[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8995-9007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 2603, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2603) making appropriations for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as chairman of the legislative branch 
subcommittee of appropriations, I would like to take a few minutes to 
describe S. 2603, the legislative branch appropriations bill for the 
fiscal year 2001.
  The bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, provides for 
$1,721,077,000 in new budget authority exclusive of the House items. 
This is a $58,607,000 increase over fiscal year 2000. It is 
$146,770,000 below the President's request.
  The subcommittee's allocation is 1.8 percent above last year's 
funding level, which is the $43 million increase.
  We are being very frugal with the legislative branch. I think we are 
doing a responsible job of keeping the overall increase at a level that 
is defensible.
  We are not allowing the legislative branch appropriations to grow 
faster than inflation. We are not allowing it to grow faster than the 
population. And the demands that are made upon the legislative branch 
we are keeping under 2 percent.
  It was a challenge to draft a bill that stayed within this allocation 
because, as always happens, there was $20 million of new items that 
Congress committed to in previous years but which had not been funded. 
Therefore, they were not included in last year's base.
  If we were going to talk about an increase over last year's base, but 
we had $20 million worth of obligations that were not included in that 
base, we realized that it created a tension and a pressure on the 
committee. But that is what we have to do when we are dealing with 
budgets. I have dealt with budgets in the business world and understand 
that this is not an unusual kind of challenge.
  The mandatory increases that we have in the bill alone account for 
$54

[[Page 8996]]

million, exclusive of the House, on top of the situation which I have 
just described,
  Senator Feinstein, the ranking member, and I spent a great deal of 
time going over the accounts with our respective staffs and the 
increases that agencies have had over the last 4 years in an effort to 
find where we could best and most fairly cut without impacting 
employees. One of our goals was to see to it that no one was laid off 
as a result of the budgetary pressures on this year's bill. I am happy 
to say that we have met that goal in this bill.
  There will be no reduction in force as a result of the Senate's 
action, if this bill is adopted, and no employees currently working in 
the legislative branch will lose their jobs. The subcommittee's goal 
was to ensure that would be the case.
  There has been a great deal of discussion and concern in the press 
expressed over the House Appropriations Committee's first reported 
targets. Those targets were reported out of subcommittee with cuts of 
almost $105 million below the fiscal year 2000 level.
  It is my understanding that the House now plans in their legislative 
process to increase this bill by $85 million before it comes up for 
floor consideration. I hope those reports are accurate and that the 
House does, indeed, move in that direction.
  We do not want to criticize the actions of the other body in this 
body. We simply want to lay out what we think is the logical thing to 
do.
  I hope those who have been focused on the press reports of what was 
proposed on the other side of the Capitol initially will recognize that 
there is a great deal of legislative action that has to take place 
between initial proposals and final passage. Certainly we are doing our 
best on the Senate side to make a contribution to see to it that final 
passage achieves the goal that I have outlined; that is, the goal that 
says there will be no reduction in force in the legislative branch.
  S. 2603 includes an increase over last year's funding for every 
agency. That sounds better than it is for some agencies. The increase 
is truly only a token one--one-tenth of 1 percent increase. But, 
nonetheless, it is an increase to demonstrate, once again, that we are 
trying to treat everybody fairly, and that we are not trying to 
penalize one group in order to benefit another.
  The area that has had the greatest amount of public interest and 
press reporting is the amount of money being made available for the 
Capitol Police.
  The bill before the Senate will provide a 26-percent increase for the 
Capitol Police. If we are only going to have a one-tenth of 1 percent 
increase in some areas, that is where we will get the money to come up 
with the 26-percent increase for the Capitol Police. We do this because 
we believe security in the Capitol is a priority. We need to make sure 
the resources are available to the men and women who protect the 
Capitol, its visitors, the Members, and the staff.
  We had a tragic demonstration that security needs to be addressed 
with the shooting of the two officers who protected the Capitol against 
the deranged individual who came in with a gun after some imaginary 
threat he, and only he, could see.
  We had an example within the last week during a hearing in the House 
when a man threatened to kill himself with the jagged end of a broken 
bottle after approaching a Cabinet officer who was testifying at a 
hearing. He was subdued by a member of the Capitol Police and by a 
member of the security detail of one of the Cabinet officers involved.
  These incidents, coming along with increased frequency, demonstrate 
we have a security challenge in the Capitol. We want to make sure the 
Capitol remains open to the American people. I would hate to reach the 
point of other capitals in the world. I don't mean to pick this country 
out because I recognize they have enormous security problems of their 
own and I think they are acting responsibly, but I will share my 
experience when I first went to the Knesset in Israel and the kind of 
security I had to go through as a U.S. Senator in order to get into the 
Knesset. There were barriers, more barriers, and checks and police 
points, all the way through so that the members of the Knesset could 
conduct their business in security and freedom.
  In the United States, we run into our constituents, sometimes 
literally, virtually every day in the corridors of the Capitol. We 
enjoy that. The American people enjoy that. We want to continue doing 
that. I will be walking down the corridor on the way to a committee 
meeting and it is not at all unusual to have someone call out from the 
moving crowd, ``Hi, Senator Bennett'' or ``Hey, there's Senator 
Bennett.'' I stop and it is someone from Utah who is here with a school 
class, here with their family, here on a vacation, or here for a civics 
lesson experience.
  Walking through the Capitol, it is something of a thrill for a 
constituent to see their own Senator on his way to work. If I thrill 
somebody, they get thrilled easily. Nonetheless, it is the kind of 
experience that the American people enjoy and historically have had in 
their Capitol Building. We want to make sure that continues.
  The number of visitors each year is increasing more rapidly as the 
overall general population increases and as Americans get a little more 
money, a little more time, more leisure opportunities. I think it is 
wonderful they want to come to the seat of Government in the Capitol of 
the United States and see how it operates. As they come in these 
increased numbers, the tiny fringe of American citizens who represent a 
physical threat come also in increased numbers. Security is a priority. 
In this bill, we have made sure the resources will be available to 
provide that kind of security.
  As we have reviewed the security issue, we have made provisions in 
this bill for a fairly significant change in the way security is 
provided on the Capitol complex. We have provided transferring the 
police who currently service the Government Printing Office and the 
police who currently service the Library of Congress into the Capitol 
Police. Rather than having three different police forces in a small 
physical area, we will have only one.
  Since assuming the chairmanship of this subcommittee, I have been 
working towards this goal. I think we are now at the point where it 
makes sense to provide this unified force to provide seamless security. 
Until this time, the training for the police of the Library of Congress 
and the police at the Government Printing Office has been moving toward 
equity and par with the training given to the U.S. Capitol Police, so 
it will not be a big jump for these police officers to be in the same 
force.
  It will be an opportunity for many of the police officers in the two 
forces that are currently outside of the Capitol Police to increase 
their career opportunities because the Capitol Police Force is seen as 
a higher level of pay and benefits and opportunity than the two smaller 
forces.
  Additionally, it will mean we can bring the total security for the 
Capitol complex up to the level we want it at a faster pace because we 
need additional officers. Additional officers are not provided 
automatically by going out and hiring people. They have to go through a 
training period. By taking advantage of the pool of trained officers 
who are already there for the Government Printing Office police and the 
Library of Congress police, and perhaps bringing some of the new hires 
in at a level where the requirement is not as high as it is in the 
Capitol itself, we can increase the speed by which we can get to the 
level we seek.
  Some legitimate concerns have been raised about how this will work. 
The General Accounting Office has been cooperating with the 
subcommittee for quite some time in examining how it will work, but in 
the bill we provide for the General Accounting Office to prepare a 
report for the Appropriations Committee addressing those issues that 
have most recently been raised, giving us an understanding of how they 
can be dealt with. This provision was included at the request of 
Senator Feinstein who is particularly interested in the career path of 
the Capitol Police men and women themselves. I think it is a very wise 
addition. I thank the Senator for her initiative in

[[Page 8997]]

its inclusion. It will ensure an orderly transition and protect the 
rights of the affected officers.
  I thank Senator Feinstein for her service as the ranking member on 
this subcommittee. She brings a particular flavor of experience to the 
subcommittee, having been an executive herself, as mayor of San 
Francisco. I have been an executive but not of an enterprise that big. 
Between the two of us, we have a good balance of the practical and 
administrative experience that is necessary as we deal with some of 
these administrative challenges. I thank the Senator for her service. I 
appreciate very much the support she has given.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 2603, 
the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
  This is my second year as ranking member of the legislative branch 
subcommittee. I have been very proud to serve alongside our dedicated 
and distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Bennett. Senator 
Bennett is always very open and very willing to discuss the various 
issues that arise in relation to this bill. He has been very 
accommodating to my concerns as well as those of other Senators. I 
think he has displayed great knowledge of the various Departments and 
Agencies that fall under the legislative branch. It has been a real 
pleasure working with him.
  Thanks to the allocation to our Legislative Branch Subcommittee by 
the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, and 
the ranking member, Senator Byrd, this appropriation is $145 million in 
budget authority greater than the House subcommittee's allocation, so 
the bill before us now restores the House cuts of 2,112 employees, 
including 438 Capitol Police officers.
  Although we were not able to fully fund every agency's request, I 
believe the committee has distributed the scarce resources as fairly as 
possible, and we were able to make modest increases in most agency 
accounts above last year's level.
  Overall spending is increased by 3.7 percent over last year's bill. 
In particular, I note that during markup of this year's bill, Chairman 
Bennett agreed to include committee report language recommended by 
Senator Mikulski, having to do with the need for better employee 
relations in the office of the Architect of the Capitol. Senator 
Mikulski came to the subcommittee hearing and questioned the Architect 
of the Capitol directly concerning these matters. As a result of her 
efforts, the committee report language directs the Architect of the 
Capitol to establish a position of employee advocate, in an effort to 
improve morale and employee relations in the office of the Architect.
  In his remarks, Chairman Bennett has outlined for the Senate the 
various components of the bill, so I do not want to repeat that 
summary. I do, however, wish to point out to the Senate that for the 
Capitol Police, the subcommittee in that regard has included an 
appropriation of $109.6 million for fiscal year 2001. This is an 
increase of $22.8 million, or 26 percent over last year's enacted level 
of $86.8 million. This will fund 100 to 115 new Capitol Police 
officers.
  The funding level, we believe, will enable the Capitol Police to 
implement the department's plan for posting two police officers at all 
key and critical entries and exits throughout the Capitol complex.
  I take this opportunity to thank all Capitol Police officers for 
their really outstanding service to the Members, to this Capitol, and 
to the tens of thousands of visitors to the Capitol each year. They do 
a great job.
  I know Senator Mikulski will be presenting a sense-of-the-Senate 
commendation to the Capitol Police, with which I strongly agree. I 
think it is important, because of what happened last year, to be able 
to really tell them how much we do appreciate their efforts. This can 
be a very thankless job, particularly when there are tens of thousands 
of visitors milling through the Capitol each and every week. So I think 
we both agree that they do a truly fine job and are, indeed, to be 
commended.
  I also thank Chairman Bennett for agreeing to include language in the 
committee report about which he spoke, which I requested, relating to 
the proposed merger of the police forces at the Government Printing 
Office and the Library of Congress with the Capitol Police Force. This 
study will enable a careful feasibility analysis to be carried out and 
completed prior to any consolidation. The GAO report, I believe, can be 
done by July 1, giving the conference the opportunity to review its 
findings at that time. I understand Chairman Bennett's intentions in 
this area. He believes the proposed merger will result in greater 
efficiencies for the overall legislative branch police force. I believe 
it can be carried out in a way, as he just stated, that can maintain 
the upward mobility and career path for officers.
  I share that hope, and I believe that prior to proceeding with such a 
merger, Congress should first have these views of the GAO to ensure 
that no unforeseen problems exist in relation to such a consolidation 
or merger. Chairman Bennett has agreed to that study, and the committee 
report ensures that the study will be completed by July 1.
  In closing, I express appreciation and recognition to the very 
capable staff who assisted Chairman Bennett and myself with the 
legislative branch bill: Christine Ciccone, Chip Yost, Jim English, 
Edie Stanley, and Chris Kierig.
  This is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues to give favorable 
consideration to its passage in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 3166

         (Purpose: Commending the United States Capitol Police)

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 3166.
       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Sec. __. Sense of Senate Commending Capitol Police. (a) The 
     Senate finds that--
       (1) the United States Capitol is the people's house, and, 
     as such, it has always been and will remain open to the 
     public;
       (2) millions of people visit the Capitol each year to 
     observe and study the workings of the democratic process;
       (3) the Capitol is the most recognizable symbol of liberty 
     and democracy throughout the world and those who guard the 
     Capitol guard our freedom;
       (4) on July 24, 1998, Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective 
     John Michael Gibson of the United States Capitol Police 
     sacrificed their lives to protect the lives of hundreds of 
     tourists, Members of Congress, and staff;
       (5) the officers of the United States Capitol Police serve 
     their country with commitment, heroism, and great patriotism;
       (6) the employees of the United States working in the 
     United States Capitol are essential to the safe and efficient 
     operation of the Capitol building and the Congress; 
       (7) the operation of the Capitol and the legislative 
     process are dependent on the professionalism and hard work of 
     those who work here, including the United States Capitol 
     Police, congressional staff, and the staff of the 
     Congressional Research Office, the General Accounting Office, 
     the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Printing 
     Office, and the Architect of the Capitol; and
       (8) the House of Representatives should restore the cuts in 
     funding for the United States Capitol Police, congressional 
     staff, and congressional support organizations.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the United States Capitol Police and all legislative 
     employees are to be commended for their commitment, 
     professionalism, and great patriotism; and
       (2) the conferees on the legislative branch appropriations 
     legislation should maintain the Senate position on funding 
     for the United States Capitol Police and all legislative 
     branch employees.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, that amendment is offered in behalf of 
myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Murray, Senator Reid, Senator 
Sarbanes, and Senator Wellstone.
  The reason I wanted the amendment read is that I wanted to convey the 
importance that many of us feel in commending the employees who work 
here

[[Page 8998]]

at the Capitol, both the police as well as other very important 
departments and divisions.
  I first compliment Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein for the 
outstanding job they have done on moving the legislative branch 
appropriations bill. This sense of the Senate is in no way a commentary 
on their leadership, which I think has been exemplary. I think their 
leadership has been sensitive to the needs of employees and sensitive 
to the needs of the taxpayers. So we thank you for the leadership you 
provided, first in terms of the adequacy of the resources to do the job 
and, second, stewardship over Federal funds.
  Also, I particularly want to thank Senators Feinstein and Bennett for 
adding the report language on the need for an employee ombudsman for 
the employees of the Architect of the Capitol. I had come to their 
hearings, in which I was received with such collegiality that I am very 
grateful. But we wanted to problem-solve over what was happening to the 
restaurant employees who often believe they have nowhere to go with 
many of their problems. Essentially, my own office was becoming the EEO 
office for these employees.
  I am ready to do that. I am ready to be the Senator from Maryland and 
I am ready to be the Senator for the restaurant employees. But I want 
the Architect of the Capitol and those who work for him to do their job 
so that our employees have the same type of ombudsman and opportunity 
for personnel grievance that the private sector has. I thank them for 
that.
  Let me come back to my amendment. My amendment is a sense of the 
Senate. It is not about money, but it is about morale. We want to say 
to the men and women who work at the U.S. Capitol that we know who they 
are and we value what they do.
  These are the men and women who work in this building for the 
American people and serve the Nation. The Capitol Police protect this 
building which is a symbol of freedom and democracy the world over. 
They protect all the people who visit the Capitol, and they protect 
Members of Congress. It is the Capitol Police who ensure that everyone 
who comes to the U.S. Capitol is safe and secure. They are the most 
unique law enforcement officers in the country. They protect the 
building, and they protect the people, and they do it whether you are 
an American citizen or a foreign dignitary. They protect you whether 
you are a Member of Congress or a member of a Girl Scout troop.
  That is who they are. They are brave, they are resourceful, they are 
gallant, whether it is protecting a dignitary such as Nelson Mandela or 
a Girl Scout troop from Maryland. They protect us from crooks, 
terrorists, people who are deranged, and anyone else who wants to harm 
us or the Capitol. Also, each is Officer Friendly welcoming people from 
all over America and all over the world.
  The Capitol is a tourist attraction. Why? Do they come because we are 
so compelling, so charismatic, so gifted? No, they come to see 
democracy in action. We are the greatest deliberative body in the 
world. Sometimes we act great, and sometimes we deliberate, and 
sometimes we even do something together. But people come to see us in 
action. Those police officers ensure this facility is open to the 
people, preserving safety, often giving guidance and direction, many 
even learning foreign languages to do it.
  Under their community police mentality, do not think, because they 
greet visitors like Officer Friendly, that they are soft. Talk to the 
Capitol Police. We know, No. 1, that they are tough, they are 
competent, they are a modern police force. They take bomb squad 
training, they take antiterrorist training, and they also work to make 
sure they have the right approach to deal with each and every situation 
they may encounter.
  We need to make sure they have their jobs, they have their pay, they 
have their benefits, and they have our respect. That is what the sense 
of the Senate resolution is all about: to support the Capitol Police 
and the other employees of the legislative branch.
  The House was going to cut over 1,700 people and as many as 400 
police officers, which is 25 percent of the force. That is 
unacceptable. Then they were going to cut 117 staff from the 
Congressional Research Service. I will say what the Congressional 
Research Service is. It is a group of people who are absolutely 
dedicated to giving us unbiased, accurate information and unbiased, 
accurate analysis so we can do our jobs. If we want to make some very 
good decisions on the best models for the Older Americans Act or new 
technology breakthroughs, we should ensure adequate funding for the 
Congressional Research Service.
  I will talk about the jobs being cut at GAO, the Government 
Accounting Office. The Government Accounting Office is not about 
keeping the books, it is about keeping the books straight.
  My colleagues and I know we continually turn to the staff at the 
Government Accounting Office to do investigations of waste and abuse, 
to give us insights into how better to manage and be better stewards of 
the taxpayers' funds. People with those kinds of skills could leave us 
in a wink and be at a dot com in less than a nanosecond. If we are 
going to be on the broadband of the future, we need to make sure we 
have the people with the skills to run a contemporary Congress. And, we 
need to make sure that these people have security in their jobs and 
reliability of pay that they need to do just that.
  I will now talk about our own congressional staff. They help us serve 
the Nation. We all know what the people who work for us do. They are 
the caseworkers who track down Social Security checks for our 
constituents; they help us answer our mail; and they help us draft 
legislation. It is the congressional staff who are now working, 
hopefully, to see that we pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. It 
is the congressional staff who are now working around the clock so we 
can have a conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Whether it's the Democratic side or the Republican side--the fact is 
that our staff is on our side so we can be on the people's side. We 
should not be cutting the very staff who help us get the job done.
  We should not forget the restaurant workers, the custodial staff, and 
the facility managers who ensure the U.S. Capitol is a building that is 
comfortable, clean, and safe to visit.
  We know about the draconian cuts in the House. Rumor has it they are 
going to restore some of those cuts. Good, because I would say to them, 
shame on them for what they were doing.
  Do my colleagues know what the House intended to do? They intended to 
cut 400 Capitol Police officers, 114 employees from the Congressional 
Research Service, and 700 employees from GAO--1,700 people could have 
lost their jobs.
  This is not about job security, this is about maintaining the safety, 
security, and cleanliness of the Capitol and the competency of staff so 
we can do our job.
  I hope we adopt this amendment 100-0.
  I close my remarks by saying that the reason I am offering this sense 
of the Senate amendment is so we know and show the people who work here 
every day that we are on their side. I believe Senators Bennett and 
Feinstein showed that by putting the money in the Federal checkbook, to 
show there is money which hopefully ensures a high level of morale.
  I am also offering this sense of the Senate amendment because we need 
to keep our promises. A short time ago, we had two gallant police 
officers die in the line of duty--Officer Chestnut from Maryland and 
Detective Gibson from Virginia. We all attended their memorial 
services. We mourned them. We tried to console their families. We 
thanked them for their sacrifice, and we said that a grateful Congress 
will never forget. We should not forget Officer Chestnut, and we should 
not forget Detective Gibson. We should not forget the men and women who 
work here every day, in every way, in their own way dedicating their 
lives to serving us.

[[Page 8999]]

  I hope we adopt this sense of the Senate amendment. Again, I thank 
Senators Bennett and Feinstein for their leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Maryland, 
Senator Mikulski, for her leadership and for her fine statement on this 
important issue that is before the Senate today.
  I am very proud to join my many colleagues who are here to commend 
the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police Force. Day in and day out, 
these fine officers risk their lives to protect all of us who work in 
the legislative branch. They also protect the millions of people who 
travel from across the country to the Capitol every year.
  They deserve our respect and they deserve our thanks. They certainly 
do not deserve pink slips. Unfortunately, that is what the budget that 
was recently passed by the House Republicans would give them. In fact, 
in the budget that was passed by the House Appropriations Committee, if 
it were to take effect, 438 members of the Capitol Police Force would 
be relieved of duty. That is no way to thank some of the hardest 
working and most dedicated people I have ever encountered. At the same 
time that security experts are recommending to us we hire additional 
officers so we can station two officers at every entrance, the House 
majority's proposal goes in the opposite direction and requires us to 
fire officers.
  Many people who are visiting the Nation's Capitol often turn to our 
Capitol Police Force for help in finding their representatives' offices 
or to get tour information. While our officers are always very gracious 
and helpful to everyone, the public really does not get a chance to see 
the many other things they do.
  Every day, these officers interact with thousands of people, 
constantly assessing potential threats and stopping problems before 
they ever have a chance to start.
  In fact, in recent days, there have been two potential instances of 
violence in this Capitol complex. Thanks to the quick work of the 
Capitol Police, and others, those situations were quickly controlled 
and no one was injured.
  In a world where the number of threats seem to be growing, in an age 
when you never know when someone will act violently, and in a time when 
the memories of the two officers who died protecting Members of this 
Congress are still fresh in our minds, we are all better off with a 
strong, professional, and well-trained Capitol Police.
  I think it is fair to say that through their work they help all of us 
carry out the democratic process.
  They do not just protect elected officials; they protect everyone who 
visits and works near the Capitol Building.
  I have been very disappointed to hear what some of the House 
Republicans have said about the Capitol Police. I do not think those 
comments reflect accurately on the work of the Capitol Police. I 
certainly do not want the officers to think that those few Members 
reflect the way the rest of us feel about the work that you do.
  I encourage my colleagues to do three things to honor these fine men 
and women.
  First, I hope Members, as they go about their daily work, take a 
moment to say thank you to the men and women of the Capitol Police 
Force, and let them know how much you appreciate the fine work they do.
  Secondly, don't let the House Republican budget slap these officers 
in the face. Instead, let's give them the tools and the resources they 
need to do their jobs effectively.
  Finally, I hope all Members of the Senate will vote for the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution and show that you stand with us in supporting our 
Capitol Police.
  I join the Senator from Maryland in commending Senator Bennett and 
Senator Feinstein for doing an outstanding job. I hope we can adopt 
this resolution with a very strong vote so that we can maintain the 
numbers that they have worked to put into this budget.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, and thank Senator 
Mikulski for offering this resolution. I join my friend from the State 
of Washington in urging that all Members--Republicans and Democrats 
alike--support it. But I commend Senator Mikulski for her initiation of 
this issue. And we express our appreciation to Senators Bennett and 
Feinstein for the action they have taken to express our full confidence 
and support for the police officers here at the Capitol.
  How time flies, as we remember those memorial services for Officer 
Chestnut and Detective Gibson, who gave up their lives in order to try 
to save the lives of the Members of Congress. That is the kind of 
professionalism that is typical of this corps of men and women and that 
all of us too often take for granted. I strongly oppose any provision 
in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill that would slash the 
Capitol Police budget. Any such reduction would show a flagrant 
disregard for the security of the Capitol. It is shocking that House 
Republicans voted for this cut, after a non-partisan study concluded 
that even the ``current Capitol Police Force staffing is insufficient 
to meet today's threat environment.'' Members on both sides of the 
aisle should be able to agree on this basic necessity of our time.
  The budget must have room for adequate law enforcement. Police 
officers deserve a fair wage, equal to their risks and 
responsibilities. The way we treat Capitol Police officers is a measure 
of the respect we hold for them as professionals. No officers should 
have to jeopardize their lives to do their job because of inadequate 
resources and inadequate support.
  The Capitol Police deserve enormous respect for their dedicated 
service. What these officers do as professionals affects the welfare 
and the very lives of every member of Congress, every staff person, and 
every visitor to the Capitol. They deserve our highest praise and 
gratitude for the skill and commitment they bring to their work.
  The House Republican bill is a symptom of the larger problem facing 
communities across the country. Democrats have strongly supported the 
hiring of more local police officers and more school resource 
officers--giving communities and schools the tools they need to ensure 
the safety of citizens and students. Yet, Senate and House Republicans 
consistently fight us every step of the way.
  Last week, the Senate Republican leadership attempted to block debate 
on sensible and long overdue gun control measures.
  Last year, Republicans defeated an amendment to expand the Community 
Oriented Policing Program, which would have provided additional needed 
resources to communities across the United States in the ongoing battle 
against crime. And Republicans continue to target that successful 
program for elimination;
  On the Juvenile Justice bill, Republicans blocked a Democratic effort 
to create a National Center for School Safety and Youth Violence;
  On the same bill, Republicans rejected a Democratic amendment to 
encourage more effective after-school programs, so that one million 
additional children would be off the streets, out of trouble, and 
engaged in worthwhile school and community activities.
  Republicans also defeated one Democratic amendment to expand the Safe 
Schools/Healthy Students initiative, to enable 150 additional 
communities to build partnerships between schools, parents and law 
enforcement to reduce truancy. The initiative would also provide 
mentoring for troubled youth, and teach students how to resolve 
conflict without resorting to violence.
  Time and again, Democrats are placed in the position of fighting 
against Republican opposition in our effort to enact public safety 
measures that make sense--that keep families, schools and neighborhoods 
safe. Republicans would rather kowtow to the National Rifle Association 
and other special interest groups than listen to the American people.

[[Page 9000]]

  We too infrequently recognize the professionalism and also the 
dedication of these officers. The least we can do is to treat these men 
and women fairly. And more importantly, what we can do--and we should 
do--is to commend them for their continued professionalism and for 
their devotion to duty.
  I join my colleagues in expressing our appreciation to the two 
leaders on this appropriations bill, Senators Bennett and Feinstein, 
for what they have done in this area.
  I will mention one other area, though, that finds fault with the 
actions of the leadership in the House of Representatives, in this 
term, the Republican leadership.
  I find it difficult to understand what the Republican leadership has 
against low-income workers. Here we have the greatest prosperity in the 
history of this country, and the Republican leadership has been aligned 
to deny us a simple vote on a 50-cent increase in the minimum wage for 
1 year, and a 50-cent increase in the next year. We have effectively 
been denied the opportunity to do so.
  We have had to go through extraordinary gymnastics here on the floor. 
And then, finally, we end up with a 3-year bill, which is an insult to 
even the 10 million Americans who are working at the lowest levels of 
the economic ladder, and then tying on to that $100 billion in unpaid 
tax goodies for the wealthiest individuals and the most powerful 
corporations of this country. I think that is shameful action by this 
body.
  But we have been battling, and we are going to continue to battle. We 
are going to remind our friends that even though they do not like 
voting on an increase in the minimum wage--and they use every effort to 
try to avoid that--they are going to be faced with the continued 
opportunities to do so until we get a fair adjustment in the minimum 
wage, which these working families are due.
  But now we have not only opposition in terms of an increase in the 
minimum wage, but opposition to an adjustment in the cost of living for 
those individuals who are at the lowest level of service in the 
National Government. The House Republican leadership wants to make sure 
that these employees are not going to get any cost of living increase, 
even though we have seen a generous cost-of-living increase for the 
Members. These workers are the ones who will get no increase--they are 
the press operators who work the presses, the bindery workers who bind 
the volumes of paper that we produce in this chamber, and the workers 
at the printing plant who haul paper and move the printed products. 
There is no increase for even these workers, the laborers in the 
printing office who publish the reports that go across to the libraries 
to inform the American people as to the actions of the Congress.
  But it is not just the Government Printing Office employees who will 
suffer from this cutting of the cost of living adjustment. Mail clerks 
and laborers in the Library of Congress, Secretaries in the 
Congressional Budget Office, and Information Receptionists, Library 
Aides, and Reference Files Assistants at the Congressional Research 
Service--those who carry and sort the mail, who type and file our 
various reports and documents, and those who assist with the 
cataloguing and researching of all the reports and documents that we in 
Congress generate--all of these employees will be denied a fair cost of 
living increase by the House Republican leadership.
  These are among the lowest of the low paid by the Federal Government. 
They are men and women who have a great sense of pride and dignity in 
the work they do. They are part of the team in terms of trying to serve 
this country. Nonetheless, the way we deal with them is to say: No, you 
are not going to be able to get the adjustment that others are going to 
be able to get in the Congress, and that those of the higher level pay 
scales are going to get in general.
  That is basically unfair, and it is unwise and unjust. I do not know 
what the explanation is. Why is it? Why is it that we effectively make 
sure that those individuals who are working in the darkest areas of the 
building and are absolutely key elements do not get an increase? If you 
take those individuals out of this whole process, you are not going to 
get the printing of the records, which are reflective of the Government 
in action, and you are going to basically paralyze, in a very important 
respect, the representatives of Government having the information which 
is necessary to make sound judgment.
  Maybe there is an explanation for it, but I do not see it. It is 
unfair and unjust. It is something where we have to say, if you have 
opposition to an increase in the minimum wage, you are hurting those 
workers. And who are those workers? They are primarily women because 60 
percent of minimum-wage workers are women. This impacts children 
because fully one-third of the women who are earning the minimum wage 
have children under 18. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights 
issue because a disproportionate percent of minimum-wage workers are 
men and women of color.
  Most of all, it is a fairness issue that men and women who are going 
to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, should not live in 
poverty in the richest country in the world, when we are having the 
most extraordinary economic prosperity in the history of this Nation. 
It just is wrong.
  We are facing that blind opposition by the Republican leadership in 
the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States that 
says no to those working members of our economy. Who are they? They are 
the men and women who work in our nursing homes looking after parents 
who may be in nursing homes. They are the men and women who are working 
in our schools as assistant teachers. They are men and women who are 
looking after children when their parents are out there working and 
trying to put food on their table.
  We are saying, no, they are not going to get an increase in the 
minimum wage. No, we are not going to give it to them. And no, we are 
not going to give a cost of living increase to other members who are at 
the lower level of the pay scale in our nation's Capitol.
  That is an absolutely unfair, unjust, and unacceptable position. I am 
delighted that here in the Senate, in a bipartisan way, that position 
has been rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank both Senator 
Bennett and Senator Feinstein for their important work. I just want to 
echo the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, 
in support of providing adequate funding to pay all the people who help 
us do our work in the Senate. I too support a wage increase for the 
many people who work here, who don't make near the money we make, don't 
have near the salary we have. I promise the Chair that if it were the 
House Democrats who had made these cuts, my condemnation would be just 
as strong. The action the House took, cutting funding for salaries was 
a mistake, and it wasn't fair. I think that on the Senate side, in a 
bipartisan way, we have done a good job.
  I thank Senator Mikulski and all the other Senators here, including 
Senators Daschle, Murray, Reid, Sarbanes, and Kennedy, for their 
support for full funding for the Capitol Police Department. I just want 
to read the last part of the Mikulski amendment, that I am proud to be 
an original cosponsor of:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the United States 
     Capitol Police and all legislative employees are to be 
     commended for their commitment, professionalism, and great 
     patriotism; and the conferees on the legislative branch 
     appropriations legislation should maintain the Senate 
     position on funding for the United States Capitol Police and 
     all legislative branch employees.

  My hope is that all 100 Senators will come out here on the floor and 
speak in support of this amendment and in support of all the work that 
Capitol Police do to keep the Capitol safe. In a way, it is almost 
shocking that the Senator from Maryland feels the need to introduce 
this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I think we ought to really think 
deeply as to why it is necessary to

[[Page 9001]]

come out with an amendment that basically says that we value the 
Capitol Police and all the Senate employees.
  I just want to make this appeal to all my colleagues that they come 
down to the floor and express their support for all the people who work 
in the Senate. I hope Republican Senators will come out here as well 
and speak. Maybe all of us can take 15 or 20 minutes. I think that 
sends a much more powerful message.
  What I regret is that the House Republicans chose to cut the Capitol 
Police budget by 11 percent; that is a $10 million cut. Here is the 
problem. Forget the money. Anybody who watches us on the floor might 
say: What are they talking about, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, an 
11-percent cut, a $10 million cut; what does it mean?
  This is what it means. First of all, we will never forget that we 
lost two officers, Officer Chestnut and Agent Gibson, in 1998. Many of 
us were at their service. It was so moving and so powerful. We made a 
commitment we would do everything possible to make sure that the police 
officers here--Capitol Police officers--would be working under the best 
of conditions, that they would be safe, that they could do their job 
and not be put in peril.
  Their job is to protect all the people who visit the Capitol. I have 
given enough speeches to deafen the gods about this. I have probably 
spoken 15 times on the floor of the Senate in support of the Capitol 
police. Today, I get to come out here as an original cosponsor of this 
amendment and say I really believe it is critically important that the 
Capitol police be recognized for the worth of their work, the 
importance of their work, and also that we make sure we do everything 
humanly possible, as legislators, so that they work under the best 
conditions, which translates into making sure we do everything we know 
how to do to make sure we never again lose any police officers.
  What the House Republicans did in their proposal would mean the 
elimination of some 400 police officers. That is no way to say thank 
you to the Capitol police--to have an 11-percent cut in their budget, 
to have a cut of hundreds of police officers, to have even less backup 
for officers; that is no way to say thank you to the Capitol Hill 
Police. It is certainly no way to honor Officer Chestnut, Officer 
Gibson, and their families--no way.
  So I want to make crystal clear on the floor of the Senate that I 
believe that it is important that we all speak--not just Democrats, but 
Republicans as well--in support of this amendment to send a message as 
Senators to the Capitol Hill police and their families that we have a 
tremendous amount of appreciation for the work they do, we value the 
work they do, we value them as friends, and we just simply want to say 
thank you and we intend to continue to support the Capitol Police. In 
addition, I believe that the work that Senator Bennett and Senator 
Feinstein have done matters more than any words I can utter here on the 
floor of the Senate.
  The last point that this amendment is important, and the reason I 
hope Senators will speak on it, is to show our united support and 
respect for the men and women of the Capitol Police force, who protect 
us each and every day. In the days following the House actions to cut 
funding for the force, many of the police officers were just 
demoralized. How many people have said--as a matter of fact, we are 
losing Capitol Hill police members to the D.C. Police Force because 
they do feel they have the respect and support of the people they are 
here to protect.
  But part of it is, I say to Senator Reid, who was a Capitol Hill 
policeman--the only Member of the Senate who served on that police 
force--that part of the question of whether or not people continue to 
work here and feel good about their work is whether or not people think 
they are respected. You know, in light of what we have gone through for 
the past several years, when you then cut the budget and you 
potentially put some of these police officers in harm's way, you 
certainly are not communicating a message to these police that we value 
their work. You are communicating the opposite message. I think what 
the House Republican ``leadership'' did on this issue was one of the 
worst things that has been done here, at least since I have served 
starting in 1991.
  I feel really good about what we have done on the Senate side. I feel 
really good that we have done it in a bipartisan way, and I feel good 
that I get a chance to support the Mikulski amendment. I want to, one 
more time, make the appeal to Republican Senators: Look, the truth of 
the matter is--and I don't want to get people angry at me--it is not as 
if we are doing a lot right now and we don't have time for people to 
come out and speak. I think we ought to get as many Senators as 
possible to speak on this resolution because it is important that we 
communicate a message of strong support for these police officers.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Byrd, Bennett, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Durbin be added as cosponsors to 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
this amendment be taken at the appropriate time as agreed upon by the 
leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I amend the Senator's unanimous-consent 
request that the vote on the pending amendment occur at 9:45 on 
Thursday with no amendments in order to the amendment, and that there 
be 10 minutes of remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, to make the record clear with respect to 
the statement that was made earlier about employees of the Government 
Printing Office not receiving an increase in this bill, Senator 
Feinstein and I have provided funds so those employees will receive the 
mandatory increases.
  It is a little bit confusing as to how the bookkeeping works. The 
dollar amount stays level, but because we researched the number of 
positions that had not been filled in previous years and we are funding 
those positions, we recognize the money that would go for those 
unfilled positions will be available for the mandatory increases for 
employees.
  I want to make sure the record reflects that. We are not, in fact, 
forcing those employees to go without their standard mandatory 
increases in this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask my colleague for 5 seconds?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I forgot to also thank Jim Ziglar, the 
Sergeant at Arms on the Senate side, who has done great work on this 
question.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Maryland.
  First, I thank Senator Bennett of Utah and Senator Feinstein of 
California, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch. They have important 
responsibilities. They have met the responsibility and have done it 
very well in a very difficult time. I commend both of them for their 
hard work in preparing this important legislation.

[[Page 9002]]

  I also commend my colleague from the State of Maryland, Senator 
Mikulski. Because of the proximity of Maryland to the District of 
Columbia, Senator Mikulski has said that she oftentimes feels that she 
is the Senator for so many people who work on Capitol Hill who come to 
her with their concerns. I know that is a burden for her to carry, but 
it is one that she carries with grace.
  The offering today of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is so 
typical of her dedication and loyalty to the men and women who serve us 
here in the Capitol.
  This Capitol Building is one of the most recognizable buildings in 
the world. People literally come from across the United States and from 
around the world to see this magnificent dome.
  You can never forget the first time you see it. I can still remember, 
I guess almost 38 years ago, when I first saw it in person. It made 
such an impact on me as a student. Little did I realize that I might 
someday serve in this building. But so many millions of people come to 
this site on this great hill to see this building, to walk through its 
Halls, and to witness the history that is here portrayed; to see the 
magnificent statues in Statutary Hall; to recall the history of this 
building; the Rotunda; the times that America has gathered in this 
place to pay homage to the greats who have served our Nation; to recall 
history when that same Rotunda was used as a hospital for Union 
soldiers who were injured in battle.
  It is a great building and contains a great history. The dome on this 
building, which was built during the era when Abraham Lincoln of 
Springfield, IL, served as President during the Civil War, is really a 
beacon not just for our Nation but for the world.
  All of the visitors who come here to be part of this great American 
historical moment expect the very best treatment, and they deserve it. 
That is why it is hard for me to understand what happened in the House 
of Representatives when the Republican leadership decided they would 
make a substantial cut--a one-third cut or more--in the number of 
police officers who would be in this building to protect all of us who 
work here and all of us who visit here.
  It is hard to imagine how that could occur under ordinary 
circumstances; with the millions of people who flock to this building, 
that we would cut back in the security and protection of those visitors 
and employees. It is impossible to understand that suggestion in light 
of what occurred just 2 years ago in this same building--when, on a 
Friday afternoon, a deranged man came to this building with a gun and 
opened fire, sadly killing two of the very best Capitol Hill policemen, 
Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson.
  Those two men died in the line of duty protecting all of us--
protecting the visitors to this building, protecting the workers who 
come to this building each day, protecting many of the same Members of 
Congress who have sponsored on the House side this amendment to reduce 
the number of Capitol Hill policemen. It is an incredible thing that 
only 2 years later we would forget that basic lesson.
  I remember going to the memorial service for the two officers, as so 
many Members of Congress did, to show our respect and our gratitude to 
their families--to try to express with our presence what we couldn't 
say in words; to thank them and their families for what they had given 
us. So many people were chocked up that day as they looked across at 
the rows of family members and saw not only the spouses but a lot of 
young children who would never know their fathers, who, frankly, would 
miss out on many of life's great moments with their fathers, because 
Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson had given their lives to protect 
us.
  Many of the same Members of Congress who stood choking back the tears 
that day are, 24 months later, offering amendments to reduce the number 
of Capitol Hill policemen.
  How short is their memory? Can they not recall those moments? I 
certainly can. I know Senator Mikulski can.
  As I come into this building each day and into the office building 
that we use, I see these men and women in uniform standing there doing 
their very best to make sure people know the right place to go and 
where the offices are located, but also keeping in mind that at any 
given moment they could have their lives on the line.
  When Senator Mikulski introduces this resolution, when Senator 
Wellstone takes the floor repeatedly and talks about the security at 
the doorways of the entrances to the buildings on Capitol Hill, they 
are talking about a life and death issue for these men and women. They 
don't just come to work, as many of us do, and shuffle the papers and 
do our business. They put their lives on the line every day. The 
thought that the House Republicans would suggest cutting by one-third 
the number of police officers is incredible when you consider what is 
at stake here and what we lived through only 2 years ago.
  I certainly commend my colleague, Senator Mikulski, for offering this 
amendment. I hope every Member of the Senate in a show of fidelity and 
support to the men and women who protect us every day will join as 
cosponsors. This should have a 100-0 vote because it really is an 
indication of what we feel about these people who mean so much to us 
and who go out of their way to be kind and helpful.
  Some of my favorites--I hate to pick out a few because I know there 
are many who deserve recognition--Officer Charlie Coffer, who stands at 
the Russell door every day, is a joy in my life. There cannot be a 
nicer person on Capitol Hill in any spot. He brings a smile to my lips 
every time I walk through the door.
  Officer Best works on the door on the Senate side. I came here at 10 
o'clock one night with a group of visitors, and I asked if it would be 
possible to walk through Statuary Hall. He went out of his way to clear 
things and make sure we could bring those visitors through for the time 
of their lives, to be able to walk through this great building in the 
darkness of night, and sense the history of this building.
  Officer Best, Officer Coffer, and so many others, go out of their way 
to do such a great job. If they go out of their way every day, we 
should go out of our way to show our gratitude and respect by passing 
this amendment and this important appropriations bill.
  I close by referring to one other item which I hope this 
appropriations subcommittee can consider. It has come to our attention 
that some of the workers on the Senate side, particularly those 
associated with the restaurant, are technically part-time employees. 
When we are in session, they may work a full 40-hour week; of course, 
when we are out of session, they don't. Because of this part-time 
status, many of them do not qualify for basic employee protection life/
health insurance. It is hard for me to imagine the men and women who 
serve food every day, who make sure this building runs smoothly, don't 
receive the most basic protections which we would expect for any member 
of our family.
  I ask the committee, I ask Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein, if 
they would be kind enough to look into this situation. I am happy to 
work with them and make certain we are treating all of the men and 
women who work here with respect in giving them the benefits which we 
would expect every American who comes to work every day to enjoy. I 
think we ought to join to try to set such an example.
  If this is not a major problem, I apologize to the subcommittee. 
However, if it is one that I have been told is a concern to many of the 
employees, I hope we can work together to resolve it.
  Once again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
fine work on this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to 
commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bennett, and the 
ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for their efforts in bringing out of 
the Appropriations Committee and out of their subcommittee prior 
thereto, a

[[Page 9003]]

bill which I know that all Senators can support.
  As noted by the Chairman and Ranking Member, the allocation to the 
Legislative Branch Subcommittee here in the Senate was substantially 
larger than the amount allocated to the Subcommittee's House 
counterpart. That increased allocation was distributed fairly 
throughout the Legislative Branch.
  In particular, as has been noted by Chairman Bennett and Senator 
Feinstein, the bill as reported by the Committee recommends a 
substantial increase for the Capitol Police. I commend these two very 
able Senators for their excellent work in recommending this increase 
for the Capitol Police and for the increases they recommended 
throughout the legislative branch. It should be kept in mind something 
that Members of this body often forget, perhaps at least temporarily, 
that the Legislative Branch is the people's branch.
  I stand here on this floor time after time to say that again and 
again that this is the first of the three branches of our Government 
mentioned in the Constitution, article I. We should adequately fund the 
legislative branch. I believe this bill does so. We certainly bend over 
backwards time and time again to fund the executive branch, and the 
executive branch includes in its budget on every occasion that a budget 
that comes here, additional persons for various segments of the 
executive branch. In many instances, few questions are asked, if any. 
So the executive branch adds to its numbers by the hundreds, from time 
to time. Yet we respond quite niggardly with appropriations for the 
legislative branch. We are always pinching pennies when it comes to the 
legislative branch.
  The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, as reported by the House 
Appropriations Committee, contains major cuts throughout the 
legislative branch, including the appropriation for the Capitol Police. 
Rather than recommending an increase sufficient to continue the growth 
in the Capitol Police force that we approved two years ago as a result 
of the tragic shooting that took the lives of Officer Chestnut and 
Detective Gibson, the bill, reported by the other body requires 
dramatic reductions in the Capitol Police force. Through a combination 
of the regular Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 
and the additional funding that had already been provided in the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, sufficient resources 
have been provided for 1,511 Capitol Police personnel. That increase in 
personnel was carefully considered as part of an overall plan to 
improve security of the U.S. Capitol complex. It was to be a multi-year 
effort with these additional forces being brought on board as quickly 
as the new hires could be trained. Yet, that is not what has been 
recommended in the bill as reported in this year's bill by the House 
Appropriations Committee. That recommendation provides only $70 
million, a cut of almost $39 million below the budget request, and 
provides for a level of only 1058 personnel, a reduction of 453 
positions! Think about that. We all talk about how strongly we support 
reducing crime throughout the Nation. Let's start right here in the 
Nation's Capitol, right now! We have put 100,000 cops on the beat 
across the Nation. A number of years ago, Senator Gramm of Texas and I 
offered an amendment which was subsequently enacted to establish a 
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
  I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate at that 
time. Since that time, tens of billions of dollars have been 
appropriated over the years from that trust fund. As a result, we have 
seen a marked improvement in the statistics on violent crime all across 
this Nation. When the tragic shooting of Officer Chestnut and Detective 
Gibson occurred in the Nation's Capitol in the summer of 1998, we all 
quickly rushed forward with promises of increased funding for the 
security measures for the Capitol complex.
  I have seen this happen time and time and time again over the 48 
years I have been virtually an inhabitant of this building. The 
distinguished Senator from Illinois said a moment ago he first came to 
this building 38 years ago. Mr. President, I came to this building my 
first time almost 70 years ago. I was a boy scout from the coal fields 
in southern West Virginia. Of course, it was never meant that I should 
ever become a Member of this body, not from the lowly beginnings from 
which I sprang. Upon that occasion when I sat up in the galleries, I 
said to the scoutmaster: I'm coming back here one day; I'm going to be 
a Member of this body. How little did I know that that might come true, 
really, when I came to this Capitol almost 70 years ago.
  I was a Member of the other body when the shooting occurred in the 
gallery of that body. I was sitting on the opposite side, on the 
Democratic side, from where the shooting took place. The shooting 
occurred from the galleries just over the Republican side of the aisle. 
At first, I thought it was a demonstration of some kind, perhaps some 
firecrackers or some blank bullets.
  I saw--I believe it was one of the Members named Jensen. I saw other 
Members fall. I saw one fall right in the center of the floor, towards 
the front of the House Chamber. I saw Members running to the Cloakroom.
  A Member from Tennessee had sat in a chair to my left. If I were 
located in the House Chamber right now, he sat just over to my left. He 
was called to go out to the Cloakroom to take a telephone call. While 
he was out, that shooting occurred and a bullet pierced the very center 
of the chair in which he had sat. The bullet would have gone through 
his heart.
  A Member of the House who sat just directly behind him was from 
Alabama, and that Member suffered a wound in his leg.
  I remember going up to the galleries after they had taken the 
demonstrators out. There was a TV camera there. They asked me what I 
thought about it. I said, ``It just shows what a cockeyed old world 
this has come to be.''
  The world hasn't improved any. As a matter of fact, it has gotten 
worse. I can remember some years ago when there was an explosion on the 
next floor below us in the Capitol. A bomb exploded right down here 
where the old barber shop was, where the Senators used to get haircuts. 
We were criticized so much because we got haircuts in the Capitol that 
we closed down the room, the barber shop. But in one of the little 
restrooms just outside the premises of that barber shop a bomb 
exploded.
  Then, a few years later, a bomb exploded right here near the Senate 
Chamber, beyond the Republican Cloakroom, out in the corridor there. I 
was the Democratic leader at that time, and I had an office just a few 
feet away from where that bomb was deposited behind a bench where one 
of those Vice Presidential busts is now located. That blast occurred at 
11 o'clock at night.
  As Howard Baker stated the next morning, it could very well have 
killed a Republican Member or Members in that Republican Cloakroom that 
night. The explosion was directed toward the Republican Cloakroom. 
Nevertheless, that explosion blew off the huge doors to my office in S-
208. It blew those doors over on the desks where members of my staff 
worked. As I say, fortunately, it was at 11 o'clock at night, but it 
just filled my offices with dust. It broke the picture window in that 
beautiful office.
  I have been around this Capitol 48 years, and I know these things 
happen, and they will happen again. They will happen again. One of 
these days there may be a major catastrophe in this Capitol. And every 
time there is a rush to improve the security, and then after a few days 
or weeks or months, that subsides and the security lapses.
  This is the most beautiful Capitol in the world, bar none, with 
Brumidi's paintings. Brumidi came to this country in 1855 and he died 
in 1880. He painted these beautiful frescoes in the Rotunda. I have my 
office now in his old studio down on the next floor. It is in this 
Capitol that Webster and Hayne had their famous debate. It was not in 
this Chamber but in the Old Chamber down the hall. Webster and Clay, 
and Calhoun--where the old Senate sat

[[Page 9004]]

from 1810 to 1859; the Senators in 1859 moved to this Chamber. Ah, what 
history here--history, the history of the greatest Republic that was 
ever created--history fills these Halls. If you walk in these Halls at 
night, you can almost hear the words of Webster and Clay and Thomas 
Hart Benton of Missouri. Yet, this Capitol is put in danger by 
reductions of this kind in appropriations.
  Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein have performed a great deed for 
the Nation, for the men and women of yesterday, for the citizens of 
today, and for our posterity--those who will walk these Halls in future 
years and gaze with wonder at the beauty of this Capitol.
  A lot is expected of the men and the women who serve on the U.S. 
Capitol Police Force. We expect them to be highly professional, highly 
skilled, and highly motivated individuals who perform their duties well 
at all times. They must be courteous to the many thousands, the 
millions of people who visit this Nation's Capitol while at the same 
time being alert to the dangers that can arise at any time with little 
notice or without notice.
  Members of the House and Senate, our staffs--Jim English, others on 
the staff of the Appropriations Committee who sit on this side, and 
staff people who sit across the aisle and aid Senator Bennett; there 
are thousands of them who work in and around this Capitol--their lives 
are at stake, their lives and the lives of the tourists who come here 
from the mountains of West Virginia and the level plains of the 
Midwest, the prairies, from the Rocky Mountains and the sunny shores of 
California. They come here to see this Capitol and to marvel at it, to 
gaze in awe. How many times a day I see those tourists come in here and 
look about these halls; they just gaze in awe. They seem to be entirely 
unaware that somebody else is walking by. They are entranced by what 
they see in this Capitol.
  These visitors deserve no less from our U.S. Capitol Police Force. 
But if we are to have the kind of police force that exhibits these 
qualities and these skills, we cannot subject these men and women to 
the specter of having their jobs eliminated in massive numbers on the 
heels of initiating a program to substantially increase their numbers.
  It would be unwise in the extreme to cut security personnel at the 
Capitol complex, so I will join Chairman Bennett and Senator Feinstein 
and other members of our committee in defending the funding levels 
recommended in the Senate bill for the U.S. Capitol Police. I trust we 
will succeed in convincing our counterparts on the other side of the 
Capitol of the need for that increase.
  I congratulate Senator Mikulski, too, on the resolution which she has 
offered, which she was kind enough to allow me to cosponsor. That is a 
good amendment and this is a good bill which, I believe, deserves the 
support of every Senator.
  I again congratulate Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein. I again 
thank them. The Senate is in their debt. The Congress is in their debt. 
The people of the country are in their debt because this is the 
people's Capitol. This is the people's branch.
  These two Senators have done excellent work in bringing 
recommendations to the Senate. I salute them, thank them, commend them, 
and say: Long may the great God who is the Judge of us all and in Whose 
hands rests the destiny of the Nation continue to bless this great 
country and this great Capitol of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it seems just a day or two ago--the fact of 
the matter is, it was almost 40 years ago--that I served as a Capitol 
policeman. I can remember being out on the steps on the east front of 
the Capitol. I worked the night shift while I attended law school 
during the day. I remember one of my first duty stations was to be 
present during the concerts which took place every night.
  I can remember a lot of things. One thing I remember is Senator Carl 
Hayden coming to the concerts every night. He had been in Congress more 
than 50 years at that time. He was still mentally alert but physically 
infirm. He would come in his wheelchair. As a Capitol policeman, I 
would stand near him during these concerts.
  Quite frankly, Mr. President, the most dangerous thing I did as a 
Capitol policeman was to direct traffic. Directing traffic was a little 
dangerous in those days. I can remember that on Constitution Avenue, 
they had railroad tracks. And there were cars all over the place. It 
sounds a little facetious when I say it was the most dangerous thing I 
did, but it was true. I was barely old enough to carry a gun. One had 
to be 21. I carried a pistol. Thank goodness, I never took it out of 
the holster during the time I was a Capitol policeman.
  I have very fond memories of being a Capitol policeman. Like Senator 
Byrd, I can remember coming from a town of 200 at the southern tip of 
the State of Nevada where we had a policeman by the name of Big John. 
Growing up in Searchlight, he was ``the law.'' But here in Washington, 
for me to walk in a uniform at night down these Halls--there was nobody 
in these Halls when I made my rounds--it brought a chill to my soul, 
thinking I was able to work in this Capitol and walk past the statues 
of the great men and women who made this country what it is.
  For me now, to think I have served in the House of Representatives, 
the greatest democratic body in the history of the world--no one has 
ever served in the House unless they have been elected. In the Senate, 
there have been people who have served who had been appointed, but 
never in the House of Representatives. And then to serve in the Senate. 
I told one of my friends I was lucky. He said: ``You are not lucky, you 
are blessed.'' That is really true. I was wrong, and he was right.
  I am blessed to serve in the Senate of the United States. I walk down 
these Halls many times a week to Senator Byrd's old office. As you 
know, the Democratic whip's office is down on the next floor. Senator, 
did you know that the fireplace was put in that office in 1824? When I 
walk down there, even with people around, I get that same chill I had 
as a young man in a police uniform. This is truly a wonderful building. 
I sometimes wonder why I am so fortunate to serve here. I am, and I 
accept those responsibilities along with the privilege.
  I have never forgotten that I was a Capitol Police officer. I can 
remember when I was transferred to the House. In 1961, Henry Gonzalez 
from Texas, was a freshman Congressman. I can remember the very lonely 
duty I had over there. This freshman Congressman from Texas worked late 
at night, and he would say to me: ``Can I bring you something to eat? 
Can I bring you something to drink?''
  Another Member I remember was Congressman Lindsay from New York, who 
later became the mayor of New York City. These are the two people I 
remember reaching out to a police officer, reaching out in kindness. It 
made me feel good about my job.
  Like Senator Wellstone so eloquently stated, I have tried to be kind, 
thoughtful, and considerate to police officers. They have such an 
important job, and are often overlooked because things get so crazy 
around here.
  The world is so different than it was 40 years ago. Unfortunately, 
there are people who are hellbent upon destroying this facility, not 
just damaging the Rayburn Building. I say to my friend from West 
Virginia, immediately before that bomb went off in the Rayburn 
Building, the Nevada State Society held a meeting there. We were the 
last group to meet in that room. I was a Member of the House at the 
time that explosion took place, and I remember the incident as if it 
happened yesterday.
  Today, it seems that people are no longer content with blowing out a 
few windows. They want to destroy this facility, and, if given the 
opportunity, they could. That is why we have to reach out to the men 
and women who provide security for us on a daily basis. But, it's not 
just us, Mr. President. The Capitol Police provides security for all 
the staff we see throughout these buildings, the people without whom we

[[Page 9005]]

would not be able to do our jobs. Most importantly, the Capitol Police 
is also charged with providing security for the millions of people who 
come to this beautiful Capitol complex each year.
  We simply must ensure that we take care of the Capitol Police. The 
Capitol Police are very well trained. Today, as I was proceeding to a 
meeting in the Dirksen Building, I saw a man climb out of a car dressed 
in SWAT team apparel. I asked the officer with whom I was walking about 
him, and he told me that he was a member of the SWAT team. He was 
dressed like you would see in a movie. He is here because he is needed. 
We have demolition experts, people who are experts in defusing bombs. 
They are called upon to do that more often than we know. Again, they 
are here because, unfortunate as it may be, they are needed.
  Often time, we only hear about the heroics of the Capitol Police when 
something goes wrong. We know when someone breaks a bottle and tries to 
attack other people because the press is there to capture the event-in-
the-making. We know about the tragic deaths of Officer Chestnut and 
Detective Gibson because the press covered it in such detail. The many 
things we do not know about are the tragedies that are averted because 
of the skill and proficiency of the Capitol Police. Their training is 
as good as any police force in America.
  When I served on the Capitol Police, all that training was not 
necessary. When people came to this building, we did not check to see 
what they had in their bags. We didn't have electronic machines for 
visitors to pass through. We did not check to see if they were staff. 
Our responsibilities were much different, much simpler.
  Every day, these men and women put their lives on the line for 
America--not for me, not for the Presiding Officer, but for America, to 
protect this beautiful structure and the people who visit it.
  Without belaboring the point, I have been fortunate to do a few 
things in my adult life. I am so privileged to represent the people of 
Nevada in this body. But this Senator is just as proud to have been a 
police officer, and I am proud of the fact I was a Capitol policeman.
  I extend to my friend from Utah, the chairman of this subcommittee, 
and my friend from California, the ranking member, my appreciation for 
crafting this bill on a bipartisan basis. Not only have they reached 
out to protect the Capitol Police, which is so important, but they have 
also reached out to protect the rest of the staff.
  I had the good fortune to serve as chairman of the legislative branch 
appropriations subcommittee when I first came to the Senate. I loved 
that job, because we did some very constructive things.
  We see things in the other body on the other side of the Capitol that 
have not been very constructive. In fact, they have been destructive. I 
would say to my colleagues that the chairman and ranking member have 
brought about some dignity to the legislative branch of Government.
  The other body, for example, drastically cut the Government Printing 
Office which does very important things for this country. In the State 
of Nevada, the Government Printing Office has 11 different institutions 
to which they supply periodicals and other materials.
  Across the country, there are more than 1,300 institutions that serve 
as official depository libraries which disseminate more than 16.1 
million official Government documents to the general public every 
year--every year, over 16 million documents the public gets from the 
Government Printing Office.
  In Nevada, there are 11 such libraries, the 2 largest of which exist 
on the campuses of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas and Reno.
  The depository is a bargain when one considers the program as a 
whole.
  While the GPO supplies the printed materials, the university, 
college, and other public libraries which participate in the Federal 
Depository Library Program supply the space to house the documents, the 
staff to assist the public, as well as the computers, the photocopiers, 
and other equipment needed to use this information. In other words, the 
GPO embodies the public's access to government.
  What if we were to cut off that access? There would be--rightfully 
so--a public outcry that such access to government had been denied. If 
we were to cut back the staff the way the other body did, that is what 
we would have to do--limit the public's access to their government. The 
ranking member and the chairman have made every effort to stop this, 
and that is very important.
  I also think that it is very important we recognize that the General 
Accounting Office--because of the work you have done--has been, in 
effect, spared. We complain because we do not get our reports and other 
information fast enough from the General Accounting Office. Why? 
Because in the past we have cut them back a significant amount. They 
are already working with a very lean staff. Thank goodness the ranking 
member and the chairman have taken care of this. This Senator 
appreciates that very much.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator was talking about how the Capitol Police are 
careful to search our briefcases and to be on the alert for all people 
who walk through the doors.
  A couple weeks ago, after I reached my house one evening, I got to 
looking for something, and I decided I left it on my desk in my office.
  I said to my wife: I am going back up to the Capitol.
  She said: Do you want me to go with you?
  I said: Yes.
  She and I are going to be married, by the way, this coming Monday, 63 
years.
  As I said, she said: Do you want me to go with you?
  Anyhow, she came up here with me. I had already changed clothes. I 
had an old slouch rainhat on. I had some old wear-around-the-house 
trousers and some scuffy-looking shoes. I came up here with a slouch 
sweatshirt and had it outside my trousers.
  I walked in down here and went through the magnetometer. I guess I am 
the only Senator who goes through the magnetometer. I don't know. But I 
do. I do that so the police and others who may get some complaints from 
some people who go through that magnetometer can say, Senator Byrd, who 
has been around this floor longer than any other Member of the House or 
Senate, who has been around here longer than any staff member on this 
Hill, goes through that.
  So I went through that magnetometer. And there were two policemen 
standing there. They were not the regular attendants at the door. And 
they did not see any ID card on me with a chain around my neck. So one 
of them said to me: Sir, are you a staff member? And I laughed. I said: 
No, I'm not a staff member. I just want to compliment you on doing the 
kind of job you are supposed to do. No, I'm not a staff member.
  So they were on the alert. They did what they were supposed to do. I 
salute them for it. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. REID. Thank you very much, I say to Senator Byrd.
  Let me say that I sat with awe as I listened to your presentation. It 
was very well done, as usual. There is no one in this institution who 
has the feeling for not only this building, not only this institution, 
the Senate, but for our country than you do. I have great, great 
respect for what you have done to inspire me to try to do a better job.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, one of the things I say to my two 
colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member, is, if the other body 
is looking for additional sources of money, I think they should take a 
closer look at their franking practices. I am the last person to tell 
the other body what to do with franking, even though in the past, when 
I was chairman of the Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, 
we had some real battles dealing with franking. We cut our Senate 
franking practices tremendously. In fact, we now hear complaints that

[[Page 9006]]

we do not have enough money to mail to our constituents. We have really 
tightened our belts, especially with mass mailings.
  But, let's talk about the other body. In 1994, as part of a 
bipartisan effort that was initiated by Senator Mack and myself, our 
subcommittee successfully instituted sweeping reforms regarding 
franking privileges in the Senate. In fact, we cut overall mail costs 
by 50 percent between 1994 and 1995.
  As part of the same initiative, the House, in 1995, combined its 
mail, staff, and office expense accounts, and instituted an expenditure 
limit on mail based upon an allowance fund.
  However, Mr. President, that was changed. In 1999, according to the 
Congressional Research Service, the House, unfortunately, eliminated 
any expenditure limit on franking privileges.
  So if the House is looking for some ways to get some money, they can 
always use some of the money they reapplied to franking just last year.
  Also, I want to talk about the Congressional Research Service, for 
which I have the greatest respect. It is a great program, the 
Congressional Research Service. If we have a problem, we can have some 
research done. That is what it is. It helps our constituents, our 
staffs, and helps us Members of Congress.
  These cutbacks that have been requested in the other body are simply 
not wise. I think it goes without saying that we need the Congressional 
Research Service so that we are not forced to rely upon a group of 
lobbyists.
  I, again, commend the chairman and ranking member for their work to 
ensure that the Congressional Research Service is protected.
  Finally, let me say, in closing, we have appropriated $100 million 
for the Visitors Center. I am not happy with the fact we are reaching 
out to the private sector to get money to help build what I think 
should be a totally Government institution.
  A Visitors Center is long overdue. I hope we get it done quickly. I 
have been told, though I have heard this before, that construction is 
going to start soon.
  I think it says a lot that we, in Washington, do not have a facility 
for visitors to come into this Capitol. That is one of the reasons why 
Officer Gibson and Detective Chestnut are dead, because we did not have 
a visitor entrance where people could be checked to see if they have 
weapons before coming into the Capitol.
  Also, separate and apart from the security aspect of it, it is 
important that visitors have a place to come in during cold weather to 
stay warm until they can come into the Capitol, and a place during hot 
weather to stay cool, and a place where they can get a soft drink, a 
glass of water, or go to the bathroom. This is long overdue.
  I hope this initiative will move forward expeditiously. I also hope 
this eyesore that we have out here with the painted lines on the road 
and all that other stuff will quickly be done away with. The east front 
of the Capitol should be just as beautiful as the rest of the Capitol 
complex. I hope we take care of that very quickly.
  Mr. President, I reiterate my gratitude and recognition of the 
leadership of Senators Bennett and Feinstein. I wish them well not only 
in the passage of this bill, but also wishing them well in conference, 
where all eyes of the Senate, including our staff and the brave men and 
women of the Capitol police and other legislative branch agencies, will 
be upon them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senators who have spoken in 
such generous terms. It helps to have a bill that is relatively 
noncontroversial and to be on the side of the issues where most 
Senators are to get those glowing terms, but nonetheless, I am grateful 
for them. I appreciate the comments.


               Amendment Nos. 3167 through 3170, En Bloc

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send to the desk a managers' package of 
four amendments and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself and Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 3167 through 
     3170.

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


                           Amendment No. 3167

       At the appropriate place insert:
       The first sentence under the subheading ``sergeant at arms 
     and doorkeeper of the senate'' under the heading ``Contingent 
     Expenses of the Senate'' under title I of the bill is amended 
     by inserting ``, of which $2,500,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2003'' after ``$71,261,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3168

       At the appropriate place insert:

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. __. (a) Section 201 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (40 U.S.C. 216c note) is amended by 
     striking ``$10,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``$14,500,000''.
       (b) Section 201 of such Act is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Pursuant'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The Architect of the Capitol is authorized to 
     solicit, receive, accept, and hold amounts under section 
     307E(a)(2) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 
     (40 U.S.C. 216c(a)(2)) in excess of the $14,500,000 
     authorized under subsection (a), but such amounts (and any 
     interest thereon) shall not be expended by the Architect 
     without approval in appropriation Acts as required under 
     section 307E(b)(3) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 216c(b)(3)).''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3169

       At the end of title III, insert:

     SEC. 312. CENTER FOR RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the legislative 
     branch of the Government a center to be known as the ``Center 
     for Russian Leadership Development'' (the ``Center'').
       (2) Board of trustees.--The Center shall be subject to the 
     supervision and direction of a Board of Trustees which shall 
     be composed of 9 members as follows:
       (A) 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, 1 of whom shall be designated by the 
     Majority Leader of the House of Representatives and 1 of whom 
     shall be designated by the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) 2 members appointed by the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate, 1 of whom shall be designated by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate and 1 of whom shall be designated by the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (C) The Librarian of Congress.
       (D) 4 private individuals with interests in improving 
     United States and Russian relations, designated by the 
     Librarian of Congress.

     Each member appointed under this paragraph shall serve for a 
     term of 3 years. Any vacancy shall be filled in the same 
     manner as the original appointment and the individual so 
     appointed shall serve for the remainder of the term. Members 
     of the Board shall serve without pay, but shall be entitled 
     to reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary 
     expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.
       (b) Purpose and Authority of the Center.--
       (1) Purpose.--The purpose of the Center is to establish, in 
     accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2), a program to 
     enable emerging political leaders of Russia at all levels of 
     government to gain significant, firsthand exposure to the 
     American free market economic system and the operation of 
     American democratic institutions through visits to 
     governments and communities at comparable levels in the 
     United States.
       (2) Grant program.--Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), the Center shall establish a program under which 
     the Center annually awards grants to government or community 
     organizations in the United States that seek to establish 
     programs under which those organizations will host Russian 
     nationals who are emerging political leaders at any level of 
     government.
       (3) Restrictions.--
       (A) Duration.--The period of stay in the United States for 
     any individual supported with grant funds under the program 
     shall not exceed 30 days.
       (B) Limitation.--The number of individuals supported with 
     grant funds under the program shall not exceed 3,000 in any 
     fiscal year.
       (C) Use of funds.--Grant funds under the program shall be 
     used to pay--
       (i) the costs and expenses incurred by each program 
     participant in traveling between Russia and the United States 
     and in traveling within the United States;
       (ii) the costs of providing lodging in the United States to 
     each program participant, whether in public accommodations or 
     in private homes; and

[[Page 9007]]

       (iii) such additional administrative expenses incurred by 
     organizations in carrying out the program as the Center may 
     prescribe.
       (4) Application.--
       (A) In general.--Each organization in the United States 
     desiring a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Center at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such information as the Center may reasonably 
     require.
       (B) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) describe the activities for which assistance under this 
     section is sought;
       (ii) include the number of program participants to be 
     supported;
       (iii) describe the qualifications of the individuals who 
     will be participating in the program; and
       (iv) provide such additional assurances as the Center 
     determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the 
     requirements of this section.
       (c) Establishment of Fund.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Russian 
     Leadership Development Center Trust Fund'' (the ``Fund'') 
     which shall consist of amounts which may be appropriated, 
     credited, or transferred to it under this section.
       (2) Donations.--Any money or other property donated, 
     bequeathed, or devised to the Center under the authority of 
     this section shall be credited to the Fund.
       (3) Fund management.--
       (A) In general.--The provisions of subsections (b), (c), 
     and (d) of section 116 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 U.S.C. 1105 (b), (c), and (d)), 
     and the provisions of section 117(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     1106(b)), shall apply to the Fund.
       (B) Expenditures.--The Secretary of the Treasury is 
     authorized to pay to the Center from amounts in the Fund such 
     sums as the Board of Trustees of the Center determines are 
     necessary and appropriate to enable the Center to carry out 
     the provisions of this section.
       (d) Executive Director.--The Board shall appoint an 
     Executive Director who shall be the chief executive officer 
     of the Center and who shall carry out the functions of the 
     Center subject to the supervision and direction of the Board 
     of Trustees. The Executive Director of the Center shall be 
     compensated at the annual rate specified by the Board, but in 
     no event shall such rate exceed level III of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Administrative Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--The provisions of section 119 of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 U.S.C. 1108) 
     shall apply to the Center.
       (2) Support provided by library of congress.--The Library 
     of Congress may disburse funds appropriated to the Center, 
     compute and disburse the basic pay for all personnel of the 
     Center, provide administrative, legal, financial management, 
     and other appropriate services to the Center, and collect 
     from the Fund the full costs of providing services under this 
     paragraph, as provided under an agreement for services 
     ordered under sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (g) Transfer of Funds.--Any amounts appropriated for use in 
     the program established under section 3011 of the 1999 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31; 
     113 Stat 93) shall be transferred to the Fund and shall 
     remain available without fiscal year limitation.
       (h) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall take effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Transfer.--Subsection (g) shall only apply to amounts 
     which remain unexpended on and after the date the Board of 
     Trustees of the Center certifies to the Librarian of Congress 
     that grants are ready to be made under the program 
     established under this section.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3170

       Section 309(1) of the bill is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     year 2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 1999 and 2000.''

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on 
both sides. The first one is an amendment for the Sergeant at Arms to 
make $2.5 million of funds appropriated available until September 2003. 
The second is an amendment to raise the cap on the amount of private 
funds that can be provided to the National Garden. The third is an 
amendment to create a fund to allow for private funds to endow the 
Russian Leadership Program of the Library of Congress. And the fourth 
amendment is a technical correction to section 309.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments. 
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3167 through 3170), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that the chairman of the 
full committee, Senator Stevens, is anxious to come to the floor to 
make a statement. I will suggest the absence of a quorum to allow him 
to come, unless the Senator from California has something that she 
wishes to say at this time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is fine.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to talk about a couple of issues. 
First of all, I commend the distinguished ranking member, Senator 
Feinstein, and the chair of the appropriations subcommittee for their 
outstanding work on the legislative appropriations bill. Many of our 
colleagues have come to the floor already to speak as eloquently as I 
have heard about the importance of the Capitol Police, about the 
importance of those who serve us in so many capacities throughout the 
Capitol and throughout the Capitol complex itself.
  I want to express my support for this bill and for the statement that 
it makes about the importance that we as Senators put on the work done 
by our Capitol Police each and every day. Those of us who are fortunate 
enough to be in Leadership especially recognize the unique role the 
Capitol Police play. They are with us almost from the time we leave the 
house to the time we are dropped off at the house late at night. They 
are with us publicly. They follow us. They protect us. They provide 
service to us in the most exemplary and professional manner. I think it 
would be all too easy for some to misinterpret the ill-advised actions 
taken thus far by the House in their legislative branch appropriations 
bill.
  It was really for that reason many of us felt the need not only to 
support a good Senate legislative appropriations bill, but to 
underscore the numbers and the commitment made in the Senate version of 
this bill by cosponsoring and supporting the amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland.
  We want to say just two words without equivocation to the Capitol 
Police, to the members of the Congressional Research Service, to the 
GAO, and to all of those who work so diligently and professionally each 
and every day: Thank you. Thank you for what you do. Thank you for how 
you do it. Thank you for setting the example. Thank you for the 
extraordinary dedication you demonstrate to public service.
  That is really the message. I will be surprised if we don't see a 
100-0 vote in our expression of gratitude and our desire to ensure that 
they realize how much we appreciate what they do. While we may not say 
it each and every day, and we may not walk up as we probably should 
from time to time to a Capitol Police officer, or to one of our floor 
staff, or to any of those who serve us, maybe in this small way we can 
say as a body, as Senators, regardless of political or philosophical 
persuasion, thank you. We express our sincere and heartfelt gratitude 
to each and every one of you for dedicating your lives to public 
service, and in some cases dedicating your lives to the safety of 
others, safety that oftentimes asks too much of police officers and 
their families, as we saw just 2 years ago.
  So this is as an important a statement as I think we will make this 
year regarding our Capitol Police and our staff in many respects, and I 
am hopeful that it won't go unnoticed. I am hopeful that this will 
serve as a big exclamation point that we are very grateful, and that we 
are appreciative in ways that probably are not articulated on a regular 
basis.




                          ____________________