with official representation and reception
expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section
3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for
individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual
rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule
under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor
vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries in accordance
with 31 U.S.C. 3324; benefits comparable to those payable
under sections 901(5), 901(6), and 901(8) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 4081(6), and
4081(8)); and under regulations prescribed by the Comptroller
General of the United States, rental of living quarters in
foreign countries, $351,529,000: Provided, That not more than
$1,900,000 of payments received under 31 U.S.C. 782 shall be
available for use in fiscal year 2001: Provided further, That
not more than $1,100,000 of reimbursements received under 31
U.S.C. 9105 shall be available for use in fiscal year 2001:
Provided further, That this appropriation and appropriations
for administrative expenses of any other department or agency
which is a member of the National Intergovernmental Audit
Forum or a Regional Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be
available to finance an appropriate share of either Forum's
costs as determined by the respective Forum, including
necessary travel expenses of non-Federal participants.
Payments hereunder to the Forum may be credited as
reimbursements to any appropriation from which costs involved
are initially financed: Provided further, That this
appropriation and appropriations for administrative expenses
of any
[[Page H4945]]
other department or agency which is a member of the American
Consortium on International Public Administration (ACIPA)
shall be available to finance an appropriate share of ACIPA
costs as determined by the ACIPA, including any expenses
attributable to membership of ACIPA in the International
Institute of Administrative Sciences.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used for the maintenance or care of private
vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may
be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities
for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on
House Administration and for the Senate issued by the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
Sec. 302. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act
shall remain available for obligation beyond fiscal year 2001
unless expressly so provided in this Act.
Sec. 303. Whenever in this Act any office or position not
specifically established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929
is appropriated for or the rate of compensation or
designation of any office or position appropriated for is
different from that specifically established by such Act, the
rate of compensation and the designation in this Act shall be
the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided, That the
provisions in this Act for the various items of official
expenses of Members, officers, and committees of the Senate
and House of Representatives, and clerk hire for Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives shall be the
permanent law with respect thereto.
Sec. 304. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 305. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
(c) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal
agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with
the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the
United States that is not made in the United States, such
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in section 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 306. Such sums as may be necessary are appropriated to
the account described in subsection (a) of section 415 of
Public Law 104-1 to pay awards and settlements as authorized
under such subsection.
Sec. 307. Amounts available for administrative expenses of
any legislative branch entity which participates in the
Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council (LBFMC)
established by charter on March 26, 1996, shall be available
to finance an appropriate share of LBFMC costs as determined
by the LBFMC, except that the total LBFMC costs to be shared
among all participating legislative branch entities (in such
allocations among the entities as the entities may determine)
may not exceed $252,000.
Sec. 308. (a) Reduction in Number of Authorized Positions
for Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police.--The
number of full-time equivalent officers and members of the
United States Capitol Police and the number of full-time
equivalent officers and members of the Library of Congress
Police authorized for fiscal year 2001 shall be reduced by
the number of officers and members who retire, resign, or are
otherwise separated from employment with the United States
Capitol Police or the Library of Congress Police (as the case
may be) during the fiscal year.
(b) Waiver.--The Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and Senate may waive or modify the
application of subsection (a).
Sec. 309. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act under the heading ``Architect of the Capitol'' or
``Botanic Garden'' shall be obligated or expended for a
construction contract in excess of $100,000, unless such
contract includes a provision that requires liquidated
damages for contractor caused delay in an amount commensurate
with the daily net usable square foot cost of leasing similar
space in a first class office building within two miles of
the United States Capitol multiplied by the square footage to
be constructed under the contract.
Sec. 310. Upon request of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate,
during fiscal year 2001 the Secretary of Defense shall
provide protective services on a non-reimbursable basis to
the United States Capitol Police with respect to--
(1) the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the
inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect
of the United States; and
(2) the joint session of Congress held to receive a message
from the President of the United States on the State of the
Union.
This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2001''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment is in order except those printed in House
report 106-685. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed, may be offered only by a Member designated by the report,
shall be considered read, debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a
division of the question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in the House
report 106-685.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina:
Page 2, line 5, strike ``$749,210,000'' and insert
``$769,551,000''.
Page 2, line 8, strike ``$13,998,000'' and insert
``$14,378,000''.
Page 2, line 9, strike ``$1,711,000'' and insert
``$1,759,000''.
Page 2, line 10, strike ``$1,677,000'' and insert
``$1,726,000''.
Page 2, line 12, strike ``$2,039,000'' and insert
``$2,096,000''.
Page 2, line 15, strike ``$1,427,000'' and insert
``$1,466,000''.
Page 2, line 18, strike ``$1,065,000'' and insert
``$1,096,000''.
Page 2, line 20, strike ``$399,000'' and insert
``$410,000''.
Page 2, line 21, strike ``$744,000'' and insert
``$765,000''.
Page 2, line 21, strike ``$1,220,000'' and insert
``$1,255,000''.
Page 2, line 22, strike ``$1,315,000'' and insert
``$1,352,000''.
Page 2, line 23, strike ``$649,000'' and insert
``$668,000''.
Page 2, line 24, strike ``$1,196,000'' and insert
``$1,229,000''.
Page 3, line 8, strike ``$400,527,000'' and insert
``$410,182,000''.
Page 3, line 13, strike ``$89,896,000'' and insert
``$92,196,000''.
Page 3, line 18, strike ``$20,231,000'' and insert
``$20,628,000''.
Page 4, line 3, strike ``$86,369,000'' and insert
``$90,403,000''.
Page 4, line 7, strike ``$14,286,000'' and insert
``$14,590,000''.
Page 4, line 11, strike ``$3,596,000'' and insert
``$3,692,000''.
Page 4, line 12, strike ``$54,997,000'' and insert
``$58,550,000''.
Page 4, line 14, strike ``$24,912,000'' and insert
``$26,605,000''.
Page 4, line 16, strike ``$24,327,000'' and insert
``$26,020,000''.
Page 4, line 18, strike ``$5,760,000'' and insert
``$6,497,000''.
Page 4, line 25, strike ``$3,197,000'' and insert
``$3,249,000''.
Page 5, line 5, strike ``$1,172,000'' and insert
``$1,201,000''.
Page 5, line 13, strike ``$138,189,000'' and insert
``$141,764,000''.
Page 5, line 15, strike ``$1,960,000'' and insert
``$2,235,000''.
Page 5, line 19, strike ``$135,426,000'' and insert
``$138,726,000''.
Page 8, line 22, strike ``$70,120,000'' and insert
``$92,769,000''.
Page 8, line 22, strike ``$33,586,000'' and insert
``$45,683,000''.
Page 8, line 25, strike ``$36,534,000'' and insert
``$47,086,000''.
Page 21, line 8, strike ``$25,100,000'' and insert
``$27,403,000''.
Page 22, line 6, strike ``$41,953,000'' and insert
``$44,234,000''.
Page 22, line 11, strike ``$4,557,000'' and insert
``$5,217,000''.
Page 22, line 15, strike ``$29,685,000'' and insert
``$32,750,000''.
Page 23, line 9, strike ``$38,555,000'' and insert
``$39,151,000''.
Page 23, line 21, strike ``$66,200,000'' and insert
``$73,810,000''.
Page 24, line 11, strike ``$65,457,000'' and insert
``$69,626,000''.
Page 36, line 14, strike ``$15,133,000'' and insert
``$15,837,000''.
Page 36, line 25, strike ``$11,606,000'' and insert
``$25,652,000''.
Page 39, line 21, strike ``$351,529,000'' and insert
``$368,896,000''.
Strike section 308 (and redesignate the succeeding
provisions accordingly).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the gentleman from
[[Page H4946]]
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $95.8 million to the bill. It is a
bipartisan amendment, and is offered on behalf of myself and the
ranking minority Member of the Subcommittee on Legislative, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
It will provide sufficient funds for all staff COLAs and merit
increases throughout the legislative branch. That includes Member
office staff, committee and our administrative staff, and our support
agencies like CRS, GAO, the Architect's work force and others.
It will add $20.3 million for the operations of the House, including
an amount sufficient for Members' representational allowances. The
amendment adds $22.6 million above the reported bill for police
salaries. This will fund an additional 48 policemen to the number
currently on board.
There are also 93 officers in training that will soon be deployed.
This means we will end up with around 1,241 sworn officers, that is
almost 200 above the number we had on the tragic day in 1998 when the
shootings took place.
We want to monitor the number of police personnel closely. They do an
outstanding job, but we also want to see improvements in technology and
technical security measures. They have been funded, and there needs to
be an interest to put these items in place, and we urge that to take
place.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and I have asked the police
board to substitute more modern technology for our security operations.
We would like to see a review of the weekend and late-at-night open
building policies that requires all of the posts to be staffed
regardless of need or traffic.
We do have several million visitors here, but unlike cities that have
populations in the millions, those visitors are not here at night. They
are not here on all the weekends and certainly on holidays.
Since we believe these advances will reduce the manpower needs, the
committee agreement has fenced some $2.5 million of the salary
appropriations. These are the projected costs of filling vacancies that
occur next year. These funds can only be spent with the approval of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, let me make a few brief remarks about the balance of
the amendment. We have added $7.3 million to the Architect of the
Capitol so that there will be no need for any layoffs. Building
cleanliness and maintenance will be maintained and extra daytime
cleaning of all our restrooms has been funded.
We have added sufficient funds, $7.6 million, that CRS will maintain
their current work force. If there is a need for more funds by CRS or
the Copyright Office to avoid staff attrition losses, we will direct
the Library of Congress to use the transfer authority provided in the
bill to help CRS or copyright. We have added $18.2 million back to the
Government Printing Office. All COLAs are funded.
Also, the amendment restores all funding for the depository libraries
to receive the 25,000 Federal publications that are only available in
paper and other tangible formats.
Finally, we have added $17.4 million to the General Accounting
Office. No reductions in force will be necessary at GAO. Mr. Chairman,
that is the substance of the manager's amendment; all $95.8 million of
it.
The bill will still be $9.8 million below the fiscal year 2000 level,
including pending supplementals. I ask for the adoption of the
amendment.
I have a more detailed statement on this matter that I will place in
the Record.
manager's amendment
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $95.8 million to the bill.
It is a bipartisan amendment and is offered on behalf of myself and
the ranking minority member of the legislative subcommittee, Ed pastor.
During general debate, I stated several reasons for offering the
amendment.
If the amendment is adopted, the bill will not require any
reductions-in-force in any legislative agency.
It will provide sufficient funds for all staff COLA's and merit
increases throughout the legislative branch. That includes Member
office staff, committee and our administrative staff, and our support
agencies like CRS, GAO, the Architect's workforce, and the others.
It will add $20.3 million for the operations of the House, including
an amount sufficient for Members' representational allowances. It will
fund new Members' orientation costs, all transition costs to the 107th
Congress and a small, but sufficient amount of funds to deal with the
recent threats posed by Internet viruses.
The amendment adds $22.6 million above the reported bill for police
salaries. That's an increase of $14.4 million (18%) above the FY2000
appropriation. This will fund an additional 48 policemen to the number
currently on board.
In addition to these 48 police officers we are funding with this
amendment, there are 93 officers in training that will soon be
deployed. So there will be 141 additional security personnel shortly.
That means we will end up with about 1,241 sworn officers. That's 189
above the number we had on that tragic day in 1998 when the shootings
took place.
We want to monitor the number of police personnel closely. We also
want to see improvements in technical security measures. They have been
funded and there needs to be an impetus to get these items installed.
Mr. Pastor and I have asked the police board to substitute more modern
technology to our security operations. The technology has been funded
and should reduce our reliance on additional police personnel. As this
technology gets installed (cameras, detection devices, etc.), we will
look at the size of the force to see if reductions can be made.
We would like to see a review of the weekend and late-at-night open
building policies that require all of our posts to be staffed
regardless of need or the traffic.
We have been working with the chief and others to reassess the post
assignment strategy they use. We will make sure there are a sufficient
number of officers at each door. But we do not want so many that they
become distracted.
Since we believe these advances will reduce manpower needs, the
committee agreement has fenced $2.446 million of the salary
appropriation. These are the projected costs of filling vacancies that
occur next year. Those funds can only be spent with the approval of the
appropriations committees.
In addition, the new chief, Jim Varey, and I have agreed that we want
the force to be well trained. We will work with them to make
improvements in that area.
We want our officers to be well paid so that they are not going to be
trained and then recruited away by the Metropolitan Police Force or
other law enforcement agencies.
So we will be working closely with police management to make sure
they have the resources they need, the respect they deserve, and the
recognition that they cannot be expected to do the impossible.
Mr. Chairman, let me make a few brief remarks about the balance of
the amendment.
We have added $7.3 million to the Architect of the Capitol so that
there will be no need for any layoffs. Building cleanliness and
maintenance will be maintained and extra daytime cleaning of all our
restrooms has been funded.
We have added sufficient funds ($7.6 million) so that CRS will
maintain their current workforce. There will be no diminution of their
services to the Members.
If there is a need for more funds by CRS or the Copyright Office to
avoid staff attrition losses, we will direct the Library of Congress to
use the transfer authority provided in the bill to help CRS or
copyright. That is the virtue of having some flexibility in the
appropriation available to our agencies.
We have added $18.2 million back to the Government Printing Office.
All COLA's are funded. Some of those funds will restore several
documents to the printing appropriation such as the Congressional
Directory, printing for the 2001 inauguration, and several other
documents.
Also, the amendment restores all funding for the Depository Libraries
to receive the 25,000 Federal publications that are only available in
paper and other tangible formats. None of the highly skilled document
specialists will lose their jobs.
[[Page H4947]]
Finally, we have added $17.4 million to the General Accounting
Office. No reductions in force will be necessary at GAO. We all value
and respect the job that great agency does. It was never our intent to
damage GAO capabilities, and I said so on several occasions. But our
earlier allocation gave us no choice.
Mr. Chairman, that is the substance of the managers' amendment--all
$95.8 million of it.
The bill will still be $9.8 million below the FY2000 level, including
pending supplementals.
For those who do not believe supplementals should be counted, the
bill is only above this year's level--by $2.8 million.
I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
I will insert a table which reflects the amounts in the bill included
in the managers' amendment.
[[Page H4948]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN00.001
[[Page H4949]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN00.002
[[Page H4950]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN00.003
[[Page H4951]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) rise to
claim the time in opposition?
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, but I ask unanimous
consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Pastor) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a minute to ask my colleagues to
support this manager's amendment. The chairman and I have worked to
make this bill a better bill, tried to fund the security needs, the
needs that we have in order to maintain the House and the Capitol and
reduce the pain. I would ask my colleagues to support the manager's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 106-685.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Camp
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Camp:
Page 7, insert after line 8 the following (and redesignate
the succeeding sections accordingly):
Sec. 103. (a) Requiring Amounts Remaining in Members'
Representational Allowances To Be Used For Deficit Reduction
or To Reduce the Federal Debt.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any amounts appropriated under this Act for
``HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members'
Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for
fiscal year 2001. Any amount remaining after all payments are
made under such allowances for fiscal year 2001 shall be
deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction (or,
if there is no Federal budget deficit after all such payments
have been made, for reducing the Federal debt, in such manner
as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
(b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration of
the House of Representatives shall have authority to
prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``Member
of the House of Representatives'' means a Representative in,
or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I first want to thank my good friend,
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the
subcommittee for understanding how important this amendment is to
myself and many other Members of this Congress.
I also want to thank the Committee on Rules and its chairman, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for allowing me to bring this
important amendment before the House today.
This amendment simply requires unspent office funds to be used for
deficit or debt reduction. I believe that many Members are now familiar
with this common sense amendment that former Congressman Zimmer and I
and others first proposed back in 1991.
Before 1995, this amendment was never made in order. In 1995, this
amendment was approved on the House floor by an overwhelming margin of
403-21 in 1996, and in 1997, it was accepted on the floor by the
committee chairman. In 1998, the committee brought the bill to the
House floor with this provision, Mr. Chairman, incorporated into the
bill.
Last year, it was accepted on the floor by the committee chairman. I
want to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), for his efforts on this matter as well. I believe that the
Camp-Roemer-Upton-Smith amendment will ensure that Members of Congress
can demonstrate their personal commitment to a balanced budget.
This amendment requires any unspent office funds at the end of the
year be used for debt reduction, or if a deficit exists, deficit
reduction takes priority.
Mr. Chairman, in the last few years, we have achieved, what has
eluded Congress for 30 years, a balanced budget. The fiscal year 2001
legislative branch appropriations bill continues our efforts to reduce
the national debt and eliminate the national debt and holds a line on
spending.
I thank the chairman again for considering the Camp-Roemer-Upton-
Smith amendment, and I urge all Members to support the amendment and
the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member opposed?
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, but I ask unanimous
consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) will control 10
minutes.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Taylor) from North Carolina and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Pastor) for their support for this amendment.
I want to thank the Committee on Rules as well for allowing us to
talk about this important issue, this common sense issue on the floor
today. I also join with my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Camp) in offering this amendment. He talked a little bit about the
history of this amendment. I will talk a little bit more about that.
We started this crusade back in 1991 to say to the American people
that their tax money should go back to the Treasury if Members of
Congress work hard, out of their Member's representational allowances,
to not spend it, that the taxpayer should be rewarded. We initially met
with great resistance in the first couple of years we offered this.
The money instead went into a slush fund that was respent instead of
back to the Treasury for debt or deficit reduction. I proudly join in a
bipartisan way with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Upton) to follow through on a pledge that we have been trying to
pass for almost 8 years.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment for three reasons: One, that
the House show leadership on issues of discipline and the budget. If
the American people are making sacrifices to get a balanced budget, the
House should take the leadership in that role.
The second reason I support this amendment is because when Members,
through the course of the year, make decisions not to spend money
buying a new photocopier or new computers, that money and their account
should be able to go to the Treasury to reduce the debt and not be
respent. If Members do the hard work to save money, they and the
taxpayer should be rewarded.
The third reason I support this is because debt reduction is the
biggest issue for the people throughout this country in this coming
election. This will make a small yet important contribution to that
debt reduction when Members do take the disciplinary choices forward
and save money under their Members representational allowances.
For these three reasons, I think this is a common sense amendment. It
is a bipartisan amendment. It makes a dent on the national debt; and,
therefore, I urge its strong support.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment
and thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), again, for offering
this cost-saving measure.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H4952]]
Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to comment on the amendment
itself directly, but I simply want to say this: I, for one, take
exception to the idea that the greatest public service that we do for
people is to refuse to use the little resources we have on behalf of
the constituents we represent.
The size of this economy is growing. There are a huge number of power
centers in this economy that have one whale of a lot more power than
any individual Member of Congress, virtually every lobby group in
society has a greater ability to communicate with our own constituents
than we do.
{time} 1200
I make no apology for the fact that some Members of this institution
use all of the resources made available to them under the rules to do
their job and most effectively represent the public, and, secondly, to
inform the constituents they represent about exactly what is going on
out here.
I think that sometimes we see this body leave the impression that
somehow we are apologetic about what our offices spend in order to do
that job. I try to save every dollar that I can, and I regularly turn
some money back to the Treasury. But, to me, when I ran a poll a number
of years ago and asked my own constituents whether they wanted less or
more communication from us, less or more service, the answer came back
they wanted more.
So, frankly, I regard this as one of those ``holy picture''
amendments that lets Members, very often Members who have the least
responsibility and the least impact around this place and who have full
reason to turn back a good share of their office budgets, because they
make very little contribution to this place and have very little impact
on the outcome of the legislative product, they have a good reason to
turn back virtually all of their office accounts. But there are a lot
of people in this place, in both political parties, who, if anything,
need more resources to meet their responsibilities.
We are not asking for those resources, but I do question the
conventional wisdom that somehow the greatest public good is served if
we all do a mea culpa about the fact we are using our resources to try
to see to it that the constituents we represent have the most effective
representation possible and that we communicate as much as we can with
them.
I also say very frankly that we do no service to our constituents
when we squeeze our own Members' office accounts so much that the
average Senator can pay $20,000 more for a legislative assistant than
can a Member of the House, when the average Senator can pay $25,000
more for an administrative assistant or a press secretary than a Member
of the House can. We do the same work they do. About the only thing we
do not do is ratify treaties, and, thank God, because you look at what
a hash they have often made of that.
But it just seems to me that it is about time we recognize we are
being advised literally by ``kiddy corps'' in our offices, because we
do not keep people more than 2 or 3 years. You get people who come in
at start up levels; and within 2 years, they can make a whale of a lot
more money anywhere else than they can on Capitol Hill.
This Congress would be less amateurish, it would be more
professional, we would have better oversight, we would have a better
legislative product if we had many more experienced staffers than we
do.
So I, for one, while this amendment is obviously going to pass, I
question the premise behind it, because it seems to me that it allows
Members to brag easily for doing something which very often is not in
the interest of their constituents.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue. When I ran for Congress
back in 1998, my emphasis was on debt reduction; and it is an important
issue because, since 1980, we have gone from approximately $750 billion
in debt to over $3 trillion in debt and we are spending approximately
$230 billion a year in interest payments on this national debt. It is
absurd that we are paying this kind of interest on our national debt.
Now, this amendment does not go a long way to retiring that debt, but
it is a symbolic gesture of what we should be doing, and that is
practicing fiscal discipline. Last year my office turned over $50,000
back to the Treasury. If every Member of Congress would do the same
thing, then it would go to some extent at least of retiring some of our
debt. $50,000 here and $50,000 there, sooner or later it adds up to
real money; and if we practice fiscal discipline, which I think this
amendment is attempting to do, we can get about the business of
actually retiring our Nation's debt and serving the people of this
Nation in a positive way.
So I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is the right thing
to do, not only in terms of policy, but in terms of a symbolic gesture,
that we are really committed to retiring our Nation's debt, so we are
not spending this God-awful $230 billion in interest payments on our
national debt and interest.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for
accepting the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 106-685.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
At the end (before the short title), insert the following
new section:
SEC. 311. SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY LOCK-BOX.
(a) Establishment of Ledger.--(1) Title III of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:
``spending accountability lock-box ledger
``Sec. 316. (a) Establishment of Ledger.--The chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives
and the chairman on the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall each maintain a ledger to be known as the `Spending
Accountability Lock-box Ledger'. The Ledger shall be divided
into entries corresponding to the subcommittees of the
Committees on Appropriations. Each entry shall consist of
three components: the `House Lock-box Balance'; the `Senate
Lock-box Balance'; and the `Joint House-Senate Lock-box
Balance'.
``(b) Components of Ledger.--Each component in an entry
shall consist only of amounts credited to it under subsection
(c). No entry of a negative amount shall be made.
``(c) Credit of Amounts to Ledger.--(1) In the House of
Representatives or the Senate, whenever a Member offers an
amendment to an appropriation bill to reduce new budget
authority in any account, that Member may state the portion
of such reduction that shall be--
``(A) credited to the House or Senate Lock-box Balance, as
applicable; or
``(B) used to offset an increase in new budget authority in
any other account;
``(C) allowed to remain within the applicable section
302(b) suballocation.
If no such statement is made, the amount of reduction in new
budget authority resulting from the amendment shall be
credited to the House or Senate Lock-box Balance, as
applicable, if the amendment is agreed to.
``(2)(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), the
chairmen of the Committees on the Budget shall, upon the
engrossment of any appropriation bill by the House of
Representatives and upon the engrossment of Senate amendments
to that bill, credit to the applicable entry balance of that
House amounts of new budget authority and outlays equal to
the net amounts of reductions in new budget authority and in
outlays resulting from amendments agreed to by that House to
that bill.
``(B) When computing the net amounts of reductions in new
budget authority and in outlays resulting from amendments
agreed to by the House of Representatives or the Senate to an
appropriation bill, the chairmen of the Committees on the
Budget shall only count those portions of such amendments
agreed to that were so designated by the Members offering
such amendments as
[[Page H4953]]
amounts to be credited to the House or Senate Lock-box
Balance, as applicable, or that fall within the last sentence
of paragraph (1).
``(3) The chairmen of the Committees on the Budget shall,
upon the engrossment of Senate amendments to any
appropriation bill, credit to the applicable Joint House-
Senate Lock-box Balance the amounts of new budget authority
and outlays equal to--
``(A) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the
amount of new budget authority in the House Lock-box Balance
plus (ii) the amount of new budget authority in the Senate
Lock-box Balance for that subcommittee; and
``(B) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the
amount of outlays in the House Lock-box Balance plus (ii) the
amount of outlays in the Senate Lock-box Balance for that
subcommittee.
``(4) Calculation of Lock-Box Savings in Senate.--For
purposes of calculating under this section the net amounts of
reductions in new budget authority and in outlays resulting
from amendments agreed to by the Senate on an appropriation
bill, the amendments reported to the Senate by its Committee
on Appropriations shall be considered to be part of the
original text of the bill.
``(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
`appropriation bill' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations
through the end of a fiscal year.
``(e) Tally During House Consideration.--The chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives
shall maintain a running tally of the amendments adopted
reflecting increases and decreases of budget authority in the
bill as reported. This tally shall be available to Members in
the House of Representatives during consideration of any
appropriation bill by the House.''.
(2) The table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 315
the following new item:
``Sec. 316. Spending accountability lock-box ledger.''.
(b) Downward Adjustment of Sections 302(a) and (b)
Allocations.--(1) Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6) Adjustment of allocations.--Upon the engrossment of
Senate amendments to any appropriation bill (as defined in
section 316(d)), the amounts allocated under paragraph (1) to
the Committee on Appropriations of each House upon the
adoption of the most recent concurrent resolution on the
budget for that fiscal year shall be adjusted downward by the
amounts credited to the applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-
box Balance under section 316(c)(2). The revised levels of
new budget authority and outlays shall be submitted to each
House by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of that
House and shall be printed in the Congressional Record.''.
(2) Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Whenever an adjustment is made under subsection (a)(6) to
an allocation under that subsection, the Committee on
Appropriations of each House shall make downward adjustments
in the most recent suballocations of new budget authority and
outlays under this subparagraph to the appropriate
subcommittees of that committee in the total amounts of those
adjustments under section 316(c)(2). The revised
suballocations shall be submitted to each House by the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of that House and
shall be printed in the Congressional Record.''.
(c) Periodic Reporting of Ledger Statements.--Section
308(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended
by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such
reports shall also include an up-to-date tabulation of the
amounts contained in the ledger and each entry established by
section 316(a).''.
(d) Downward Adjustment of Discretionary Spending Limits.--
The discretionary spending limits for new budget authority
and outlays set forth in section 251(c) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, shall be
reduced by the amounts set forth in the final regular
appropriation bill for that fiscal year or joint resolution
making continuing appropriations through the end of that
fiscal year. Those amounts shall be the sums of the Joint
House-Senate Lock-box Balances for that fiscal year, as
calculated under section 302(a)(6) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. That bill or joint resolution shall
contain the following statement of law: ``As required by
section 311(d) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
2001, for fiscal year [insert appropriate fiscal year], the
adjusted discretionary spending limit for new budget
authority is reduced by $ [insert appropriate amount of
reduction] and the adjusted discretionary limit for outlays
is reduced by $ [insert appropriate amount of reduction] for
the fiscal year.''. Section 306 shall not apply to any bill
or joint resolution because of such statement. This
adjustment shall be reflected in reports under sections
254(f) and 254(g) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by it
shall apply to all appropriation bills making appropriations
for fiscal year 2001 or any subsequent fiscal year.
(2) Retroactive application.--In the case of any
appropriation bill engrossed by the House of Representatives
before the date of enactment of this section, the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, and the Committees on
Appropriations and the Committees on the Budget of the House
of Representatives and of the Senate shall, within 10
calendar days after that date of enactment, carry out the
duties required by the amendments made by this section that
occur before that date of enactment.
(3) FY2001 allocations.--The duties of the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office and of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives pursuant to
this Act and the amendments made by it regarding
appropriation bills for fiscal year 2001 shall be based upon
the revised section 302(a) allocations in effect upon the
date of engrossment of this Act by the House of
Representatives.
(4) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``appropriation bill'' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona will be recognized for 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly explain what this amendment does.
This is the amendment we have often called the appropriations lock box
amendment. This is an amendment that has been here before, in the 102nd
Congress, the 103rd Congress, the 104th Congress, and the 105th
Congress, and passed by voice vote earlier this year. This amendment
has been voted on or cosponsored by 328 Members of this body; 328
Members of the minority side and the majority side have already either
cosponsored this amendment or voted for this amendment. Yet for some
reason today, it is experiencing incredible opposition.
What this amendment does is allow any Member of Congress to come to
the floor with an amendment to cut or reduce spending on a given
appropriations and use that savings to either dedicate it toward
another program or to dedicate it toward debt reduction. It does not
hamper us in negotiations with the Senate. The savings is realized
after the conference report is passed.
What this does is it says if you want to eliminate spending in the
Federal Government and you want to dedicate that spending toward
reducing our national debt, you may do so. However, under the crazy
rules of the House today, that is not the case. If you come here to the
floor and pass an amendment to cut spending, it will be spent somewhere
else in the Federal Government. But that is not the will of most
Members of Congress. That is not the desire. So what this amendment
says is you get the choice, whether your savings will go toward debt
reduction or other spending. That is not the case today.
I might add that this has been a bipartisan amendment; it is a
bipartisan amendment today. In the 103rd Congress it was considered. In
1994, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and Mr. Zeliff
introduced a similar law. The President had an executive order in 1994
very similar to this. Congressman Crapo, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and former Representative Schumer, now a
Senator, introduced legislation like this a couple of Congresses ago.
In the 103rd Congress, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and Congressman Penny introduced
similar legislation. More recently, in 1995, the House adopted a very
similar piece of legislation to an appropriations bill by a vote of 364
to 59.
Mr. Chairman, this is widely accepted policy. I urge passage of the
amendment.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this amendment is that it
reverses the fundamental concept of the 1974 budget process. Rather
than have Members of each body arrive at a consensus as to how much we
ought to
[[Page H4954]]
spend on discretionary programs, and then allow the appropriations
process to sort out how to deal with competing priorities within that
amount, it would call for revision of the discretionary spending limits
each time the House disagreed with the Senate over spending priorities.
This would be a unilateral revision in the budget resolution. Once
the House began adjusting appropriations bills, the House and Senate
would move from identical limits on discretionary spending to different
limits. This would mean the House would send conferees to work with the
Senate on working out our differences on the individual bills with
constraints so tight as to preclude any real prospect of producing
legislation that could be sent to the President. The compromise money
would be placed in the lock box. The Senate would have the choice of
submitting to the House or rejecting a final agreement.
In short, this is a proposal that ought to be supported only by
people who believe that we have too few train wrecks in this
legislative body.
This sounds good on the surface, but it does not work in practice,
which is why the Senate has routinely rejected it. It will again. All
it means is this bill will be delayed further because of another
conflict on another proposal which will go nowhere.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and in doing so I would like to
add I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin. He is one of the Members
who has been consistent on this issue in opposing this policy. I might
add that 45 members of our current Committee on Appropriations either
cosponsored or voted for this policy.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to the Members of this House the
reason why we think it is so important to pass this particular
amendment.
These are flush times for Washington, D.C. There has been much ado
about the record surplus we are expecting and the different ways we are
going to spend that surplus. But in our eagerness to out do each other
to spend the surplus, we overlook the long-term value of paying down
the debt, a debt which is over $3 trillion, a debt which debt service
alone runs $230 billion a year. We are saddled with that.
That is the purpose behind this amendment, to try to do something,
Mr. Chairman, to make certain that when we in fact put forward an
amendment to cut spending, that it does just that.
Mr. Chairman, the financial outlook for America may be good, but the
past is mired in debt. We have maxed out on the credit card for Uncle
Sam; and, frankly, until we pay this debt off, it is shortsighted for
us to continue spending without restraint. It is shortsighted for us to
claim on the floor that we are making an amendment to cut spending and
then find out later that the appropriators have recommitted that
spending.
So what this lock box amendment does is to capture all the savings
from amendments which reduce or cut funding and to vote to devote the
savings to one thing, and that is debt reduction. Under current law,
when a Member offers an appropriation amendment that cuts the funding
and the House concurs and says yes, this is wasteful Washington
spending, the savings is automatically utilized for other discretionary
funding. This defeats the whole point of savings.
Furthermore, this lock box will reduce the overall discretionary
spending cap by the amount of the savings, to prevent our savings from
being spent in the future. This will help Congress prepare for future
needs.
Mr. Chairman, the economy is not going to keep this pace forever. We
need to find long-term solutions to paying down the debt.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman from Wisconsin who
offered this amendment in my opinion is one of the rising stars of this
House and has spoken a philosophy that I have shared ever since I came
to this Congress. But I must say that just passing the bills in the
House is only the first step. There are many steps in appropriating for
this government. Appropriations must pass through the subcommittees,
the full committee, and the House of Representatives.
But then we have the Senate, which is the next activity, and then we
have the conference committees between the House and the Senate, and
then we have the negotiations between the Congress and the President of
the United States; and then, in all of these negotiations, there must
be some flexibility.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a while ago gave an
example. Let me repeat that. If the House should reduce a particular
airplane program by $1 billion, and that $1 billion goes into the lock
box; and if the Senate reduces a shipbuilding program, well, the Senate
does not reduce shipbuilding programs, let me use another example, some
other example in the defense bill by $1 billion, that is $2 billion
that goes into the lock box. But when you go to conference, there is
negotiating in order to get the House and the Senate to come to the
same numbers on the same issues.
{time} 1215
This amendment, unfortunately, takes away the flexibility that is
needed in order to reach these accommodations.
Now, if this were a unicameral legislature, only one House, I would
say amen to this amendment without any hesitation, because
philosophically, I do agree with this. However, we are not unicameral;
we are a bicameral legislature, and we do have to have those
negotiations. This amendment, in my opinion, would put the Members of
the House at a serious disadvantage with our colleagues in the other
body.
Now, when we get to conference, as I said, there must be considerable
negotiations, and oftentimes, Members will approach the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations or one of our subcommittees and say, well,
hey, can you add this for me when you get to conference.
My friend from California said that the appropriators spend the
money. Well, let me tell my colleagues who really spends the money
here. Our colleagues in this House of Representatives have requested of
the Committee on Appropriations, for fiscal year 2000, over 22,000
projects. So the spending is done by Members of the House and Members
of the other body, and they have the right to do this. That is why
Members are elected to the Congress, to represent their districts, the
interests of their districts, or to represent their philosophical
viewpoints.
So from a philosophical standpoint, I could not agree more with the
gentleman from Wisconsin, but there is a better approach. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania earlier this year offered an amendment that I
accepted as chairman of the committee, because it set aside a specific
amount of appropriated money to go into debt reduction. I am for debt
reduction; and I think it is essential that we reduce the debt as
rapidly as we possibly can. That amendment by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania was something we could work with. But the pending
amendment makes the process very unworkable, and I would hope that the
Members would reject it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to point out to the gentleman from Florida that this
amendment also allows Members to come with specific amounts set to debt
reduction just like the Toomey amendment does. Also, I think we
addressed the bicameral flexibility in this amendment, because it is
half of the House, half of the Senate becomes the total of the amount
that is passed in the lock box and the conference report.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Minge), a member of the minority party.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for
yielding me this time.
I would like to emphasize that the amendment that he is sponsoring
today, and I am honored to join with him in cosponsoring, has had a
long bipartisan history. I remember Congressman Bill Brewster,
Congresswoman
[[Page H4955]]
Jane Harman, Congressman Chuck Schumer, and many others on this side of
the aisle that have championed this cause. I have also worked with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) on a parallel amendment.
Many of us sit on the Committee on the Budget, and we have struggled
with this budget process; and I am sympathetic with the plight in which
the folks on the Committee on Appropriations find themselves. But I
also, having heard from the previous speaker, realize the enormous
pressure that is on the Committee on Appropriations and the
appropriations process. If we have 22,000 projects that are being
requested that are not currently in the budget, it is tempting at every
turn to try to accommodate one or another of those projects, if not
hundreds of them. And we have had bills at the end of the session for
several years running that have been enormous catchall bills, and these
bills have been the opportunity for some of us to cause some mischief
in the process. If we adopt this lock-box approach, it puts additional
structure and discipline in how we deal with our responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the Committee on Appropriations
members who are in conference with the Senate. I think those Senators
cause us a lot of grief. But I think that if we have something like
this lock-box rule that we go into that conference committee with, we
can say to those Senators, look, we are going to draw the line. We did
something bold in the House. We committed ourselves to deficit
reduction, to using these savings to insulate Social Security and
Medicare from any further compromising with respect to the integrity of
those programs, because we spend too much.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that we join in a bipartisan effort and adopt
this lock-box amendment.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is another one of those gimmicky amendments that
pretends we can deal with some fundamental fiscal problems with a
little tinkering with the process. It is based on a very fundamental
myth, and that is that somehow over the years, there has not been
discipline in discretionary spending. In fact, the history of the
Budget Act is that the one part of the budget that has been subject to
discipline has been discretionary spending.
The budget process, if it works, sets limits on discretionary
spending. The Congress then works within those limits through House,
through Senate, through conference committee, through negotiations with
the President. That process works when those initial limits are
realistic and have some relationship to reality.
To somehow pretend that this is not an ongoing dynamic process with
changes as we go through the process from subcommittee to committee, to
the House, to the Senate, just flies in the face of reality. It is an
ongoing, dynamic process where in the end, our product is what we pass.
It should be governed by realistic limits on discretionary spending.
The reason the process has broken down last year, this year, and the
year before is that we start with unrealistic discretionary limits so
they totally break down, we end up with a catchall at the end, which
frankly, in my judgment, results in us spending more than if we had
started at realistic discretionary spending limits. Vote no on this
gimmick. It does damage; it does no good.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to add that this gimmick has been supported by 328 Members
of this body.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague for again
toiling in the field of the esoteric budget law; but this is important
work, and to respond to the previous speaker, to suggest that there has
been some kind of model of physical discipline in discretionary
spending in recent years I think is simply to ignore the facts.
The facts are that discretionary spending has been growing at a very
rapid rate, far greater than the speed at which the economy is growing
or inflation. I think we clearly need a tool like this for some fiscal
discipline. I am happy to note that such a large, overwhelming majority
of this body have supported this at one time or another. I am sure
Members will want to be consistent in their voting, so I am very
hopeful that this will pass.
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that all this amendment does is it
gives a Member of this body the option to use the savings from an
amendment; when he or she reduces a particular account, it creates the
option to make sure that that savings actually becomes a savings and
does not get spent somewhere else.
Now, if we want to do a transfer amendment, if we want to take from
one account and put into another account, we can do that; and this
amendment would not change that at all. The flexibility to shift money
around from account to account would remain. But today, under our
current budget rules, if what we really want to do is reduce spending
and not spend it somewhere else, but actually use it to retire some
debt and lower the burden on taxpayers in this country, we have no
assurance that that will happen, because after we pass the amendment
that reduces that account, that money can later be spent somewhere else
in the process.
What this amendment does is it gives a Member of this body the option
to say, no, I do not want to spend this money anywhere else; I want to
see it go for some debt reduction. For that I think it is a very
valuable tool, a very important tool; and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the sponsor of this
amendment and most of the folks who are supporting this voted for a
budget that cut less from the national debt and took more time to get
to balance than did the Democratic alternative which they voted
against.
I serve on the Committee on Appropriations. We have 13 separate
appropriation bills. Every Republican chairman as he has reported his
bill to the full committee has said, we do not have enough resources to
fund the priorities that we have within our responsibility. Every one
of the Republican chairmen has said that.
This is not a case where the Committee on Budget has given the
Committee on Appropriations so much money it does not know what to do
with it. We cut $3 billion under the President's proposal for
education, and 2.7 million children will not be served because of the
budget that we passed.
Now, the fact of the matter is, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce) talks about bringing down the deficit. I am for that. I voted
for the Balanced Budget Amendment; I voted for the 1997 agreement. I
have been a fiscal conservative in the sense that we need to bring down
spending. I voted for the 1993 bill, which, in my opinion, has made the
most contribution to really bringing down the debt, not nickel and
diming by this project or that project, but by hundreds of billions of
dollars. That took courage. That is the way we ought to go, not, as the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) says, by adopting gimmicks that are
easy for a lot of people to adopt.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.
This is not, obviously, the first time this has come up. Mr.
Chairman, 238 Members of this institution have supported this amendment
in the past and my friend from California (Mr. Royce), in fact, was the
sponsor of it, I think, in the last Congress.
When we introduce an amendment to an appropriations bill to try to
exercise some fiscal responsibility, reduce a line item that we may not
particularly support, it is nice to think that after that amendment
passes, the money does not disappear into some other program or some
other spending item, and that, in fact, can go to debt reduction which
I consider to be on equal footing with controlling the size of the
budget, providing meaningful tax relief to working Americans, saving
Social Security.
[[Page H4956]]
These are all important objectives, and it would be nice to be able
to pass this amendment and have it in law so that when Members of
Congress propose reductions in appropriations, that those reductions do
not have to be offset by some other spending increase in some other
part of the budget.
I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his courage in offering
this amendment, and I hope that all of the 328 members who have
supported this amendment in the past will stand up and do so again. It
is good budgeting.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, in my last 30 seconds, I would
just like to point out that this has been around before. All it does is
says, a Member of Congress, if they want to cut spending in an
appropriations bill, can dedicate that savings to another bill, to
another program that is more valuable, or to pay off the debt. Mr.
Chairman, 328 members of this Congress voted for this, 45
appropriators. If a Member wants to find out, if he or she wants to be
consistent with their vote when we vote on this, come on down, we have
a list right here.
Mr. Chairman, this is scored by the Citizens Against Government
Waste, it is scored by the National Taxpayer Union. It is a common
sense amendment, and I urge its passage.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to vote no on
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues the practical
problems we have with the legislation which we face. Many, many times
we have lost $1 billion in the defense bill, and our defense bill is
$288 billion this year. But when we lose it on the House side, if
somebody offered an amendment on one, say it was the F-22 and the
Senate had a different figure, we would go into the conference and have
a very difficult time resolving it. We would lose our flexibility.
There is no easy way to reduce the deficit. It can only be done with
very difficult decisions. In defense, we figure we are $15 billion to
$20 billion short. So if we took out this kind of money, it would
actually affect national defense in a very derogatory way.
{time} 1230
So I would hope the Members would understand the importance of this
vote. This is absolutely essential to our flexibility in dealing with
the other body, so that if something is cut in the House, we can go
back and renegotiate and hopefully be able to either restore something
or, in the end, get the Department to pay attention to what we are
telling them to do.
Last year we cut the F-22. We said we needed more testing. We cut a
lot of money out of it. If we had not had this flexibility, this
program would have been killed. We would not have had this flexibility.
I would urge the Members to reconsider the vote on this particular
amendment. There is no easy way to do it except to vote up or down on
these issues. I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 235, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 312]
AYES--184
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Bilbray
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
LaHood
Largent
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
NOES--235
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Cook
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Dicks
Engel
Filner
Hobson
Hyde
Kuykendall
McCollum
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Towns
Vento
Wynn
{time} 1253
Mr. DICKEY and Mr. McCRERY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BEREUTER, DEUTSCH, HOLT, SUNUNU, CUNNINGHAM, ENGLISH and
BAIRD and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
[[Page H4957]]
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4516) making
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 530, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment. If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 373,
nays 50, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 313]
YEAS--373
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--50
Andrews
Becerra
Brown (OH)
Chenoweth-Hage
Conyers
Costello
Davis (FL)
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
Lee
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Miller, George
Minge
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Roemer
Rothman
Royce
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Smith (WA)
Stark
Tanner
Towns
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
NOT VOTING--12
Cook
Cubin
Engel
Filner
Hobson
Hyde
Kuykendall
McCollum
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Vento
Wynn
{time} 1310
Messrs. FARR of California, MINGE, PETERSON of Minnesota, SHAYS and
TOWNS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________