[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 101 (Thursday, July 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7934-S7937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1172) making appropriations for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for 
     other purposes.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent request 
which was just allowed regarding procedures for the remainder of the 
evening, I will give a brief summary of this bill.
  I am pleased to present to the Senate the fiscal year 2002 
legislative branch appropriations bill, as reported by the full 
committee.
  I thank Chairman Byrd for his support and the high priority he has 
placed on this bill. He has provided an allocation which has ensured we 
could meet the highest priorities in the bill. In addition, I wish to 
thank the ranking member of the full Committee Senator Stevens who has 
been actively involved in and very supportive of this bill.
  I am grateful to my ranking member, Senator Bennett, for his 
important role in this process and his excellent stewardship of this 
subcommittee for the past 4\1/2\ years.
  The fact is that this bill bears the imprint of Senator Bennett and 
his hard work in keeping an eye on this particular appropriations bill. 
I was happy to join him in bringing this bill to the floor. I couldn't 
have done it without him. I appreciate all of his assistance.
  The bill before you today totals $1.94 billion in budget authority 
and $2.03 billion in outlays. This is $103 million--5.6 percent--over 
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $104 million or 5 percent below 
the request level.

  The bill includes $1.1 billion in title I, Congressional Operations, 
which is $88 million below the request and $123 million above the 
enacted level.

[[Page S7935]]

  For title II, other agencies, a total of $848 million is included, 
$15 million below the request and $20 million below the enacted level.
  The support agencies under this subcommittee perform critical 
functions enabling Congress to operate effectively. We have sought to 
provide adequate funding levels for these agencies--particularly the 
Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, the Capitol Police, 
and the Congressional Budget Office.
  For the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service, 
the bill includes $443 million. While this is $66 million below the 
enacted level, the decrease is attributable to last year's one-time 
appropriation for the digital preservation project.
  The recommendation for the Library will enable the Congressional 
Research Service to hire staff in some critical areas--particularly 
technology policy.
  In addition, a significant increase is provided for the National 
Digital Library within the Library of Congress, including information 
technology infrastructure and support to protect the investment that 
has been made in digital information.
  Also in the Library's budget is additional funding to reduce the Law 
Library arrearage, funding for the newly- authorized Veterans Oral 
History Project, and funds to support the preservation of and access to 
the American Folklife Center's collection.
  For the General Accounting Office, a total of $419 million is 
included. This level will enable GAO to reach their full authorized 
staffing level. The total number of employees funded in this 
recommendation is 3,275 which would put GAO at their fiscal year 1999 
level and is well below their fiscal year 1995 staffing level of 4,342 
FTE.
  A total of $125 million is provided for the Capitol Police. This is 
an increase of $19 million over the enacted level. This will provide 
for 79 additional officers above the current level, which conforms with 
security recommendations, as well as related recruitment and training 
efforts.

  It will also provide comparability for the Capitol Police in the pay 
scales of the Park Police and the Secret Service-Uniformed Division so 
the Capitol Police are able to retain their officers.
  The Architect of the Capitol's budget totals $177 million, 
approximately $8 million above the enacted level, primarily for 
additional worker-safety and financial management-related activities.
  We have sought to trim budget requests wherever appropriate and where 
we have identified problem areas. The most significant difference from 
the budget request is a reduction of $67 million from the Architect of 
the Capitol--$42 million of which is attributable to postponement of 
the Capitol Dome project pursuant to the request of the Architect.
  We have appropriated money for the painting of the Dome to preserve 
it. We believe that we can get into this important building project in 
another year or so.
  We have also recommended some very strong report language within the 
Architect's budget, directing them to improve their management with 
particular attention to worker safety, financial management, and 
strategic planning. I am very troubled by the Architect's operation and 
intend to work to make much-needed changes. I hope this language sends 
a strong message to the Architect that we expect major overhauls of 
this agency--especially in the areas of worker safety and financial 
management.
  We have made it clear to the Architect of the Capitol that the rate 
of worker injury is absolutely unacceptable in the Architect of the 
Capitol, which is four times the average rate of the Federal 
Government. This must end, and we will work to make it end.
  Also included is approximately $6 million for the Botanic Garden, 
which is to open in November 2001.
  For the Government Printing Office, a total of $110 million is 
included, of which $81 million is for Congressional printing and 
binding. The amount recommended will provide for normal pay and 
inflation-related increases.
  For the Senate a total of $603.7 million is included. This represents 
an increase of $81.7 million above the current level and $14 million 
below the request.
  Of the increase, $24 million is needed to meet the Senate funding 
resolution, another $24 million is associated with information 
technology-related activities such as the digital upgrade and studio 
digitization of the Senate recording studio, and the balance is 
attributable primarily to anticipated increases for agency 
contributions and cost-of-living adjustments.
  This is a straight-forward recommendation and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  With respect to the manager's amendment, it includes a provision on 
behalf of Senator Bingaman, adding $1 million to GAO's budget for a 
technology assessment pilot project, offset by a $1 million reduction 
in the Architect of the Capitol's budget. It also includes authority 
for the Architect to lease a particular property for the Capitol 
Police, for a vehicle maintenance facility, and technical corrections.
  I thank two staffers who worked tirelessly on this bill. I thank 
Carolyn Apostolou with the Appropriations Committee. I thank her very 
much for the continuity which she has shown working first for Senator 
Bennett, and now for myself; and Pat Souters on my personal staff. I 
thank Chip Yost for his contribution to this as well.
  I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Bennett.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has been very 
generous in his comments. I thank him for his generosity. He is being a 
bit modest because he took over the subcommittee with great vigor and 
has moved ahead on those portions of this bill in which he has a 
particular interest. That was demonstrated in both the report language 
and the priorities of the bill.
  I congratulate him for the way he handled his stewardship of this 
particular assignment.
  This is not the most glamorous subcommittee on the Appropriations 
Committee. But in some cases, it may be the most fun because we get to 
deal with people who interact with the Senate all of the time.
  The Senator from Illinois has my thanks and congratulations on the 
work he has done. I will not review the specifics of the bill that he 
has gone over. I will point out that I think the increases he has cited 
are appropriate.
  This bill has my full support. One of the items that is in the bill 
that the press has expressed great interest about is the million 
dollars that we put in for the Visitors Center. The million dollars is 
obviously not adequate to begin the Visitors Center. But since the 
House didn't put in anything, this becomes a placeholder for us to 
discuss an appropriation for the Visitors Center when we get to 
conference. I think the Congress needs the Visitors Center. The current 
schedule calls for it to be done prior to the inauguration of the next 
President, whether it be a reelection or a new election in January of 
2005. That is the tight time schedule, and it will not yield. We will 
have an inauguration in the Capitol in January of 2005, whether the 
Visitors Center is done or not.
  We had conversations with the Architect of the Capitol about that 
during his hearing. We need to get on with that as quickly as we can.
  I look forward to working with Senator Durbin as he leads us in the 
effort to see to it that we get the proper funding and the proper 
direction to see that the Visitors Center comes to pass in a timely 
fashion.
  I am grateful to Senator Durbin for addressing the requirement of GAO 
to make an updated evaluation of the feasibility of consolidating all 
of the Capitol Hill Police forces. They are the Capitol Police that 
protects us. They are the Library police. They are the Government 
Printing Office police. Then there is the Supreme Court Police Force.
  The question is, what kind of efficiency could be gained by having 
all of them coordinated to produce some cost savings? That is a 
question that I have been addressing for some time. I appreciate 
Senator Durbin's willingness to support the GAO study to look in that 
direction.
  All in all, it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Durbin and a 
delight to help put this bill together with him.
  I thank the staff that have toiled late into many nights to put this 
before us today.

[[Page S7936]]

  I urge the Senate to adopt it. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 1027

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1027.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for Members of the Senate which 
    may be used by a Member for mailings to provide notice of town 
                               meetings)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


                       mailings for town meetings

       For mailings of postal patron postcards by Members for the 
     purpose of providing notice of a town meeting by a Member in 
     a county (or equivalent unit of local government) with a 
     population of less than 50,000 that the Member will 
     personally attend to be allotted as requested, $3,000,000, 
     subject to authorization: Provided That any amount allocated 
     to a Member for such mailing under this paragraph shall not 
     exceed 50 percent of the cost of the mailing and the 
     remaining costs shall be paid by the Member from other funds 
     available to the Member.''.
       On page 33, line 6, strike ``$419,843,000'' and insert 
     ``$416,843,000''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, only 5 minutes has been allotted for my 
presentation. I have asked for that limited time only realizing the 
lateness of the hour.
  This amendment would establish a relatively small fund of $3 million 
to pay for notices sent to residents of small counties when a Senator 
comes to that county to have a town meeting.
  Town meetings are in the greatest tradition of American democracy. 
But they have fallen into disuse in the Senate for a number of reasons. 
One reason is that it is very tough for Senators to go out and face 
constituents and listen to a variety of complaints and defend a 
Senator's voting record. It is more comfortable to stay inside the 
beltway.
  But there is another reason; that is, the mail accounts are 
inadequate to provide for all of the funds necessary.
  For my State alone, it would cost about three-quarters of a million 
dollars. My total budget is a little over $2 million for all of my 
office expenses. This is an effort to start on what I think could be a 
very important project.
  It provides only for notices in small counties under 50,000 
population. It is possible in Pennsylvania, illustratively, to cover 
the big cities and the suburban counties for television and newspapers. 
But if you take the northern tier of Pennsylvania, or the southern 
tier, or some of the counties, you simply can't get there unless you go 
there.
  If a Senator is to go there, the only way you could tell people that 
you are coming is if you send them a simple postal paper notice--not 
even a name or address--just to every resident.
  I had anticipated that perhaps a lively debate on this subject might 
have taken an hour or two.
  But when I saw that the legislative appropriations bill was going to 
be listed this evening at about 9:30, I added three magic words to this 
amendment, and they are, ``subject to authorization.'' I know the 
Senator from Illinois is opposed to the amendment; the Senator from 
Utah is in favor of the amendment. We will present this matter, on 
another occasion, to the Rules Committee. But it is my understanding 
that pursuant to practice, if it passes the Senate, it is not subject 
to conference. I do not want to have an amendment accepted and then 
dropped in conference. That frequently happens.
  Mr. President, how much time remains of my 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator retains 2 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Chair has advised me, through staff, I 
have 32 seconds remaining of my initial 5 minutes. I ask unanimous 
consent for an additional 60 seconds, for a total of 92 seconds to 
reply to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am not going to object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will accept this amendment this evening, 
but as I made it clear to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I do not 
believe this is necessary. We appropriated about $8 million a year for 
Senate mailing, and the Senators did not use it. They returned $4 
million.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania has suggested that we need an 
additional $3 million when we are returning $4 million. I do not quite 
understand it.
  I think there is adequate money to send out town meeting notices for 
any Senator who wishes to do so. Many Senators, including some who are 
in this Chamber, who will go unnamed, did not even use their mailing 
account last year. They left almost $100,000 in the account. And they 
are suggesting we need to put more money on the table for mailing.
  I believe in townhall meetings. I had over 400 as a Congressman, and 
I support them as a Senator.
  I am going to, of course, allow this amendment to go forward without 
objection. I will tell you, as a member of the Rules Committee, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania has a job to do to convince me to support it 
there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am prepared to undertake that job. And if the Senator 
from Illinois does not understand why I am offering this amendment, let 
me explain it to him.
  It would cost, to circulate in Pennsylvania, $735,000, which will be 
about a third of my budget. We have a grave crisis in America where 
people think that Members of Congress are up for sale.
  Campaign finance reform has been a heated subject in this Chamber and 
in the House Chamber. It is necessary to have fundraisers, and you 
cannot deny that the people who come to fundraisers have access. But I 
find that the best answer to that is to tell my constituents that I go 
to all the counties in Pennsylvania--67 counties. It is onerous. It is 
very worthwhile in many respects.
  It is very refreshing to get outside the beltway, to find out what 
people are thinking about in upstate Pennsylvania; and to say that 
people will get a notice that Arlen Specter is coming to town, and you 
can come there, you do not have to buy a ticket. You can listen to a 
short speech, about 5 minutes on an hour, and the balance of the hour 
is for questions and answers. That way you have participatory 
democracy.
  So it is a partial answer to the problem of fundraisers which we 
hold. I think it would be great if this sort of financing would 
encourage Senators to go out and do town meetings, and I intend to 
pursue this in the Rules Committee. This is just a start. Let's see how 
it works. My instinct is that most of the $3 million will not be used. 
And while it is first-come-first-serve, you cannot spend a lot of money 
for the postal patron postcards going to people in counties with 
a population of under 50,000.

  I thank the managers for accepting this amendment. I think it can 
prove very beneficial to the Senators and, more importantly, to 
America.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. If that is all the debate, I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1027.
  The amendment (No. 1027) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 1026

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up the managers' amendment which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr. 
     Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 1026.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page S7937]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To authorize the Architect of the Capitol to secure certain 
property, to fund a technology assessment pilot project, and for other 
                               purposes)

       On page 8, insert between lines 9 and 10 the following:
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to fiscal 
     year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter.
       On page 9, lines 13 and 14, strike ``as increased by 
     section 2 of Public Law 106-57'' and insert ``as adjusted by 
     law and in effect on September 30, 2001''.
       On page 15, insert between lines 9 and 10 the following:
       (d) This section shall apply to fiscal year 2002 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.
       On page 16, add after line 21 the following:
       (f) This section shall apply to fiscal year 2002 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.
       On page 17, line 21, strike ``$55,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$54,000,000''.
       On page 17, line 25, insert ``after the date'' after 
     ``days''.
       On page 17, line 25, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Architect of the Capitol is authorized to 
     secure, through multi-year rental, lease, or other 
     appropriate agreement, the property located at 67 K Street, 
     S.W., Washington, D.C., for use of Legislative Branch 
     agencies, and to incur any necessary incidental expenses 
     including maintenance, alterations, and repairs in connection 
     therewith: Provided further, That in connection with the 
     property referred to under the preceding proviso, the 
     Architect of the Capitol is authorized to expend funds 
     appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol for the purpose 
     of the operations and support of Legislative Branch agencies, 
     including the United States Capitol Police, as may be 
     required for that purpose''.
       On page 33, line 6, strike ``$419,843,000'' and insert 
     ``$420,843,000''.
       On page 34, line 4, insert before the period the following: 
     ``Provided further, That $1,000,000 from funds made available 
     under this heading shall be available for a pilot program in 
     technology assessment: Provided further, That not later than 
     June 15, 2002, a report on the pilot program referred to 
     under the preceding proviso shall be submitted to Congress''.
       On page 38, line 15, strike ``to read''.
       On page 39, line 2, insert ``pay'' before ``periods''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Unless the Senator from Utah wants to speak to it, I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1026.
  The amendment (No. 1026) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                         information technology

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to express my concerns to the 
chairman and ranking member of the Legislative Branch appropriations 
subcommittee about the information technology capabilities of the 
Senate.
  I am particularly concerned that the e-mail and networking systems of 
the Senate do not allow Senators and their staffs to take advantage of 
the latest in technology innovations. For example, the cc:mail e-mail 
system employed by the offices of every Senator is no longer even 
supported by the company that developed it. It is an antiquated system 
that makes remote access slow and cumbersome, and does not allow for 
the use of wireless e-mail.
  At this time, the Sergeant of Arms is looking at a January 2002 
rollout of a modernized system that will bring the Senate into the 21st 
Century. This bill contains substantial increases in spending for the 
IT Support Services Division of the Sergeant of Arms. It is my 
understanding that some of this increase will be used for other 
purposes. Therefore, I ask the chairman and ranking member what portion 
of these increases will be used for the upgrade of the e-mail system?
  Mr. DURBIN. The bill includes $1.8 million for the maintenance and 
support of the new e-mail system that is to be implemented beginning in 
January 2002. In addition, there is $6 million available in the current 
fiscal year that will be used for the rollout of the new system, 
including the necessary hardware and software.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Illinois is correct, and I support the 
funding for the replacement of the cc:mail system.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their 
commitment to the upgrade. After two years of delays, I urge them to 
monitor the Sergeant of Arms to see that the system is upgraded as 
expeditiously as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) 
and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Bayh
     Brownback
     Cleland
     Ensign
     Gramm
     Inhofe
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Biden
     Frist
     Helms
  The bill (S. 1172), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future editon of the Record.)
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.

                          ____________________