[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11989-12012]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 20001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4516.

                              {time}  1103


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4516) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Hansen in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.

[[Page 11990]]

  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present the Legislative Branch 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 2001. First, I want to begin by 
thanking the members of the Subcommittee on Legislative for their hard 
work in writing this bill. They include the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp), the vice chairman; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), a long-time member of the subcommittee; the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger); and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Then we have the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the ranking 
member, who has worked hard with the committee and myself to prepare 
this bill; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who are our other members of the 
subcommittee.
  I also want to thank the full committee chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
full committee ranking minority member for their assistance.
  The bill was considered and ordered reported by the full committee on 
May 9. The bill was actually reported to the House May 23, 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill continues the program begun in the 104th 
Congress to right-size the legislative branch of government. We have 
become more efficient, with a smaller workforce, and use technology 
wherever we can, as long as it helps us to do our jobs better. We have 
done those things.
  Since fiscal 1995, the last year of the other party's control of the 
House, we have reduced the legislative branch appropriation in real 
terms by a very significant amount. Had spending on legislative branch 
followed the old trend that we were on long before the Republican 
majority took over, the bill would total over $2.2 billion, fully $400 
million higher than the bill we brought to the House today.
  Together, Mr. Chairman, with my predecessor subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), we have saved the taxpayers nearly $1.5 billion in 
the last 6 years, if all the Senate operations are included.
  Since the early 1990s, legislative branch employment has been reduced 
by a full 8,217 full-time jobs. That is a reduction of 21.5 percent of 
our entire workforce. In comparison, the executive branch has only 
reduced their workforce by 10 percent, and the Judiciary has actually 
increased by 13.2 percent.
  The fiscal year legislative branch appropriation bill totals $1.8 
billion in new obligation authority, of which $1.1 billion is for 
congressional operations, exclusive of Senate items. This includes 
operations of the House, Congressional Budget Office, several joint 
items, the Architect of the Capitol, and congressional printing. The 
balance of the bill, $705 million, is for the operations of other 
legislative branch agencies, such as the General Accounting Office, 
Library of Congress, and the Superintendent of Documents.
  The bill is actually $281 million below the budget request, a 13.4 
percent reduction, and is $105 million below the current fiscal year, 
including the pending supplement, a 5.5 percent reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, those are the general parameters of the bill. I am not 
going into the details because I do have an amendment. Since the bill 
was marked up by the subcommittee, we have worked hard to raise the 302 
allocations. We have succeeded. Our new allocation has given us the 
ability to present to the House a bill that both saves the country 
money by using technology, as technology has made our entire country 
more efficient, it is working in the legislature, and still enable us 
to carry on the work of the Congress and its agencies. Consequently, I 
have asked the Committee on Rules to allow, and the rule does allow, a 
manager's amendment, which I will offer at the conclusion of debate.
  This amendment has been worked out in a bipartisan manner. It 
reflects guidance from the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and our leadership; it incorporates 
several suggestions made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
the ranking member of our full committee; and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). We are happy to 
offer this amendment.
  This amendment will avoid unwise and counterproductive layoffs, will 
maintain capitol security, building maintenance, and research and 
oversight capabilities at the Congressional Research Service and the 
General Accounting Office. It will provide the House with the staff, 
resources, and research capabilities needed to conduct our business. It 
will provide the necessary security to protect visitors, Members, staff 
and legislative activities.
  There will be no need for layoffs, no need to withhold cost of living 
or merit increases for those who are eligible or otherwise deserve such 
salary adjustments. There will be no reductions in force in any of the 
legislative branch agencies. There will still be an overall estimated 
decrease of 536 FTEs. However, these staff reductions can be achieved 
through buyouts and attrition.
  Mr. Chairman, I will defer further explanation until the appropriate 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the manager's amendment. As my 
colleagues know, as we came out of the committee, the Committee on 
Appropriations, there were great concerns over security, maintenance of 
the buildings, and whether or not the supportive agencies that support 
this Congress were funded appropriately.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for working on this bill, 
the manager's amendment, in a very bipartisan manner. The gentleman 
from North Carolina has involved me in all the negotiations and working 
on this manager's amendment, so I want to thank him for the bipartisan 
workmanship he has provided.
  Mr. Chairman, with the additional money that has been found, we have 
now been able to restore in the Member's account monies that would 
allow the Members to give cost of living to the staff. It will ensure 
that the new Members and the transition costs that they will encounter 
will be met. It also restores money for equipment purchases in the 
Members' offices. And as far as Members' offices are concerned, it 
brings the money that is needed for personnel and equipment.
  As it deals with the police, it restores all the COLAs, all the 
additional benefits that are needed and required, and it brings the 
current staff on board to 1,361. There will be no RIFs. The current 
class of about 96 trainees will be incorporated, and it will allow an 
additional class of 48 trainees. So the issue of security is addressed. 
And I would tell my colleagues that I think that it is restored to the 
level that we want.
  I would like to make a comment on the police. In the past, there has 
been some concern over management and administration. In this bill, we 
have language that fences some of this money so that, hopefully, we can 
get the cooperation of the police board and the new chief as we solve 
security problems. As we are able to install more security equipment, 
we need to look at what other policies we can change so that we can 
maintain the security that is desired, at least two people at the door, 
but, at the same time, minimize overtime and additional personnel.
  We need to work together to ensure that the Capitol and the House 
buildings are secured, but we need to ensure that policies are 
implemented that answer the problems of not only more personnel but the 
working relationship with the police board, the chief, and the 
appropriate House committees so we can ensure that we are secure but 
the monies are used effectively.

                              {time}  1115

  To CBO we restore funding for 215 full-time employees, and we believe 
that attrition will cover this and CBO is allowed discretion.
  The Architect, his budget avoids RIFs and allows for next year's new

[[Page 11991]]

Members' transition and funds the daytime cleaning services, something 
we were concerned about as this bill left the committee.
  CRS, very important to us. They have an accession program in place. 
This bill, if adopted by the manager's amendment, will restore all the 
CRS staff. It allows a pay increase and it will allow the accession 
program to continue.
  There are some cuts in the GPO and also the GAO, but we are working 
with them to ensure that the programs that are in place would allow 
them to deal with this budget and be successful in providing services 
to the Congress.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we are supportive of the manager's amendment. We 
would ask our Members to support it in order that this House will 
continue to provide its services to its constituents.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the chairman of 
the subcommittee and the ranking member, the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Pastor).
  Part of the dialogue this morning is on the Capitol Police purchasing 
American-made motorcycles. We went through this some years back. In 
fact, they did get the use of a Harley-Davidson to use on the Capitol 
Grounds.
  The upshot was that the officers involved in the trial period really 
love the new cycle. It would be equipped so they could use it for 
traffic stops and other type of police functions.
  However, before the order actually went through, there was a row with 
the company and the equipment and the deal, and I think it was for 
eight cycles at that point, fell through. But I think it is time that 
we revisit the issue.
  For visitors coming to the Nation's Capitol to see our Capitol Police 
on Kawasakis and Hondas is quite embarrassing, at least to this Member. 
I think that we do have American-made cycles that will fit the bill and 
the subcommittee; and the language that is being inserted in the bill 
will at least have the Chief of the Capitol Police look at it and 
possibly buy American and have our Capitol Police persons ride on a 
new, decent, operative motorcycle.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me engage in a 
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor), last year during the debate on the 2000 Legislative 
appropriation bill, the Capitol Police were directed to look into the 
possibility of using American-made motorcycles in their security 
mission.
  Is it not true that they have recently advised us of the current 
status of this directive?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, 
yes, and I have a letter from Chief Varey of the Chief of the Capitol 
Police received today. I include a copy of the letter for the Record:

                                              U.S. Capitol Police,


                                          Office of the Chief,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
     Hon. Charles H. Taylor,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you may recall, the Conference Report 
     for the Capitol Police Fiscal Year 2000 General Expenses 
     appropriations contained the following language:
       ``With respect to vehicles, the conferees recognize the 
     need of the Capitol Police to upgrade and possibly expand 
     their existing fleet of motorcycles to help fulfill their 
     security mission, and provide $103,000 for that purpose from 
     existing funds.''
       In response to this provision, the Department has surveyed 
     the product lines of sixty motorcycle dealers and 
     manufacturers who reportedly manufacture motorcycles in the 
     United States which meet the specific needs of the 
     Department's smaller sized motorcycles. As a result of this 
     survey, only two United States manufacturers--Harley-Davidson 
     and Buell--offer motorcycles which satisfy the Department's 
     criteria in terms of engine size, body weight, and DOT street 
     certification.
       Following this survey, on May 12, the Capitol Police met 
     with representatives from Harley-Davidson to discuss the 
     Department's need to upgrade and expand its motorcycle fleet. 
     As a result of this meeting, Harley-Davidson has agreed to 
     provide the Department with two, smaller displacement models 
     for testing and evaluation--the Harley-Davidson Sportster 883 
     and the Buell Blast 492. Arrangements are currently underway 
     to deliver these motorcycles to the Department for its 
     assessment.
       Additionally, the Department has identified the need to 
     upgrade its current fleet of the larger Harley-Davidson 
     FLHTPI Electra Glide--a 1450 cc model utilized by the 
     Department for special events, traffic enforcement and 
     motorcades. It is the Department's intent to purchase six new 
     Electra Glides while trading-in its three, older model 
     Electra Glides to reduce the procurement costs of the new 
     motorcycles and to avoid incurring unnecessary parts and 
     maintenance expenses.
       I look forward to discussing this matter with you or your 
     staff, should you so desire, and I will be pleased to forward 
     the results of the product test and evaluation exercise for 
     your review and information.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James J. Varey,
                                                  Chief of Police.

  The Chief says that they have identified two United States 
manufacturers, Harley Davidson and Buell, who have motorcycles that 
satisfy the Department's criteria.
  The Capitol Police have made arrangements to test these vehicles, and 
they will report the results to our committee for our review.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the 
chairman of the subcommittee and ranking member of the subcommittee for 
having produced a bill under difficult, severe limitations and to 
compliment them on the manager's amendment that will be offered to 
solve some of the problems that were created by the first bill.
  I rise at this time since the distinguished ranking member has raised 
the issue of the Capitol Police. We should be very proud of all of our 
Capitol Police officers. They are very well-trained. They are certainly 
dedicated to their mission here in the Capitol.
  But one of the concerns that I have and the Congress has had is the 
fact that we could bring our Capitol Police force into a more modern 
age. There is technology available that would make them far more 
effective than they are today. Congress has provided additional funding 
to do this. But the previous management of the Capitol Police force, 
for some reason, just decided not to go ahead and move into the state-
of-the-art technology.
  I think that is a mistake. Just adding more people does not 
necessarily get the job done if we do not provide the technology that 
they need to do their job.
  To give my colleagues an example of what I am talking about, with 
this bill that we will pass today, there will be 1,241 members of the 
Capitol Police force. This is a substantial number, but they do have a 
substantial obligation and responsibility.
  But compare that to some other cities in the United States. Nashville 
Davidson, with a population of 510,000 people, has only 38 more sworn 
police officers than our Capitol Police force. Portland, Oregon, with 
503,000 people, only has 962 sworn police officers, compared to our 
1,241. Ft. Worth, Texas, with a population of 491,000, has less sworn 
officers than the Capitol Police force. In my area in Florida, the City 
of Tampa, which is an extremely large city, has only 916 sworn police 
officers.
  These cities tend to get the job done, but most of them have taken 
advantage of the new technology that we have been trying to get the 
management of our Capitol Police to employ. And they have not done that 
yet.
  The amendment that the managers will offer today will help improve 
the funding available for our Capitol Police force, and I think that is 
good. I am a very strong advocate and supporter of that manager's 
amendment. But I must say that I think, once again, we should be 
reminding those who administer and

[[Page 11992]]

manage our Capitol Police force, not the police officers themselves but 
those in supervisory positions, ought to take advantage of the funding 
that we have made available for new technology that makes the job 
easier for those who wear the uniform and guard this Capitol of ours.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee 
for working through this compromise. This bill is far preferable to the 
original bill that was brought to the House. It meets our duty to 
provide for adequate police protection on the Capitol Grounds.
  There are still some problems with it because it does not allow the 
hiring of as many Capitol Police as the Department feels necessary. But 
it is certainly preferable to the original bill.
  I would say that there are also some other problems which need to be 
corrected between now and final passage of this bill. The General 
Accounting Office will have to impose an immediate freeze and reduce 
their employment level by 160 people. That is not a good idea because 
they are supposed to be our watchdog on financial and management 
affairs, and we are crippling the very agency that is charged with the 
responsibility to help us save taxpayers' money.
  The Congressional Research Service accession plan is not funded, and 
I think that is a serious mistake. There are a number of other 
shortcomings with the funding level in the Copyright Office and some 
other areas.
  I would be willing to support this bill if it stays in the condition 
that it is right now, but I will not support it if damaging amendments 
are attached, such as the lockbox amendment, because people need to 
understand how it works.
  It sounds enticing to say we are going to have a lockbox and every 
time you cut money on the floor on an amendment that is going to go in 
a lockbox and is not going to be used. But under our rules, if you are 
considering a HUD appropriation bill and you want to cut an item in HUD 
so that you can put the money into another item in a different 
appropriation bill, such as education or defense, right now we can do 
that under our rules. We can cut the money on the floor and then, in 
conference, that money can wind up somewhere else, either in the same 
bill or in a different appropriation bill, or it may not be spent at 
all.
  But under the lockbox provision, you could not cut money in one bill 
and expect to try to use it in another. You would be precluded from 
doing that. That would make our problem in getting conference reports 
out in a timely fashion immeasurably more difficult and I think it 
would increase the likelihood that we never finish our budget work. It 
would increase the likelihood of more controversy and even, God forbid, 
Government shutdown.
  So I would urge Members to recognize that sometimes what is 
underneath the surface is not as pretty as what it would appear to be 
on the surface.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
ofttimes people are relatively insensitive to the specifics of such a 
proposal as it might apply to legislative branch, which is this bill.
  Should we pass this amendment that is being proposed today, what that 
does to us as we go to conference with the other body on just the 
legislative branch proposal puts the House at a considerable 
disadvantage. There are any number of issues that underlie that that we 
ought to be thinking about. And this is not a partisan consideration. 
It affects the House of Representatives. And that should be paramount 
in our minds.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  The other problem with it is that we are assigned a specific number 
under the budget act, and let us say one subcommittee is given a $3 
billion allocation, and just because this House takes an action to 
temporarily cut that bill by $50 million does not mean that the Senate 
is going to follow suit.
  If the Senate has another higher level for that same bill, then when 
we go into conference we will have lost $50 million that the House 
wants to apply to its priorities and that will make the gap between us 
and the Senate much larger. And I do not think we want to do that after 
the experiences we have had the last 2 years in trying to get 
appropriation bills passed in a speedy fashion.
  So this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with party. It has 
nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. It has everything to do with 
how much you understand the details of how the budgeting process works. 
Because if you understand that and if you have ever had to manage a 
bill on either the majority or the minority side of the aisle, you will 
understand this is not a workable process.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to identify myself with the comments that I have 
heard this morning from both sides of the aisle relative to this bill.
  When we wrote this bill at the subcommittee, where I serve with the 
distinguished chairman and the ranking member and some very thoughtful 
Members, I spoke with great reservations about the allocations that we 
had with respect to this bill.
  The balancing act that we have is that the American people expect us 
to do our job to the fullest extent. And without the resources of 
Congressional Research Service, without the Capitol Hill Police to 
adequately protect all of the grounds and the people and the millions 
of visitors that come through here every year, we cannot adequately do 
our job. And so, that is the balancing act. Yet, we must lead by 
example on tightening our belts as tight and as slim as we can without 
crossing the line of inefficiency.
  Sometimes we cannot afford not to invest in these resources. And that 
is where we find ourselves. So this manager's amendment restores the 
necessary money for us to feel like we are doing our job effectively 
and efficiently, which is what the people demand.

                              {time}  1130

  I want to applaud our leadership for finding the extra money, working 
in a bipartisan way, staying cool, working together, because, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, at this point my reservations 
have diminished and we can support this bill collectively in a 
bipartisan manner knowing that we are doing what is right, because 
these are critical needs. Our Capitol Hill Police deserve our 
appreciation. They deserve to be called by their first name. They 
deserve to be recognized on a daily basis for laying their life down. 
They stand between any threat to not only us but all the people in this 
great place. It is important that we appreciate them. It is important 
that we fund them adequately.
  The folks at the Library of Congress deserve our support. Encourage 
them to be more efficient but support these critical missions of the 
legislative branch through this bill. I hope in a bipartisan way the 
whole House will now come together and rally around this bill and 
support it enthusiastically because I think it strikes a careful 
balance between efficiency and funding the essential services that the 
American people expect to see and to benefit from through the United 
States Congress.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on the job that he has 
done.
  During committee markup of this bill, the subcommittee chairman urged 
the members to support it despite in my opinion, which the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has also reflected, its substantial flaws, 
saying at

[[Page 11993]]

that point in time we were in the second round of a 10-round fight. In 
my opinion, the committee got knocked out in the third round. Having 
struggled to its feet, the committee now offers a somewhat better bill 
if the manager's amendment is adopted. But, in my opinion, this bill is 
still not a winner. We should knock it out again and demand even better 
for the people we serve.
  As members recall, the committee bill was so underfunded that it drew 
widespread, justified criticism. It would have cut over 1,700 employees 
from an already pared down legislative branch. It would have denied 
COLAs to the employees who remained. It would have dramatically 
impaired our ability to function, and not because the legislative 
branch is overfunded. It is not overfunded. This subcommittee has in 
the past under Democrats and Republicans been quite frugal. The 
committee's report admits that the cuts were, and I quote, ``not 
necessarily reductions the committee would have made if not constrained 
by the budget resolution.'' This is the immaculate-conception argument 
that has been used repeatedly with respect to our appropriation bills. 
Translation: these cuts were required to finance the GOP's election-
year tax cuts.
  The most egregious cut in the committee bill, of course, has been 
discussed. It would have cut 438 Capitol Police officers from the 
rolls, 338 by a reduction in force. Let me say something with respect 
to the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) observations. I do not have 
figures yet as to uniformed personnel, but our Committee on House 
Administration of which I have the privilege of being the ranking 
member, has authorized 1,511 personnel for the Capitol Police. Why? 
Because unlike the cities that the gentleman from Florida mentioned, we 
have millions, yes, millions of visitors to this Capitol complex every 
year, our constituents from all over the country.
  The bill as it was originally presented by the committee would pare 
security back below where it was 23 months ago, before our review 
generated by the deaths of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. The 
committee refused the Police Board's request for 100 new officers that 
the two postshooting reviews urged are needed to make the Capitol safe 
for visitors, staff and Members. Today's somewhat better bill, if the 
manager's amendment is adopted, funds 1,354 officers on the rolls, 
about 160 less than are authorized; it fills at least some of the 100 
or more vacancies expected next year; and funds a class of recruits 
that just started training. But in my view, Mr. Chairman, it fails to 
provide adequate security for thousands who work in or visit the 
complex, including the police, themselves, on a daily basis.
  Police funding is not the only problem with this bill. The committee 
bill would have slashed spending for the General Accounting Office, 
which helps us find waste, fraud and abuse in Federal spending, so 
deeply as to cut 707 staff. The manager's amendment somewhat solves 
that problem, and I congratulate the ranking member and the chairman 
for supporting it. But the somewhat better bill still cuts GAO by $8.7 
million below this year and 230 FTEs. So it is not like we are making 
anybody whole here. In 1999, GAO recommendations yielded savings of $57 
for every $1 we spent on the GAO. That is a good return, 57 to 1. I 
believe our taxpayers would think if we saved $57 by spending $1, we 
are ahead of the game.
  The committee bill also took, in my opinion, a meat-axe to the 
Government Printing Office, lopping over 25 percent of its funding and 
400 staff. The Senate bill increases GPO spending, only by four-tenths 
of a point, but increased it. The committee bill would have effectively 
ended the depository library program used by thousands and thousands of 
Americans weekly in most of our districts, eliminated entire classes of 
congressional printing and even printing for next January's 
inauguration which we know is coming.
  The improved bill still cuts GPO by 7.4 percent and 176 FTEs, 
including RIFs for 13 people who compile the Congressional Record 
Index. It restores most cuts to the depository program, I am referring 
to the manager's amendment, but still cuts printed publications, the 
kind most library customers actually want to read, going into libraries 
by 15,000. It restores the inaugural printing, but leaves Members 
without publications like ``Our Flag.'' It may sound silly, but every 
school child in America loves that publication and learns more about 
the flag. It cuts ``How Our Laws Are Made'' and delays reprinting of 
the only official version of the U.S. Code.
  The committee bill would have cut 156 staff from the Architect's 
office, many of them custodians and laborers who perform the basic 
maintenance of the Capitol. The somewhat better bill does fund the 
Architect staff but rejects his request for 13 FTEs to work on life 
safety matters, including fire safety which should be a priority for 
this institution.
  Overall, the bill still cuts 368 FTEs legislative-branch wide, after 
we have under the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina and 
his predecessors made substantial cuts every year over the last 5 years 
and indeed, as Mr. Lombard knows, even before that under Democratic 
control.
  Mr. Chairman, I regrettably cannot support this bill even with the 
manager's amendment. It shortchanges Capitol security and life safety 
programs, depository-library patrons, oversight of Federal spending and 
other functions to pay for election-year tax cuts. For most accounts, 
the Senate figures are where we should be after conference.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Defense.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if I read the lock box amendment right, I 
have a great concern about what they are trying to do. Much of the 
legislation we have passed initially is for negotiation purposes. We 
normally take projects out. We have taken as many as four destroyers 
out and over $1 billion normally in the subcommittee. But there are 
times when amendments have been offered on the floor and we have lost 
as much as $1 billion on the floor, but we go to the Senate and then we 
renegotiate the amount of money we have. As I understand the amendment, 
we would lose that money and we would lose the flexibility to negotiate 
with the Senate, or the other body; and they would have the same 
problem over there.
  So this really, I think, could be detrimental to good government 
rather than help government. It certainly would not help us because in 
the end we would be determining on the floor, we would be reducing the 
amount of money when really all people want to reduce is one particular 
system which later on may want to be increased again. This really 
worries me.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I did not have the opportunity because of time constraints 
to mention this amendment, but I agree wholeheartedly with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, one of the senior members of the Committee 
on Appropriations, and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
who have correctly pointed out the deficiencies of this lock-box 
amendment. I hope the chairman of our committee also believes that this 
would be harmful to our decision-making process and our flexibility, 
and would undermine our ability to make judgments on priorities as we 
proceed through the process, which is of course the point the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania made.
  This amendment, of course, did not come out of the subcommittee, did 
not come out of the full committee, but was made in order by the 
Committee on Rules. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, correctly observed the harmful 
effects that this would have on the entire House in a bipartisan way. I 
join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania in urging our colleagues to 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 11994]]


  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In response to the comments of the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I would refer all of the Members of the 
House to the adverse report that the Committee on Appropriations did 
report on H.R. 853, which would have created this lock box. It is a 
very good description of why it is not workable.
  Mr. MURTHA. I appreciate both gentlemen's comments. I would hope the 
House would be very careful in not adopting something that could be 
very detrimental to our flexibility in the long run, hurt our national 
security and I am sure have the same impact on any other bill that we 
take before the Congress.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me 
to speak this morning.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the task that the subcommittee has labored over 
is often mischaracterized, it is misconstrued and it is thankless, I 
think, for the public and for oftentimes Members of this assembly. But 
it is key what they do to enable us to do our job as Members, to 
represent our constituents; and there are critical elements in this 
budget that enable us to protect and serve the public, their physical 
safety when they are here in Washington, D.C., and to provide 
information.
  One particular item of focus for me deals with the adequate funding 
for the Congressional Research Service. I would like to thank the 
subcommittee for restoring the additional $7.5 million. Before funding 
was increased, CRS was slated to have had to fire over 110 individuals, 
drastically reducing their ability to provide valuable research and 
assistance. And although I am pleased that the funding was increased, I 
am disappointed to see that the funding has not yet met the requested 
level and that without this additional money, it is going to be 
difficult or impossible for CRS to continue to provide for its 
carefully crafted multiyear CRS succession initiative.
  I think it was very thoughtful on the part of the Congressional 
Research Service to try and deal with a potential catastrophe with 50 
percent of their staff nearing eligibility for retirement or already 
eligible. The notion of being able to do some thoughtful overhire, 
bringing in some junior members to get the expertise, to be able to 
meet the needs of Congress in providing nonpartisan, thoughtful, 
analytic benefit to help us do our job is smart.
  I appreciate the fact that last year they were forced into sort of a 
Hobson's choice. There was a difficult additional cut that was laid 
upon them, and in their wisdom they elected to suspend this process. I 
do not think they should have been put in that box, I think that that 
was a false economy; but I think that that does not release us from the 
obligation as a Chamber to be able to provide those resources for them.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to be able to continue 
to provide adequate research ability for the entire Congress to have 
this multidisciplinary expertise across all policy issues; that is an 
unusually broad range of expertise within this single institution, and 
it is given in a highly personal way. I think we have all been well 
served by the dedicated men and women who provide it.
  I do hope that this budget continues to be a work in progress, and I 
hope that we will make progress in terms of adequately providing for 
this succession for CRS.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support the manager's 
amendment, if that is adopted, and the Ryan amendment defeated, that we 
support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as indicated before, we have nine steps in 
appropriating money, and three of them in the House, three in the 
Senate, then we go to conference, then we come back to the House and 
the Senate, and the President then signs the bill.
  It is a long process, and we try to improve the legislation as we 
move along. We think that the manager's amendment will be positive in 
this area.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on the subject of funding for 
the Capitol Police.
  This Congress should take every opportunity possible to salute the 
police officers of this nation, as I do for those who serve my 
Congressional District in Orange County.
  Our nation loses an officer almost every other day; we've lost three 
Capitol officers in the line of duty. And that doesn't include the ones 
who may be assaulted or injured.
  The calling to serve in law enforcement comes with bravery and 
sacrifice.
  The thin blue line protecting our homes, our families, and our 
communities--and the foremost symbol of American freedom and 
democracy--pays a price, and so do the loved ones they leave behind 
when tragedy strikes.
  They shouldn't have to do this dangerous job with inadequate 
resources.
  We have a responsibility to see that law enforcement--particularly 
those who guard the Capitol--have the resources they need.
  I want to recognize my colleagues for their support of necessary 
funding for the U.S. Capitol Police force.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill's treatment of the Copyright 
Office is just another example of voodoo economics. Time and time 
again, the majority signals that it just does not care about the 
creative community. The majority continually tries to shut down the 
National Endowment for the Arts in its quest to eradicate free 
expression, and now this. The majority is taking five million dollars 
from the Copyright Office--and for no good reason other than perhaps to 
eliminate the copyright protection for that free expression.
  In the Information Age, copyrights have become the most important 
protections that creators can have for their work. In fact, piracy on 
the Internet is the number one fear that artists have, and the 
Copyright Office is the best shield against those pirates.
  Unfortunately, while recent congressional mandates--such as the 
Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Satellite Home Viewer 
Improvement Act--have imposed dramatic new responsibilities on the 
Copyright Office in the form of new studies and reports, the majority 
failed to provide additional funds so it could carry out those duties 
without somehow interfering with its responsibilities to copyright 
holders. Clearly, this is an impossible task for any agency. This bill 
just adds fuel to the fire.
  By cutting its funding, the Majority expects the Copyright Office to 
make up the difference by keeping more of the royalties it collects. 
That's just passing the buck. Those royalties are for the people who 
create the music, movies, books, and art that drive our culture--not 
for government salaries. And this is in the midst of a $200 billion 
budget surplus.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns about 
the serious, negative consequences that H.R. 4616 will have on the 
operations of the U.S. Copyright Office. While it appears we will not 
have the opportunity to resolve these concerns before the House votes 
on H.R. 4616, I ask the bill's sponsors to address these concerns 
during conference.
  H.R. 4616 cuts the Copyright Office's total net appropriations by 38 
percent, or over $5 million. As I stated, the consequences of these 
budgetary cuts are serious: the Copyright Office may be forced to fire 
as many as 130 people, and certainly will not be able to perform a 
variety of critical functions.
  Though not a high-profile agency, the Copyright Office provides a 
variety of very important, useful services to this Congress and the 
American people. The Copyright Office provides legal and policy advice 
to the Congress on copyright issues, advice on which the Congress 
relies on an almost daily basis. The Copyright Office advises foreign 
governments on the development of copyright laws, and plays an integral 
role in inter-agency deliberations over intellectual property trade 
matters. It undertakes studies and rule-makings at the direction of 
Congress, and is currently engaged in a variety of important studies 
mandated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In fiscal year 1999 
alone, the Copyright Office registered over one-half million 
copyrighted works. It administers the collection and distribution of 
royalties under compulsory licenses, and in doing so processes filings 
from

[[Page 11995]]

tens of thousands of cable operators, satellite carriers, and equipment 
manufacturers. It conducts Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels, or 
CARPs, to settle disputes over copyright royalties. Perhaps most 
importantly, the Copyright Office plays a key role in ensuring that our 
Library of Congress contains the most comprehensive collection of 
creative works in the world.
  As I indicated, the $5 million cut in its $12 million net 
appropriation will cause a reduction in force of 130 Copyright Office 
employees. To put it another way, this reduction works out to cutting 
27 percent of the entire Copyright Office staff. Such a drastic cut in 
personnel will render the Copyright Office unable to perform many of 
the critical functions I have discussed. I don't even know how they 
will begin to decide which congressional mandates to ignore, or whose 
requests for policy support it will not honor.
  It seems to me ``penny-wise but pound foolish'' to save $5 million by 
drastically reducing the services rendered by the Copyright Office. In 
fact, pound for pound, the Copyright Office is easily one of the most 
efficient and effective agencies in the entire federal government. 
Simply put, it does a terrific and important job with already limited 
resources, and there is not a pound of fat to cut.
  I recognize that the intent of these cuts was not to gut the 
operations of the Copyright Office. In fact, H.R. 4616 attempts to 
enable the Copyright Office to cope with this serious budgetary 
shortfall in the out years by suggesting that it raise fees to cover 
the shortfall. Unfortunately, the Copyright Office cannot, either as a 
legal or practical matter, raise its fees to cover the shortfall.
  Effective July 1, 1999, the Copyright Office implemented a 3-year 
schedule of fees that raised fees for a variety of services from 50 
percent to 220 percent. As a practical matter, the Copyright Office 
cannot turn around and raise its fees yet again: a comprehensive 
economic analysis undertaken pursuant to the recent fee increases 
indicated that higher fee increases would not be paid by the public, 
and thus would result in a decrease in fee revenue. I must remind my 
colleagues that, due to treaty obligations, we have a voluntary system 
of registering and recording copyrights.
  Thus, fees can only be increased so high before copyright holders 
simply stop registering and paying. The economic analysis undertaken by 
the Copyright Office indicates that the recently implemented fee 
increases reach that maximum level of acceptance.
  As a legal matter, the Copyright Office cannot simply raise its fees 
yet again. The Copyright Act mandates a procedure that the Copyright 
Office must follow in setting new fees, and this process takes 
approximately two years to implement. Thus, while H.R. 4516 assumes 
that the Copyright Office will make up for a fiscal year 2001 budget 
shortfall by raising fees, the Copyright Office would not legally be 
able to raise fees until fiscal year 2002.
  In closing, I urge that the $5 million cut in the Copyright Office 
budget be restored, if not now then during conference consideration of 
H.R. 4516. It seems a small expense to provide such important services.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, for his hard work in preparing this bill 
and bringing it to the floor today. I certainly appreciate all the 
effort that has gone into making this look easy.
  I wanted to talk briefly about one very important element of this 
bill, and that is the power plant which makes the Capitol run, and 
which will ultimately power and cool our new visitors center. What is 
also of interest to me is the fact this is the last power plant in 
Washington, D.C. which is fueled partially by burning coal. There used 
to be others--the GSA had two coal-burning plants, and Pepco also used 
to burn coal to generate energy. As a result of a need to meet Clean 
Air requirements in the District (which is in non-attainment for 
ozone), particularly on emissions of NOX, which is an ozone 
precursor, those plants now rely on natural gas or distillate oil to 
generate energy.
  In addition to knocking down NOX emissions, natural gas 
also has benefit of reducing emissions of sulfur dioxides and PM, both 
of which are generated from burning coal or fuel oil.
  For these reasons, I was pleased to learn that of the seven boilers 
that fire the Capital plant, five of them have already been converted 
to run on natural gas and/or fuel oil. It is my understanding that this 
conversion has already resulted in greatly reduced emissions, to the 
benefit of all those who live and work in this area.
  In addition to the obvious public health benefit, I think it is 
important that we here in Congress lead by example, as we have in the 
conversion of these boilers. As we debate proposals and pass laws which 
lead to stringent air quality controls on the private sector, it is 
critical that we demonstrate that we are serious about this, and are 
willing to take the same kind of steps here in our own backyard.
  For these reasons, I was pleased to read in the Capitol Hill Master 
Plan that as part of the expansion of the West Refrigeration Plant, 
``the historical reduction in reliance on coal will be continued, 
resulting in the complete phase-out of use by the year 2003. The boiler 
system will be converted to run on natural gas and fuel oil.''
  This is a continuation of the positive steps which have been taken to 
both modernize our power facilities, and reduce harmful emissions in 
the process. Now, I am aware that there has been an interest expressed 
by several Members and Senators in retaining a coal element of this 
plant, and that various options which entail ``cleaner-burning coal are 
now under evaluation. I would anticipate that once the review of these 
options are completed, the original phase-out proposal will be 
recognized as the most practical, both from cost and air quality 
standpoint.
  I had originally considered offering an amendment to ensure that the 
phase out and conversion timetable over to the cleaner fuels remained 
on track. While I will not be doing so today, I will remain interested 
in monitoring the developments surrounding the expansion of the Capital 
plant, and the ongoing conversion to natural gas and cleaner fuels. We 
have an obligation to lead by example, on air quality as on so many 
other issues, and so I look forward to working with the Chairman and my 
colleagues in the future to see to it that this comes to pass. I submit 
a copy of my amendment to be placed in the Record.

       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . No funds appropriated in this Act may be used to 
     develop or implement any plan for fuel use at the Capitol 
     Plant other than the fuel use plan set forth in the Capitol 
     Plant Master Plan prepared by the Architect of the Capitol, 
     dated May 11, 2000.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 4516 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4516

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for 
     other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
     $749,210,000, as follows:

                        house leadership offices

       For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 
     $13,998,000, including: Office of the Speaker, $1,711,000, 
     including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker; 
     Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $1,677,000, including 
     $10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office 
     of the Minority Floor Leader, $2,039,000, including $10,000 
     for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the 
     Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, 
     $1,427,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the 
     Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the 
     Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $1,065,000, including $5,000 for 
     official expenses of the Minority Whip; Speaker's Office for 
     Legislative Floor Activities, $399,000; Republican Steering 
     Committee, $744,000; Republican Conference, $1,220,000; 
     Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, $1,315,000; 
     Democratic Caucus, $649,000; nine minority employees, 
     $1,196,000; training and program development--majority 
     $278,000; and training and program development--minority, 
     $278,000.

                  Members' Representational Allowances

   Including Members' Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and 
                             Official Mail

       For Members' representational allowances, including 
     Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, 
     $400,527,000.

                          Committee Employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special 
     and select, authorized by House resolutions, $89,896,000: 
     Provided, That such amount shall remain available for such 
     salaries and expenses until December 31, 2002.

                      Committee on Appropriations

       For salaries and expenses of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, $20,231,000, including studies and 
     examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal 
     services for such committee, to be expended in accordance 
     with section 202(b) of the Legislative

[[Page 11996]]

     Reorganization Act of 1946 and to be available for 
     reimbursement to agencies for services performed: Provided, 
     That such amount shall remain available for such salaries and 
     expenses until December 31, 2002.

                    salaries, officers and employees

       For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as 
     authorized by law, $86,369,000, including: for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not more than 
     $3,500, of which not more than $2,500 is for the Family Room, 
     for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $14,286,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of 
     Garages, and including not more than $750 for official 
     representation and reception expenses, $3,596,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Administrative Officer, $54,997,000, of which $1,054,000 
     shall remain available until expended, including $24,912,000 
     for salaries, expenses and temporary personal services of 
     House Information Resources, of which $24,327,000 is provided 
     herein: Provided, That of the amount provided for House 
     Information Resources, $5,760,000 shall be for net expenses 
     of telecommunications: Provided further, That House 
     Information Resources is authorized to receive reimbursement 
     from Members of the House of Representatives and other 
     governmental entities for services provided and such 
     reimbursement shall be deposited in the Treasury for credit 
     to this account; for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     the Inspector General, $3,197,000; for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of General Counsel, $806,000; for the Office of 
     the Chaplain, $140,000; for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of the Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian 
     and $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, $1,172,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Law Revision 
     Counsel of the House, $2,045,000; for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House, 
     $5,085,000; for salaries and expenses of the Corrections 
     Calendar Office, $832,000; and for other authorized 
     employees, $213,000.

                        allowances and expenses

       For allowances and expenses as authorized by House 
     resolution or law, $138,189,000, including: supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, 
     $1,960,000; official mail for committees, leadership offices, 
     and administrative offices of the House, $410,000; Government 
     contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and 
     other applicable employee benefits, $135,426,000; and 
     miscellaneous items including purchase, exchange, 
     maintenance, repair and operation of House motor vehicles, 
     interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to heirs of 
     deceased employees of the House, $393,000.

                           child care center

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives 
     Child Care Center, such amounts as are deposited in the 
     account established by section 312(d)(1) of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1992 (40 U.S.C. 184g(d)(1)), 
     subject to the level specified in the budget of the Center, 
     as submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. During fiscal year 2001 and any succeeding fiscal 
     year, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives may--
       (1) enter into contracts for the acquisition of severable 
     services for a period that begins in one fiscal year and ends 
     in the next fiscal year to the same extent as the head of an 
     executive agency under the authority of section 303L of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253l); and
       (2) enter into multi-year contracts for the acquisitions of 
     property and nonaudit-related services to the same extent as 
     executive agencies under the authority of section 304B of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 254c).
       Sec. 102. (a) Permitting New House Employees To Be Placed 
     Above Minimum Step of Compensation Level.--The House 
     Employees Position Classification Act (2 U.S.C. 291 et seq.) 
     is amended by striking section 10 (2 U.S.C. 299).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to employees appointed on or after 
     October 1, 2000.

                              JOINT ITEMS

       For Joint Committees, as follows:

                        Joint Economic Committee

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee, 
     $3,072,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

                      Joint Committee on Taxation

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation, $6,174,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House.
       For other joint items, as follows:

                   Office of the Attending Physician

       For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of 
     the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his 
     assistants, including: (1) an allowance of $1,500 per month 
     to the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $500 per 
     month each to three medical officers while on duty in the 
     Office of the Attending Physician; (3) an allowance of $500 
     per month to one assistant and $400 per month each not to 
     exceed 11 assistants on the basis heretofore provided for 
     such assistants; and (4) $1,159,904 for reimbursement to the 
     Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and 
     equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician, 
     which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable 
     appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries, 
     allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be 
     available for all the purposes thereof, $1,835,000, to be 
     disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

                          Capitol Police Board

                             Capitol Police


                                salaries

       For the Capitol Police Board for salaries of officers, 
     members, and employees of the Capitol Police, including 
     overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, clothing allowance 
     of not more than $600 each for members required to wear 
     civilian attire, and Government contributions for health, 
     retirement, Social Security, and other applicable employee 
     benefits, $70,120,000, of which $33,586,000 is provided to 
     the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, to be 
     disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, 
     and $36,534,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms and 
     Doorkeeper of the Senate, to be disbursed by the Secretary of 
     the Senate: Provided, That, of the amounts appropriated under 
     this heading, such amounts as may be necessary may be 
     transferred between the Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
     Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 
     the Senate, upon approval of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.

                            general expenses

       For the Capitol Police Board for necessary expenses of the 
     Capitol Police, including motor vehicles, communications and 
     other equipment, security equipment and installation, 
     uniforms, weapons, supplies, materials, training, medical 
     services, forensic services, stenographic services, personal 
     and professional services, the employee assistance program, 
     not more than $2,000 for the awards program, postage, 
     telephone service, travel advances, relocation of instructor 
     and liaison personnel for the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, and $85 per month for extra services 
     performed for the Capitol Police Board by an employee of the 
     Sergeant at Arms of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives designated by the Chairman of the Board, 
     $6,549,000, to be disbursed by the Capitol Police Board or 
     their delegee: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the cost of basic training for the Capitol 
     Police at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for 
     fiscal year 2001 shall be paid by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury from funds available to the Department of the 
     Treasury.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 103. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2001 for the 
     Capitol Police Board for the Capitol Police may be 
     transferred between the headings ``salaries'' and ``general 
     expenses'' upon the approval of--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, in the case of amounts transferred from the 
     appropriation provided to the Sergeant at Arms of the House 
     of Representatives under the heading ``salaries'';
       (2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, in the 
     case of amounts transferred from the appropriation provided 
     to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate under 
     the heading ``salaries''; and
       (3) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, in the case of other transfers.
       Sec. 104. (a) Appointment of Certifying Officers of the 
     Capitol Police.--The Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. 
     Capitol Police, or when there is not a Chief Administrative 
     Officer the Capitol Police Board, shall appoint certifying 
     officers to certify all vouchers for payment from funds made 
     available to the United States Capitol Police.
       (b) Responsibility and Accountability of Certifying 
     Officers.--
       (1) In general.--Each officer or employee of the Capitol 
     Police who has been duly authorized in writing by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer, or the Capitol Police Board if there 
     is not a Chief Administrative Officer, to certify vouchers 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall--
       (A) be held responsible for the existence and correctness 
     of the facts recited in the certificate or otherwise stated 
     on the voucher or its supporting papers and for the legality 
     of the proposed payment under the appropriation or fund 
     involved;
       (B) be held responsible and accountable for the correctness 
     of the computations of certified vouchers; and
       (C) be held accountable for and required to make good to 
     the United States the amount of any illegal, improper, or 
     incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or 
     misleading certificate made by such officer or employee, as 
     well as for any payment prohibited by law or which did not 
     represent a

[[Page 11997]]

     legal obligation under the appropriation or fund involved.
       (2) Relief by comptroller general.--The Comptroller General 
     may, at the Comptroller General's discretion, relieve such 
     certifying officer or employee of liability for any payment 
     otherwise proper if the Comptroller General finds--
       (A) that the certification was based on official records 
     and that the certifying officer or employee did not know, and 
     by reasonable diligence and inquiry could not have 
     ascertained, the actual facts; or
       (B) that the obligation was incurred in good faith, that 
     the payment was not contrary to any statutory provision 
     specifically prohibiting payments of the character involved, 
     and the United States has received value for such payment.
       (c) Enforcement of Liability.--The liability of the 
     certifying officers of the United States Capitol Police shall 
     be enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as 
     currently provided with respect to the enforcement of the 
     liability of disbursing and other accountable officers, and 
     such officers shall have the right to apply for and obtain a 
     decision by the Comptroller General on any question of law 
     involved in a payment on any vouchers presented to them for 
     certification.
       Sec. 105. Chief Administrative Officer.--(a) There shall be 
     within the Capitol Police an Office of Administration to be 
     headed by a Chief Administrative Officer:
       (1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall be appointed by 
     the Comptroller General after consultation with the Capitol 
     Police Board, and shall report to and serve at the pleasure 
     of the Comptroller General.
       (2) The Comptroller General shall appoint as Chief 
     Administrative Officer an individual with the knowledge and 
     skills necessary to carry out the responsibilities for 
     budgeting, financial management, information technology, and 
     human resource management described in this section.
       (3) The Chief Administrative Officer shall receive basic 
     pay at a rate determined by the Comptroller General, but not 
     to exceed the annual rate of basic pay payable for ES-2 of 
     the Senior Executive Service Basic Rates Schedule established 
     for members of the Senior Executive Service of the General 
     Accounting Office under section 733 of title 31.
       (4) The Capitol Police shall reimburse from available 
     appropriations any costs incurred by the General Accounting 
     Office under this section.
       (b) The Chief Administrative Officer shall have the 
     following areas of responsibility:
       (1) Budgeting.--The Chief Administrative Officer shall--
       (A) after consulting with the Chief of Police on the 
     portion of the budget covering uniformed police force 
     personnel, prepare and submit to the Capitol Police Board an 
     annual budget for the Capitol Police;
       (B) execute the budget and monitor through periodic 
     examinations the execution of the Capitol Police budget in 
     relation to actual obligations and expenditures.
       (2) Financial management.--The Chief Administrative Officer 
     shall--
       (A) oversee all financial management activities relating to 
     the programs and operations of the Capitol Police;
       (B) develop and maintain an integrated accounting and 
     financial system for the Capitol Police, including financial 
     reporting and internal controls, which--
       (i) complies with applicable accounting principles, 
     standards, and requirements, and internal control standards;
       (ii) complies with any other requirements applicable to 
     such systems;
       (iii) provides for--

       (I) complete, reliable, consistent, and timely information 
     which is prepared on a uniform basis and which is responsive 
     to financial information needs of the Capitol Police;
       (II) the development and reporting of cost information;
       (III) the integration of accounting and budgeting 
     information; and
       (IV) the systematic measurement of performance;

       (C) direct, manage, and provide policy guidance and 
     oversight of Capitol Police financial management personnel, 
     activities, and operations, including--
       (i) the recruitment, selection, and training of personnel 
     to carry out Capitol Police financial management functions; 
     and
       (ii) the implementation of Capitol Police asset management 
     systems, including systems for cash management, debt 
     collection, and property and inventory management and 
     control; and
       (D) the Chief Administrative Officer shall prepare annual 
     financial statements for the Capitol Police and provide for 
     an annual audit of the financial statements by an independent 
     public accountant in accordance with generally accepted 
     government auditing standards.
       (3) Information technology.--The Chief Administrative 
     Officer shall--
       (A) direct, coordinate, and oversee the acquisition, use, 
     and management of information technology by the Capitol 
     Police;
       (B) promote and oversee the use of information technology 
     to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of programs of 
     the Capitol Police; and
       (C) establish and enforce information technology 
     principles, guidelines, and objectives, including developing 
     and maintaining an information technology architecture for 
     the Capitol Police.
       (4) Human resources.--The Chief Administrative Officer 
     shall--
       (A) direct, coordinate, and oversee human resource 
     management activities of the Capitol Police, except that with 
     respect to uniformed police force personnel, the Chief 
     Administrative Officer shall perform these activities in 
     cooperation with the Chief of the Capitol Police;
       (B) develop and monitor payroll and time and attendance 
     systems and employee services; and
       (C) develop and monitor processes for recruiting, 
     selecting, appraising, and promoting employees.
       (c) Administrative provisions with respect to the Office of 
     Administration:
       (1) The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to 
     select, appoint, employ, and discharge such officers and 
     employees as may be necessary to carry out the functions, 
     powers, and duties of the Office of Administration but he 
     shall not have the authority to hire or discharge uniformed 
     police force personnel.
       (2) The Chief Administrative Officer may utilize resources 
     of another agency on a reimbursable basis to be paid from 
     available appropriations of the Capitol Police.
       (d) No later than 180 days after appointment, the Chief 
     Administrative Officer shall prepare, after consultation with 
     the Capitol Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police, 
     a plan--
       (1) describing the policies, procedures, and actions the 
     Chief Administrative Officer will take in carrying out the 
     responsibilities assigned under this section;
       (2) identifying and defining responsibilities and roles of 
     all offices, bureaus, and divisions of the Capitol Police for 
     budgeting, financial management, information technology, and 
     human resources management; and
       (3) detailing mechanisms for ensuring that the offices, 
     bureaus, and divisions perform their responsibilities and 
     roles in a coordinated and integrated manner.
       (e) No later than September 30, 2001, the Chief 
     Administrative Officer shall prepare, after consultation with 
     the Capitol Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police, 
     a report on the Chief Administrative Officer's progress in 
     implementing the plan described in subsection (d) and 
     recommendations to improve the budgeting, financial, 
     information technology, and human resources management of the 
     Capitol Police, including organizational, accounting and 
     administrative control, and personnel changes.
       (f) The Chief Administrative Officer shall submit the plan 
     required in subsection (d) and the report required in 
     subsection (e) to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and of the Senate, the Committee on 
     House Administration of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.
       (g) As of October 1, 2002, unless otherwise determined by 
     the Comptroller General, the Chief Administrative Officer 
     established by section (a) will cease to be an employee of 
     the General Accounting Office and will become an employee of 
     the Capitol Police, and the Capitol Police Board shall assume 
     all responsibilities of the Comptroller General under this 
     section.

           Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office

       For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service and 
     Special Services Office, $2,201,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That no part of such 
     amount may be used to employ more than 43 individuals: 
     Provided further, That the Capitol Guide Board is authorized, 
     during emergencies, to employ not more than two additional 
     individuals for not more than 120 days each, and not more 
     than 10 additional individuals for not more than 6 months 
     each, for the Capitol Guide Service.

                      Statements of Appropriations

       For the preparation, under the direction of the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, of the statements for the second session of 
     the One Hundred Sixth Congress, showing appropriations made, 
     indefinite appropriations, and contracts authorized, together 
     with a chronological history of the regular appropriations 
     Acts as required by law, $29,000, to be paid to the persons 
     designated by the chairmen of such committees to supervise 
     the work.

                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as 
     authorized by section 305 of the Congressional Accountability 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), $1,816,000.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public 
     Law 93-344), including not more than $3,000 to be expended on 
     the certification of the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses, $25,100,000: Provided, That no part

[[Page 11998]]

     of such amount may be used for the purchase or hire of a 
     passenger motor vehicle.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds

                           capitol buildings


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries for the Architect of the Capitol, the 
     Assistant Architect of the Capitol, and other personal 
     services, at rates of pay provided by law; for surveys and 
     studies in connection with activities under the care of the 
     Architect of the Capitol; for all necessary expenses for the 
     maintenance, care and operation of the Capitol and electrical 
     substations of the Senate and House office buildings under 
     the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, including 
     furnishings and office equipment, including not more than 
     $1,000 for official reception and representation expenses, to 
     be expended as the Architect of the Capitol may approve; for 
     purchase or exchange, maintenance and operation of a 
     passenger motor vehicle; and not to exceed $20,000 for 
     attendance, when specifically authorized by the Architect of 
     the Capitol, at meetings or conventions in connection with 
     subjects related to work under the Architect of the Capitol, 
     $41,953,000, of which $4,280,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

                            capitol grounds

       For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of 
     grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office 
     buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $4,557,000, of which 
     $25,000 shall remain available until expended.

                         house office buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the House office buildings, $29,685,000, of 
     which $123,000 shall remain available until expended.

                          capitol power plant

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, 
     power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water 
     and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds 
     about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air 
     conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of 
     such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and 
     Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water 
     for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, the 
     Union Station complex, the Thurgood Marshall Federal 
     Judiciary Building and the Folger Shakespeare Library, 
     expenses for which shall be advanced or reimbursed upon 
     request of the Architect of the Capitol and amounts so 
     received shall be deposited into the Treasury to the credit 
     of this appropriation, $38,555,000, of which $200,000 shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That not more than 
     $4,400,000 of the funds credited or to be reimbursed to this 
     appropriation as herein provided shall be available for 
     obligation during fiscal year 2001.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                     Congressional Research Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated 
     Constitution of the United States of America, $66,200,000: 
     Provided, That no part of such amount may be used to pay any 
     salary or expense in connection with any publication, or 
     preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of Public 
     General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress 
     unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either 
     the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of Congressional information in any format; 
     printing and binding of Government publications authorized by 
     law to be distributed to Members of Congress, $65,457,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for 
     paper copies of the permanent edition of the Congressional 
     Record for individual Senators, Representatives, Resident 
     Commissioners or Delegates authorized under 44 U.S.C. 906: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred under the 
     appropriations for similar purposes for preceding fiscal 
     years: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 2-year 
     limitation under section 718 of title 44, United States Code, 
     none of the funds appropriated or made available under this 
     Act or any other Act for printing and binding and related 
     services provided to Congress under chapter 7 of title 44, 
     United States Code, may be expended to print a document, 
     report, or publication after the 27-month period beginning on 
     the date that such document, report, or publication is 
     authorized by Congress to be printed, unless Congress 
     reauthorizes such printing in accordance with section 718 of 
     title 44, United States Code: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated or unexpended balances in this account or 
     accounts for similar purposes for preceding fiscal years may 
     be transferred to the Government Printing Office revolving 
     fund for carrying out the purposes of this heading, subject 
     to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and Senate.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 106. (a) Congressional Printing and Binding Through 
     Clerk of House and Secretary of Senate.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of title 44, 
     United States Code, or any other law, there are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
     and the Secretary of the Senate such sums as may be necessary 
     for congressional printing and binding services.
       (2) Preparation of estimates.--Estimated expenditures and 
     proposed appropriations for congressional printing and 
     binding services shall be prepared and submitted by the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the 
     Senate in accordance with title 31, United States Code, in 
     the same manner as estimates and requests are prepared for 
     other legislative branch services under such title, except 
     that such requests shall be based upon the results of the 
     study conducted under subsection (b) (with respect to any 
     fiscal year covered by such study).
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal year.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--During fiscal year 2001, the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate 
     shall conduct a comprehensive study of the needs of the House 
     and Senate for congressional printing and binding services 
     during fiscal year 2003 and succeeding fiscal years 
     (including transitional issues during fiscal year 2002), and 
     shall include in the study an analysis of the most cost-
     effective program or programs for providing printed or other 
     media-based publications for House and Senate uses.
       (2) Submission to committees.--The Clerk and the Secretary 
     shall submit the study conducted under paragraph (1) to the 
     Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate, who shall review the study and prepare such 
     regulations or other materials (including proposals for 
     legislation) as each considers appropriate to enable the 
     Clerk and the Secretary to carry out congressional printing 
     and binding services in accordance with this section.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``congressional 
     printing and binding services'' means the following services:
       (1) Authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of congressional information in any format.
       (2) Printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol.
       (3) Preparing the semimonthly and session index to the 
     Congressional Record.
       (4) Printing and binding of Government publications 
     authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress.
       (5) Printing, binding, and distribution of Government 
     publications authorized by law to be distributed without 
     charge to the recipient.
       This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Operations 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

                        TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES

                             BOTANIC GARDEN


                         salaries and expenses

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings, 
     grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange, 
     maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
     the Library, $3,216,000.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not 
     otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance 
     of the Union Catalogs; custody and custodial care of the 
     Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and 
     repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the 
     custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the 
     American Folklife Center in the Library; preparation and 
     distribution of catalog records and other publications of the 
     Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and 
     expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not 
     properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by 
     the Board, $269,864,000, of which not more than $6,500,000 
     shall be derived from collections credited to this 
     appropriation during fiscal year 2001, and shall remain 
     available until expended, under the Act of June 28, 1902 
     (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150) and not more than 
     $350,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal year 
     2001 and shall remain available until expended for the 
     development and maintenance of an international legal 
     information database and activities related thereto: 
     Provided, That the Library of Congress may not obligate or 
     expend any funds derived from collections under the Act of 
     June 28, 1902, in excess of the amount authorized for 
     obligation

[[Page 11999]]

     or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided further, That 
     the total amount available for obligation shall be reduced by 
     the amount by which collections are less than the $6,850,000: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $10,459,575 is to remain available until expended for 
     acquisition of books, periodicals, newspapers, and all other 
     materials including subscriptions for bibliographic services 
     for the Library, including $40,000 to be available solely for 
     the purchase, when specifically approved by the Librarian, of 
     special and unique materials for additions to the 
     collections: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $2,506,000 is to remain available until 
     expended for the acquisition and partial support for 
     implementation of an Integrated Library System (ILS): 
     Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $5,957,800 is to remain available until expended for the 
     purpose of teaching educators how to incorporate the 
     Library's digital collections into school curricula, which 
     amount shall be transferred to the educational consortium 
     formed to conduct the ``Joining Hands Across America: Local 
     Community Initiative'' project as approved by the Library: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $404,000 is to remain available until expended for a 
     collaborative digitization and telecommunications project 
     with the United States Military Academy and any remaining 
     balance is available for other Library purposes.

                            Copyright Office

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, 
     $38,771,000, of which not more than $26,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be derived from collections 
     credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 2001 under 
     17 U.S.C. 708(d): Provided, That the Copyright Office may not 
     obligate or expend any funds derived from collections under 
     17 U.S.C. 708(d), in excess of the amount authorized for 
     obligation or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided 
     further, That not more than $5,783,000 shall be derived from 
     collections during fiscal year 2001 under 17 U.S.C. 
     111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), and 1005: Provided further, 
     That the total amount available for obligation shall be 
     reduced by the amount by which collections are less than 
     $31,783,000: Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of 
     the amount appropriated is available for the maintenance of 
     an ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright 
     Office of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training 
     nationals of developing countries in intellectual property 
     laws and policies: Provided further, That not more than 
     $4,250 may be expended, on the certification of the Librarian 
     of Congress, in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses for activities of the International 
     Copyright Institute and for copyright delegations, visitors, 
     and seminars.

             Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses to carry out the Act of March 3, 
     1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 U.S.C. 135a), 
     $48,507,000, of which $14,135,000 shall remain available 
     until expended.

                       Furniture and Furnishings

       For necessary expenses for the purchase, installation, 
     maintenance, and repair of furniture, furnishings, office and 
     library equipment, $5,394,000.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 201. Appropriations in this Act available to the 
     Library of Congress shall be available, in an amount of not 
     more than $199,630, of which $59,300 is for the Congressional 
     Research Service, when specifically authorized by the 
     Librarian of Congress, for attendance at meetings concerned 
     with the function or activity for which the appropriation is 
     made.
       Sec. 202. (a) No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by the Library of Congress to administer any 
     flexible or compressed work schedule which--
       (1) applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the 
     grade or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15; and
       (2) grants such manager or supervisor the right to not be 
     at work for all or a portion of a workday because of time 
     worked by the manager or supervisor on another workday.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``manager or 
     supervisor'' means any management official or supervisor, as 
     such terms are defined in section 7103(a)(10) and (11) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 203. Appropriated funds received by the Library of 
     Congress from other Federal agencies to cover general and 
     administrative overhead costs generated by performing 
     reimbursable work for other agencies under the authority of 
     31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536 shall not be used to employ more than 
     65 employees and may be expended or obligated--
       (1) in the case of a reimbursement, only to such extent or 
     in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; or
       (2) in the case of an advance payment, only--
       (A) to pay for such general or administrative overhead 
     costs as are attributable to the work performed for such 
     agency; or
       (B) to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in 
     appropriations Acts, with respect to any purpose not 
     allowable under subparagraph (A).
       Sec. 204. Of the amounts appropriated to the Library of 
     Congress in this Act, not more than $5,000 may be expended, 
     on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in 
     connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses for the incentive awards program.
       Sec. 205. Of the amount appropriated to the Library of 
     Congress in this Act, not more than $12,000 may be expended, 
     on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in 
     connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses for the Overseas Field Offices.
       Sec. 206. (a) For fiscal year 2001, the obligational 
     authority of the Library of Congress for the activities 
     described in subsection (b) may not exceed $92,845,000.
       (b) The activities referred to in subsection (a) are 
     reimbursable and revolving fund activities that are funded 
     from sources other than appropriations to the Library in 
     appropriations Acts for the legislative branch.
       Sec. 207. Section 1 of an Act to authorize acquisition of 
     certain real property for the Library of Congress, and for 
     other purposes, approved December 15, 1997 (2 U.S.C. 141 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Transfer Payment by Architect.--Notwithstanding the 
     limitation on reimbursement or transfer of funds under 
     subsection (a) of this section, the Architect of the Capitol 
     may, not later than 90 days after acquisition of the property 
     under this section, transfer funds to the entity from which 
     the property was acquired by the Architect of the Capitol. 
     Such transfers may not exceed a total of $16,500,000.''.
       Sec. 208. The Librarian of Congress may convert to 
     permanent positions 84 indefinite, time-limited positions in 
     the National Digital Library Program authorized in the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
     for the Library of Congress under the heading, ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'' (Public Law 104-53). Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law regarding qualifications and methods of 
     appointment of employees of the Library of Congress, the 
     Librarian may fill these permanent positions through the non-
     competitive conversion of the incumbents in the ``indefinite-
     not-to-exceed'' positions to ``permanent'' positions.
       Sec. 209. During fiscal year 2001 and fiscal years 
     thereafter, the Librarian of Congress may transfer among 
     available accounts amounts appropriated to the Library and 
     amounts appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol for the 
     mechanical and structural maintenance, care and operation of 
     Library buildings and grounds, with the approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives. Amounts so transferred shall be merged with 
     and be available for the same purpose for the same period as 
     the appropriation or account to which transferred. This 
     transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority provided by law. The Librarian shall consult with 
     the Architect of the Capitol before proposing transfers 
     involving amounts appropriated to the Architect.
       Sec. 210. The Library of Congress may for such employees as 
     it deems appropriate authorize a payment to employees who 
     voluntarily separate before January 1, 2001, whether by 
     retirement or resignation, which payment shall be paid in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 5597(d) of title 5, 
     United States Code.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Library Buildings and Grounds

                     structural and mechanical care

       For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and 
     structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library 
     buildings and grounds, $15,133,000, of which $5,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                 Office of Superintendent of Documents

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents 
     necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of 
     Government publications and their on-line access to the 
     public, Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and 
     designated depository and international exchange libraries as 
     authorized by law, $11,606,000: Provided, That travel 
     expenses, including travel expenses of the Depository Library 
     Council to the Public Printer, shall not exceed $175,000: 
     Provided further, That amounts of not more than $2,000,000 
     from current year appropriations are available for the cost 
     of publications distributed in prior years: Provided further, 
     That any unobligated or unexpended balances in this account 
     or accounts for similar purposes for preceding fiscal years 
     may be transferred to the Government Printing Office 
     revolving fund for carrying out the purposes of this heading, 
     subject to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and Senate.

               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make 
     such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and 
     in accord with the law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal

[[Page 12000]]

     year limitations as provided by section 9104 of title 31, 
     United States Code, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs and purposes set forth in the budget for the current 
     fiscal year for the Government Printing Office revolving 
     fund: Provided, That not more than $2,500 may be expended on 
     the certification of the Public Printer in connection with 
     official representation and reception expenses: Provided 
     further, That the revolving fund shall be available for the 
     hire or purchase of not more than 12 passenger motor 
     vehicles: Provided further, That expenditures in connection 
     with travel expenses of the advisory councils to the Public 
     Printer shall be deemed necessary to carry out the provisions 
     of title 44, United States Code: Provided further, That the 
     revolving fund shall be available for temporary or 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, but at rates for individuals not more 
     than the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such 
     title: Provided further, That the revolving fund and the 
     funds provided under the headings ``Office of Superintendent 
     of Documents'' and ``salaries and expenses'' together may not 
     be available for the full-time equivalent employment of more 
     than 3,285 workyears (or such other number of workyears as 
     the Public Printer may request, subject to the approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives): Provided further, That activities 
     financed through the revolving fund may provide information 
     in any format: Provided further, That the revolving fund 
     shall not be used to administer any flexible or compressed 
     work schedule which applies to any manager or supervisor in a 
     position the grade or level of which is equal to or higher 
     than GS-15: Provided further, That expenses for attendance at 
     meetings shall not exceed $75,000.

                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office, 
     including not more than $10,000 to be expended on the 
     certification of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for 
     individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual 
     rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor 
     vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries in accordance 
     with 31 U.S.C. 3324; benefits comparable to those payable 
     under sections 901(5), 901(6), and 901(8) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 4081(6), and 
     4081(8)); and under regulations prescribed by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States, rental of living quarters in 
     foreign countries, $351,529,000: Provided, That not more than 
     $1,900,000 of payments received under 31 U.S.C. 782 shall be 
     available for use in fiscal year 2001: Provided further, That 
     not more than $1,100,000 of reimbursements received under 31 
     U.S.C. 9105 shall be available for use in fiscal year 2001: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation and appropriations 
     for administrative expenses of any other department or agency 
     which is a member of the National Intergovernmental Audit 
     Forum or a Regional Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be 
     available to finance an appropriate share of either Forum's 
     costs as determined by the respective Forum, including 
     necessary travel expenses of non-Federal participants. 
     Payments hereunder to the Forum may be credited as 
     reimbursements to any appropriation from which costs involved 
     are initially financed: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation and appropriations for administrative expenses 
     of any other department or agency which is a member of the 
     American Consortium on International Public Administration 
     (ACIPA) shall be available to finance an appropriate share of 
     ACIPA costs as determined by the ACIPA, including any 
     expenses attributable to membership of ACIPA in the 
     International Institute of Administrative Sciences.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used for the maintenance or care of private 
     vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may 
     be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities 
     for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on 
     House Administration and for the Senate issued by the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration.
       Sec. 302. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall remain available for obligation beyond fiscal year 2001 
     unless expressly so provided in this Act.
       Sec. 303. Whenever in this Act any office or position not 
     specifically established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 
     is appropriated for or the rate of compensation or 
     designation of any office or position appropriated for is 
     different from that specifically established by such Act, the 
     rate of compensation and the designation in this Act shall be 
     the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided, That the 
     provisions in this Act for the various items of official 
     expenses of Members, officers, and committees of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, and clerk hire for Senators and 
     Members of the House of Representatives shall be the 
     permanent law with respect thereto.
       Sec. 304. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 305. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       (c) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with 
     the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the 
     United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in section 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 306. Such sums as may be necessary are appropriated to 
     the account described in subsection (a) of section 415 of 
     Public Law 104-1 to pay awards and settlements as authorized 
     under such subsection.
       Sec. 307. Amounts available for administrative expenses of 
     any legislative branch entity which participates in the 
     Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council (LBFMC) 
     established by charter on March 26, 1996, shall be available 
     to finance an appropriate share of LBFMC costs as determined 
     by the LBFMC, except that the total LBFMC costs to be shared 
     among all participating legislative branch entities (in such 
     allocations among the entities as the entities may determine) 
     may not exceed $252,000.
       Sec. 308. (a) Reduction in Number of Authorized Positions 
     for Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police.--The 
     number of full-time equivalent officers and members of the 
     United States Capitol Police and the number of full-time 
     equivalent officers and members of the Library of Congress 
     Police authorized for fiscal year 2001 shall be reduced by 
     the number of officers and members who retire, resign, or are 
     otherwise separated from employment with the United States 
     Capitol Police or the Library of Congress Police (as the case 
     may be) during the fiscal year.
       (b) Waiver.--The Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and Senate may waive or modify the 
     application of subsection (a).
       Sec. 309. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act under the heading ``Architect of the Capitol'' or 
     ``Botanic Garden'' shall be obligated or expended for a 
     construction contract in excess of $100,000, unless such 
     contract includes a provision that requires liquidated 
     damages for contractor caused delay in an amount commensurate 
     with the daily net usable square foot cost of leasing similar 
     space in a first class office building within two miles of 
     the United States Capitol multiplied by the square footage to 
     be constructed under the contract.
       Sec. 310. Upon request of the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, 
     during fiscal year 2001 the Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide protective services on a non-reimbursable basis to 
     the United States Capitol Police with respect to--
       (1) the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the 
     inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect 
     of the United States; and
       (2) the joint session of Congress held to receive a message 
     from the President of the United States on the State of the 
     Union.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment is in order except those printed in House 
report 106-685. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed, may be offered only by a Member designated by the report, 
shall be considered read, debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a 
division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in the House 
report 106-685.

[[Page 12001]]




        Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina:
       Page 2, line 5, strike ``$749,210,000'' and insert 
     ``$769,551,000''.
       Page 2, line 8, strike ``$13,998,000'' and insert 
     ``$14,378,000''.
       Page 2, line 9, strike ``$1,711,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,759,000''.
       Page 2, line 10, strike ``$1,677,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,726,000''.
       Page 2, line 12, strike ``$2,039,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,096,000''.
       Page 2, line 15, strike ``$1,427,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,466,000''.
       Page 2, line 18, strike ``$1,065,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,096,000''.
       Page 2, line 20, strike ``$399,000'' and insert 
     ``$410,000''.
       Page 2, line 21, strike ``$744,000'' and insert 
     ``$765,000''.
       Page 2, line 21, strike ``$1,220,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,255,000''.
       Page 2, line 22, strike ``$1,315,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,352,000''.
       Page 2, line 23, strike ``$649,000'' and insert 
     ``$668,000''.
       Page 2, line 24, strike ``$1,196,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,229,000''.
       Page 3, line 8, strike ``$400,527,000'' and insert 
     ``$410,182,000''.
       Page 3, line 13, strike ``$89,896,000'' and insert 
     ``$92,196,000''.
       Page 3, line 18, strike ``$20,231,000'' and insert 
     ``$20,628,000''.
       Page 4, line 3, strike ``$86,369,000'' and insert 
     ``$90,403,000''.
       Page 4, line 7, strike ``$14,286,000'' and insert 
     ``$14,590,000''.
       Page 4, line 11, strike ``$3,596,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,692,000''.
       Page 4, line 12, strike ``$54,997,000'' and insert 
     ``$58,550,000''.
       Page 4, line 14, strike ``$24,912,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,605,000''.
       Page 4, line 16, strike ``$24,327,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,020,000''.
       Page 4, line 18, strike ``$5,760,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,497,000''.
       Page 4, line 25, strike ``$3,197,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,249,000''.
       Page 5, line 5, strike ``$1,172,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,201,000''.
       Page 5, line 13, strike ``$138,189,000'' and insert 
     ``$141,764,000''.
       Page 5, line 15, strike ``$1,960,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,235,000''.
       Page 5, line 19, strike ``$135,426,000'' and insert 
     ``$138,726,000''.
       Page 8, line 22, strike ``$70,120,000'' and insert 
     ``$92,769,000''.
       Page 8, line 22, strike ``$33,586,000'' and insert 
     ``$45,683,000''.
       Page 8, line 25, strike ``$36,534,000'' and insert 
     ``$47,086,000''.
       Page 21, line 8, strike ``$25,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$27,403,000''.
       Page 22, line 6, strike ``$41,953,000'' and insert 
     ``$44,234,000''.
       Page 22, line 11, strike ``$4,557,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,217,000''.
       Page 22, line 15, strike ``$29,685,000'' and insert 
     ``$32,750,000''.
       Page 23, line 9, strike ``$38,555,000'' and insert 
     ``$39,151,000''.
       Page 23, line 21, strike ``$66,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$73,810,000''.
       Page 24, line 11, strike ``$65,457,000'' and insert 
     ``$69,626,000''.
       Page 36, line 14, strike ``$15,133,000'' and insert 
     ``$15,837,000''.
       Page 36, line 25, strike ``$11,606,000'' and insert 
     ``$25,652,000''.
       Page 39, line 21, strike ``$351,529,000'' and insert 
     ``$368,896,000''.
       Strike section 308 (and redesignate the succeeding 
     provisions accordingly).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $95.8 million to the bill. It is a 
bipartisan amendment, and is offered on behalf of myself and the 
ranking minority Member of the Subcommittee on Legislative, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  It will provide sufficient funds for all staff COLAs and merit 
increases throughout the legislative branch. That includes Member 
office staff, committee and our administrative staff, and our support 
agencies like CRS, GAO, the Architect's work force and others.
  It will add $20.3 million for the operations of the House, including 
an amount sufficient for Members' representational allowances. The 
amendment adds $22.6 million above the reported bill for police 
salaries. This will fund an additional 48 policemen to the number 
currently on board.
  There are also 93 officers in training that will soon be deployed. 
This means we will end up with around 1,241 sworn officers, that is 
almost 200 above the number we had on the tragic day in 1998 when the 
shootings took place.
  We want to monitor the number of police personnel closely. They do an 
outstanding job, but we also want to see improvements in technology and 
technical security measures. They have been funded, and there needs to 
be an interest to put these items in place, and we urge that to take 
place.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and I have asked the police 
board to substitute more modern technology for our security operations. 
We would like to see a review of the weekend and late-at-night open 
building policies that requires all of the posts to be staffed 
regardless of need or traffic.
  We do have several million visitors here, but unlike cities that have 
populations in the millions, those visitors are not here at night. They 
are not here on all the weekends and certainly on holidays.
  Since we believe these advances will reduce the manpower needs, the 
committee agreement has fenced some $2.5 million of the salary 
appropriations. These are the projected costs of filling vacancies that 
occur next year. These funds can only be spent with the approval of the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make a few brief remarks about the balance of 
the amendment. We have added $7.3 million to the Architect of the 
Capitol so that there will be no need for any layoffs. Building 
cleanliness and maintenance will be maintained and extra daytime 
cleaning of all our restrooms has been funded.
  We have added sufficient funds, $7.6 million, that CRS will maintain 
their current work force. If there is a need for more funds by CRS or 
the Copyright Office to avoid staff attrition losses, we will direct 
the Library of Congress to use the transfer authority provided in the 
bill to help CRS or copyright. We have added $18.2 million back to the 
Government Printing Office. All COLAs are funded.
  Also, the amendment restores all funding for the depository libraries 
to receive the 25,000 Federal publications that are only available in 
paper and other tangible formats.
  Finally, we have added $17.4 million to the General Accounting 
Office. No reductions in force will be necessary at GAO. Mr. Chairman, 
that is the substance of the manager's amendment; all $95.8 million of 
it.
  The bill will still be $9.8 million below the fiscal year 2000 level, 
including pending supplementals. I ask for the adoption of the 
amendment.
  I have a more detailed statement on this matter that I will place in 
the Record.


                          manager's amendment

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $95.8 million to the bill.
  It is a bipartisan amendment and is offered on behalf of myself and 
the ranking minority member of the legislative subcommittee, Ed pastor.
  During general debate, I stated several reasons for offering the 
amendment.
  If the amendment is adopted, the bill will not require any 
reductions-in-force in any legislative agency.
  It will provide sufficient funds for all staff COLA's and merit 
increases throughout the legislative branch. That includes Member 
office staff, committee and our administrative staff, and our support 
agencies like CRS, GAO, the Architect's workforce, and the others.
  It will add $20.3 million for the operations of the House, including 
an amount sufficient for Members' representational allowances. It will 
fund new Members' orientation costs, all transition costs to the 107th 
Congress and a small, but sufficient amount of funds to deal with the 
recent threats posed by Internet viruses.
  The amendment adds $22.6 million above the reported bill for police 
salaries. That's an increase of $14.4 million (18%) above the FY2000 
appropriation. This will fund an additional 48 policemen to the number 
currently on board.

[[Page 12002]]

  In addition to these 48 police officers we are funding with this 
amendment, there are 93 officers in training that will soon be 
deployed. So there will be 141 additional security personnel shortly. 
That means we will end up with about 1,241 sworn officers. That's 189 
above the number we had on that tragic day in 1998 when the shootings 
took place.
  We want to monitor the number of police personnel closely. We also 
want to see improvements in technical security measures. They have been 
funded and there needs to be an impetus to get these items installed. 
Mr. Pastor and I have asked the police board to substitute more modern 
technology to our security operations. The technology has been funded 
and should reduce our reliance on additional police personnel. As this 
technology gets installed (cameras, detection devices, etc.), we will 
look at the size of the force to see if reductions can be made.
  We would like to see a review of the weekend and late-at-night open 
building policies that require all of our posts to be staffed 
regardless of need or the traffic.
  We have been working with the chief and others to reassess the post 
assignment strategy they use. We will make sure there are a sufficient 
number of officers at each door. But we do not want so many that they 
become distracted.
  Since we believe these advances will reduce manpower needs, the 
committee agreement has fenced $2.446 million of the salary 
appropriation. These are the projected costs of filling vacancies that 
occur next year. Those funds can only be spent with the approval of the 
appropriations committees.
  In addition, the new chief, Jim Varey, and I have agreed that we want 
the force to be well trained. We will work with them to make 
improvements in that area.
  We want our officers to be well paid so that they are not going to be 
trained and then recruited away by the Metropolitan Police Force or 
other law enforcement agencies.
  So we will be working closely with police management to make sure 
they have the resources they need, the respect they deserve, and the 
recognition that they cannot be expected to do the impossible.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make a few brief remarks about the balance of 
the amendment.
  We have added $7.3 million to the Architect of the Capitol so that 
there will be no need for any layoffs. Building cleanliness and 
maintenance will be maintained and extra daytime cleaning of all our 
restrooms has been funded.
  We have added sufficient funds ($7.6 million) so that CRS will 
maintain their current workforce. There will be no diminution of their 
services to the Members.
  If there is a need for more funds by CRS or the Copyright Office to 
avoid staff attrition losses, we will direct the Library of Congress to 
use the transfer authority provided in the bill to help CRS or 
copyright. That is the virtue of having some flexibility in the 
appropriation available to our agencies.
  We have added $18.2 million back to the Government Printing Office. 
All COLA's are funded. Some of those funds will restore several 
documents to the printing appropriation such as the Congressional 
Directory, printing for the 2001 inauguration, and several other 
documents.
  Also, the amendment restores all funding for the Depository Libraries 
to receive the 25,000 Federal publications that are only available in 
paper and other tangible formats. None of the highly skilled document 
specialists will lose their jobs.
  Finally, we have added $17.4 million to the General Accounting 
Office. No reductions in force will be necessary at GAO. We all value 
and respect the job that great agency does. It was never our intent to 
damage GAO capabilities, and I said so on several occasions. But our 
earlier allocation gave us no choice.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the substance of the managers' amendment--all 
$95.8 million of it.
  The bill will still be $9.8 million below the FY2000 level, including 
pending supplementals.
  For those who do not believe supplementals should be counted, the 
bill is only above this year's level--by $2.8 million.
  I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  I will insert a table which reflects the amounts in the bill included 
in the managers' amendment.

[[Page 12003]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN00.001



[[Page 12004]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN00.002



[[Page 12005]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN00.003



[[Page 12006]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) rise to 
claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, but I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Pastor) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a minute to ask my colleagues to 
support this manager's amendment. The chairman and I have worked to 
make this bill a better bill, tried to fund the security needs, the 
needs that we have in order to maintain the House and the Capitol and 
reduce the pain. I would ask my colleagues to support the manager's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 106-685.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Camp

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Camp:
       Page 7, insert after line 8 the following (and redesignate 
     the succeeding sections accordingly):
       Sec. 103. (a) Requiring Amounts Remaining in Members' 
     Representational Allowances To Be Used For Deficit Reduction 
     or To Reduce the Federal Debt.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any amounts appropriated under this Act for 
     ``HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members' 
     Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for 
     fiscal year 2001. Any amount remaining after all payments are 
     made under such allowances for fiscal year 2001 shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction (or, 
     if there is no Federal budget deficit after all such payments 
     have been made, for reducing the Federal debt, in such manner 
     as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
       (b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration of 
     the House of Representatives shall have authority to 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``Member 
     of the House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, 
     or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I first want to thank my good friend, 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the 
subcommittee for understanding how important this amendment is to 
myself and many other Members of this Congress.
  I also want to thank the Committee on Rules and its chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for allowing me to bring this 
important amendment before the House today.
  This amendment simply requires unspent office funds to be used for 
deficit or debt reduction. I believe that many Members are now familiar 
with this common sense amendment that former Congressman Zimmer and I 
and others first proposed back in 1991.
  Before 1995, this amendment was never made in order. In 1995, this 
amendment was approved on the House floor by an overwhelming margin of 
403-21 in 1996, and in 1997, it was accepted on the floor by the 
committee chairman. In 1998, the committee brought the bill to the 
House floor with this provision, Mr. Chairman, incorporated into the 
bill.
  Last year, it was accepted on the floor by the committee chairman. I 
want to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer), for his efforts on this matter as well. I believe that the 
Camp-Roemer-Upton-Smith amendment will ensure that Members of Congress 
can demonstrate their personal commitment to a balanced budget.
  This amendment requires any unspent office funds at the end of the 
year be used for debt reduction, or if a deficit exists, deficit 
reduction takes priority.
  Mr. Chairman, in the last few years, we have achieved, what has 
eluded Congress for 30 years, a balanced budget. The fiscal year 2001 
legislative branch appropriations bill continues our efforts to reduce 
the national debt and eliminate the national debt and holds a line on 
spending.
  I thank the chairman again for considering the Camp-Roemer-Upton-
Smith amendment, and I urge all Members to support the amendment and 
the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member opposed?
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, but I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) will control 10 
minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Taylor) from North Carolina and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Pastor) for their support for this amendment.
  I want to thank the Committee on Rules as well for allowing us to 
talk about this important issue, this common sense issue on the floor 
today. I also join with my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Camp) in offering this amendment. He talked a little bit about the 
history of this amendment. I will talk a little bit more about that.
  We started this crusade back in 1991 to say to the American people 
that their tax money should go back to the Treasury if Members of 
Congress work hard, out of their Member's representational allowances, 
to not spend it, that the taxpayer should be rewarded. We initially met 
with great resistance in the first couple of years we offered this.
  The money instead went into a slush fund that was respent instead of 
back to the Treasury for debt or deficit reduction. I proudly join in a 
bipartisan way with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton) to follow through on a pledge that we have been trying to 
pass for almost 8 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment for three reasons: One, that 
the House show leadership on issues of discipline and the budget. If 
the American people are making sacrifices to get a balanced budget, the 
House should take the leadership in that role.
  The second reason I support this amendment is because when Members, 
through the course of the year, make decisions not to spend money 
buying a new photocopier or new computers, that money and their account 
should be able to go to the Treasury to reduce the debt and not be 
respent. If Members do the hard work to save money, they and the 
taxpayer should be rewarded.
  The third reason I support this is because debt reduction is the 
biggest issue for the people throughout this country in this coming 
election. This will make a small yet important contribution to that 
debt reduction when Members do take the disciplinary choices forward 
and save money under their Members representational allowances.
  For these three reasons, I think this is a common sense amendment. It 
is a bipartisan amendment. It makes a dent on the national debt; and, 
therefore, I urge its strong support.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).

[[Page 12007]]


  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment 
and thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), again, for offering 
this cost-saving measure.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to comment on the amendment 
itself directly, but I simply want to say this: I, for one, take 
exception to the idea that the greatest public service that we do for 
people is to refuse to use the little resources we have on behalf of 
the constituents we represent.
  The size of this economy is growing. There are a huge number of power 
centers in this economy that have one whale of a lot more power than 
any individual Member of Congress, virtually every lobby group in 
society has a greater ability to communicate with our own constituents 
than we do.

                              {time}  1200

  I make no apology for the fact that some Members of this institution 
use all of the resources made available to them under the rules to do 
their job and most effectively represent the public, and, secondly, to 
inform the constituents they represent about exactly what is going on 
out here.
  I think that sometimes we see this body leave the impression that 
somehow we are apologetic about what our offices spend in order to do 
that job. I try to save every dollar that I can, and I regularly turn 
some money back to the Treasury. But, to me, when I ran a poll a number 
of years ago and asked my own constituents whether they wanted less or 
more communication from us, less or more service, the answer came back 
they wanted more.
  So, frankly, I regard this as one of those ``holy picture'' 
amendments that lets Members, very often Members who have the least 
responsibility and the least impact around this place and who have full 
reason to turn back a good share of their office budgets, because they 
make very little contribution to this place and have very little impact 
on the outcome of the legislative product, they have a good reason to 
turn back virtually all of their office accounts. But there are a lot 
of people in this place, in both political parties, who, if anything, 
need more resources to meet their responsibilities.
  We are not asking for those resources, but I do question the 
conventional wisdom that somehow the greatest public good is served if 
we all do a mea culpa about the fact we are using our resources to try 
to see to it that the constituents we represent have the most effective 
representation possible and that we communicate as much as we can with 
them.
  I also say very frankly that we do no service to our constituents 
when we squeeze our own Members' office accounts so much that the 
average Senator can pay $20,000 more for a legislative assistant than 
can a Member of the House, when the average Senator can pay $25,000 
more for an administrative assistant or a press secretary than a Member 
of the House can. We do the same work they do. About the only thing we 
do not do is ratify treaties, and, thank God, because you look at what 
a hash they have often made of that.
  But it just seems to me that it is about time we recognize we are 
being advised literally by ``kiddy corps'' in our offices, because we 
do not keep people more than 2 or 3 years. You get people who come in 
at start up levels; and within 2 years, they can make a whale of a lot 
more money anywhere else than they can on Capitol Hill.
  This Congress would be less amateurish, it would be more 
professional, we would have better oversight, we would have a better 
legislative product if we had many more experienced staffers than we 
do.
  So I, for one, while this amendment is obviously going to pass, I 
question the premise behind it, because it seems to me that it allows 
Members to brag easily for doing something which very often is not in 
the interest of their constituents.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue. When I ran for Congress 
back in 1998, my emphasis was on debt reduction; and it is an important 
issue because, since 1980, we have gone from approximately $750 billion 
in debt to over $3 trillion in debt and we are spending approximately 
$230 billion a year in interest payments on this national debt. It is 
absurd that we are paying this kind of interest on our national debt.
  Now, this amendment does not go a long way to retiring that debt, but 
it is a symbolic gesture of what we should be doing, and that is 
practicing fiscal discipline. Last year my office turned over $50,000 
back to the Treasury. If every Member of Congress would do the same 
thing, then it would go to some extent at least of retiring some of our 
debt. $50,000 here and $50,000 there, sooner or later it adds up to 
real money; and if we practice fiscal discipline, which I think this 
amendment is attempting to do, we can get about the business of 
actually retiring our Nation's debt and serving the people of this 
Nation in a positive way.
  So I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is the right thing 
to do, not only in terms of policy, but in terms of a symbolic gesture, 
that we are really committed to retiring our Nation's debt, so we are 
not spending this God-awful $230 billion in interest payments on our 
national debt and interest.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for 
accepting the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 106-685.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
       At the end (before the short title), insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 311. SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY LOCK-BOX.

       (a) Establishment of Ledger.--(1) Title III of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:


               ``spending accountability lock-box ledger

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Establishment of Ledger.--The chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     and the chairman on the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     shall each maintain a ledger to be known as the `Spending 
     Accountability Lock-box Ledger'. The Ledger shall be divided 
     into entries corresponding to the subcommittees of the 
     Committees on Appropriations. Each entry shall consist of 
     three components: the `House Lock-box Balance'; the `Senate 
     Lock-box Balance'; and the `Joint House-Senate Lock-box 
     Balance'.
       ``(b) Components of Ledger.--Each component in an entry 
     shall consist only of amounts credited to it under subsection 
     (c). No entry of a negative amount shall be made.
       ``(c) Credit of Amounts to Ledger.--(1) In the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate, whenever a Member offers an 
     amendment to an appropriation bill to reduce new budget 
     authority in any account, that Member may state the portion 
     of such reduction that shall be--
       ``(A) credited to the House or Senate Lock-box Balance, as 
     applicable; or
       ``(B) used to offset an increase in new budget authority in 
     any other account;
       ``(C) allowed to remain within the applicable section 
     302(b) suballocation.
     If no such statement is made, the amount of reduction in new 
     budget authority resulting from the amendment shall be 
     credited to the House or Senate Lock-box Balance, as 
     applicable, if the amendment is agreed to.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), the 
     chairmen of the Committees on the Budget shall, upon the 
     engrossment of any appropriation bill by the House of 
     Representatives and upon the engrossment of Senate

[[Page 12008]]

     amendments to that bill, credit to the applicable entry 
     balance of that House amounts of new budget authority and 
     outlays equal to the net amounts of reductions in new budget 
     authority and in outlays resulting from amendments agreed to 
     by that House to that bill.
       ``(B) When computing the net amounts of reductions in new 
     budget authority and in outlays resulting from amendments 
     agreed to by the House of Representatives or the Senate to an 
     appropriation bill, the chairmen of the Committees on the 
     Budget shall only count those portions of such amendments 
     agreed to that were so designated by the Members offering 
     such amendments as amounts to be credited to the House or 
     Senate Lock-box Balance, as applicable, or that fall within 
     the last sentence of paragraph (1).
       ``(3) The chairmen of the Committees on the Budget shall, 
     upon the engrossment of Senate amendments to any 
     appropriation bill, credit to the applicable Joint House-
     Senate Lock-box Balance the amounts of new budget authority 
     and outlays equal to--
       ``(A) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the 
     amount of new budget authority in the House Lock-box Balance 
     plus (ii) the amount of new budget authority in the Senate 
     Lock-box Balance for that subcommittee; and
       ``(B) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the 
     amount of outlays in the House Lock-box Balance plus (ii) the 
     amount of outlays in the Senate Lock-box Balance for that 
     subcommittee.
       ``(4) Calculation of Lock-Box Savings in Senate.--For 
     purposes of calculating under this section the net amounts of 
     reductions in new budget authority and in outlays resulting 
     from amendments agreed to by the Senate on an appropriation 
     bill, the amendments reported to the Senate by its Committee 
     on Appropriations shall be considered to be part of the 
     original text of the bill.
       ``(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `appropriation bill' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of a fiscal year.
       ``(e) Tally During House Consideration.--The chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     shall maintain a running tally of the amendments adopted 
     reflecting increases and decreases of budget authority in the 
     bill as reported. This tally shall be available to Members in 
     the House of Representatives during consideration of any 
     appropriation bill by the House.''.
       (2) The table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 315 
     the following new item:
``Sec. 316. Spending accountability lock-box ledger.''.
       (b) Downward Adjustment of Sections 302(a) and (b) 
     Allocations.--(1) Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Adjustment of allocations.--Upon the engrossment of 
     Senate amendments to any appropriation bill (as defined in 
     section 316(d)), the amounts allocated under paragraph (1) to 
     the Committee on Appropriations of each House upon the 
     adoption of the most recent concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for that fiscal year shall be adjusted downward by the 
     amounts credited to the applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-
     box Balance under section 316(c)(2). The revised levels of 
     new budget authority and outlays shall be submitted to each 
     House by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of that 
     House and shall be printed in the Congressional Record.''.
       (2) Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Whenever an adjustment is made under subsection (a)(6) to 
     an allocation under that subsection, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House shall make downward adjustments 
     in the most recent suballocations of new budget authority and 
     outlays under this subparagraph to the appropriate 
     subcommittees of that committee in the total amounts of those 
     adjustments under section 316(c)(2). The revised 
     suballocations shall be submitted to each House by the 
     chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of that House and 
     shall be printed in the Congressional Record.''.
       (c) Periodic Reporting of Ledger Statements.--Section 
     308(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such 
     reports shall also include an up-to-date tabulation of the 
     amounts contained in the ledger and each entry established by 
     section 316(a).''.
       (d) Downward Adjustment of Discretionary Spending Limits.--
     The discretionary spending limits for new budget authority 
     and outlays set forth in section 251(c) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, shall be 
     reduced by the amounts set forth in the final regular 
     appropriation bill for that fiscal year or joint resolution 
     making continuing appropriations through the end of that 
     fiscal year. Those amounts shall be the sums of the Joint 
     House-Senate Lock-box Balances for that fiscal year, as 
     calculated under section 302(a)(6) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. That bill or joint resolution shall 
     contain the following statement of law: ``As required by 
     section 311(d) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 
     2001, for fiscal year [insert appropriate fiscal year], the 
     adjusted discretionary spending limit for new budget 
     authority is reduced by $ [insert appropriate amount of 
     reduction] and the adjusted discretionary limit for outlays 
     is reduced by $ [insert appropriate amount of reduction] for 
     the fiscal year.''. Section 306 shall not apply to any bill 
     or joint resolution because of such statement. This 
     adjustment shall be reflected in reports under sections 
     254(f) and 254(g) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (e) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by it 
     shall apply to all appropriation bills making appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2001 or any subsequent fiscal year.
       (2) Retroactive application.--In the case of any 
     appropriation bill engrossed by the House of Representatives 
     before the date of enactment of this section, the Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office, the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget, and the Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committees on the Budget of the House 
     of Representatives and of the Senate shall, within 10 
     calendar days after that date of enactment, carry out the 
     duties required by the amendments made by this section that 
     occur before that date of enactment.
       (3) FY2001 allocations.--The duties of the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office and of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives pursuant to 
     this Act and the amendments made by it regarding 
     appropriation bills for fiscal year 2001 shall be based upon 
     the revised section 302(a) allocations in effect upon the 
     date of engrossment of this Act by the House of 
     Representatives.
       (4) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona will be recognized for 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly explain what this amendment does. 
This is the amendment we have often called the appropriations lock box 
amendment. This is an amendment that has been here before, in the 102nd 
Congress, the 103rd Congress, the 104th Congress, and the 105th 
Congress, and passed by voice vote earlier this year. This amendment 
has been voted on or cosponsored by 328 Members of this body; 328 
Members of the minority side and the majority side have already either 
cosponsored this amendment or voted for this amendment. Yet for some 
reason today, it is experiencing incredible opposition.
  What this amendment does is allow any Member of Congress to come to 
the floor with an amendment to cut or reduce spending on a given 
appropriations and use that savings to either dedicate it toward 
another program or to dedicate it toward debt reduction. It does not 
hamper us in negotiations with the Senate. The savings is realized 
after the conference report is passed.
  What this does is it says if you want to eliminate spending in the 
Federal Government and you want to dedicate that spending toward 
reducing our national debt, you may do so. However, under the crazy 
rules of the House today, that is not the case. If you come here to the 
floor and pass an amendment to cut spending, it will be spent somewhere 
else in the Federal Government. But that is not the will of most 
Members of Congress. That is not the desire. So what this amendment 
says is you get the choice, whether your savings will go toward debt 
reduction or other spending. That is not the case today.
  I might add that this has been a bipartisan amendment; it is a 
bipartisan amendment today. In the 103rd Congress it was considered. In 
1994, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and Mr. Zeliff 
introduced a similar law. The President had an executive order in 1994 
very similar to this. Congressman Crapo, the gentleman

[[Page 12009]]

from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and former Representative Schumer, 
now a Senator, introduced legislation like this a couple of Congresses 
ago.
  In the 103rd Congress, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and Congressman Penny introduced 
similar legislation. More recently, in 1995, the House adopted a very 
similar piece of legislation to an appropriations bill by a vote of 364 
to 59.
  Mr. Chairman, this is widely accepted policy. I urge passage of the 
amendment.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this amendment is that it 
reverses the fundamental concept of the 1974 budget process. Rather 
than have Members of each body arrive at a consensus as to how much we 
ought to spend on discretionary programs, and then allow the 
appropriations process to sort out how to deal with competing 
priorities within that amount, it would call for revision of the 
discretionary spending limits each time the House disagreed with the 
Senate over spending priorities.
  This would be a unilateral revision in the budget resolution. Once 
the House began adjusting appropriations bills, the House and Senate 
would move from identical limits on discretionary spending to different 
limits. This would mean the House would send conferees to work with the 
Senate on working out our differences on the individual bills with 
constraints so tight as to preclude any real prospect of producing 
legislation that could be sent to the President. The compromise money 
would be placed in the lock box. The Senate would have the choice of 
submitting to the House or rejecting a final agreement.
  In short, this is a proposal that ought to be supported only by 
people who believe that we have too few train wrecks in this 
legislative body.
  This sounds good on the surface, but it does not work in practice, 
which is why the Senate has routinely rejected it. It will again. All 
it means is this bill will be delayed further because of another 
conflict on another proposal which will go nowhere.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and in doing so I would like to 
add I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin. He is one of the Members 
who has been consistent on this issue in opposing this policy. I might 
add that 45 members of our current Committee on Appropriations either 
cosponsored or voted for this policy.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to the Members of this House the 
reason why we think it is so important to pass this particular 
amendment.
  These are flush times for Washington, D.C. There has been much ado 
about the record surplus we are expecting and the different ways we are 
going to spend that surplus. But in our eagerness to out do each other 
to spend the surplus, we overlook the long-term value of paying down 
the debt, a debt which is over $3 trillion, a debt which debt service 
alone runs $230 billion a year. We are saddled with that.
  That is the purpose behind this amendment, to try to do something, 
Mr. Chairman, to make certain that when we in fact put forward an 
amendment to cut spending, that it does just that.
  Mr. Chairman, the financial outlook for America may be good, but the 
past is mired in debt. We have maxed out on the credit card for Uncle 
Sam; and, frankly, until we pay this debt off, it is shortsighted for 
us to continue spending without restraint. It is shortsighted for us to 
claim on the floor that we are making an amendment to cut spending and 
then find out later that the appropriators have recommitted that 
spending.
  So what this lock box amendment does is to capture all the savings 
from amendments which reduce or cut funding and to vote to devote the 
savings to one thing, and that is debt reduction. Under current law, 
when a Member offers an appropriation amendment that cuts the funding 
and the House concurs and says yes, this is wasteful Washington 
spending, the savings is automatically utilized for other discretionary 
funding. This defeats the whole point of savings.
  Furthermore, this lock box will reduce the overall discretionary 
spending cap by the amount of the savings, to prevent our savings from 
being spent in the future. This will help Congress prepare for future 
needs.
  Mr. Chairman, the economy is not going to keep this pace forever. We 
need to find long-term solutions to paying down the debt.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman from Wisconsin who 
offered this amendment in my opinion is one of the rising stars of this 
House and has spoken a philosophy that I have shared ever since I came 
to this Congress. But I must say that just passing the bills in the 
House is only the first step. There are many steps in appropriating for 
this government. Appropriations must pass through the subcommittees, 
the full committee, and the House of Representatives.
  But then we have the Senate, which is the next activity, and then we 
have the conference committees between the House and the Senate, and 
then we have the negotiations between the Congress and the President of 
the United States; and then, in all of these negotiations, there must 
be some flexibility.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a while ago gave an 
example. Let me repeat that. If the House should reduce a particular 
airplane program by $1 billion, and that $1 billion goes into the lock 
box; and if the Senate reduces a shipbuilding program, well, the Senate 
does not reduce shipbuilding programs, let me use another example, some 
other example in the defense bill by $1 billion, that is $2 billion 
that goes into the lock box. But when you go to conference, there is 
negotiating in order to get the House and the Senate to come to the 
same numbers on the same issues.

                              {time}  1215

  This amendment, unfortunately, takes away the flexibility that is 
needed in order to reach these accommodations.
  Now, if this were a unicameral legislature, only one House, I would 
say amen to this amendment without any hesitation, because 
philosophically, I do agree with this. However, we are not unicameral; 
we are a bicameral legislature, and we do have to have those 
negotiations. This amendment, in my opinion, would put the Members of 
the House at a serious disadvantage with our colleagues in the other 
body.
  Now, when we get to conference, as I said, there must be considerable 
negotiations, and oftentimes, Members will approach the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations or one of our subcommittees and say, well, 
hey, can you add this for me when you get to conference.
  My friend from California said that the appropriators spend the 
money. Well, let me tell my colleagues who really spends the money 
here. Our colleagues in this House of Representatives have requested of 
the Committee on Appropriations, for fiscal year 2000, over 22,000 
projects. So the spending is done by Members of the House and Members 
of the other body, and they have the right to do this. That is why 
Members are elected to the Congress, to represent their districts, the 
interests of their districts, or to represent their philosophical 
viewpoints.
  So from a philosophical standpoint, I could not agree more with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, but there is a better approach. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania earlier this year offered an amendment that I 
accepted as chairman of the committee, because it set aside a specific 
amount of appropriated money to go into debt reduction. I am for debt 
reduction; and I

[[Page 12010]]

think it is essential that we reduce the debt as rapidly as we possibly 
can. That amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was something we 
could work with. But the pending amendment makes the process very 
unworkable, and I would hope that the Members would reject it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to point out to the gentleman from Florida that this 
amendment also allows Members to come with specific amounts set to debt 
reduction just like the Toomey amendment does. Also, I think we 
addressed the bicameral flexibility in this amendment, because it is 
half of the House, half of the Senate becomes the total of the amount 
that is passed in the lock box and the conference report.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Minge), a member of the minority party.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to emphasize that the amendment that he is sponsoring 
today, and I am honored to join with him in cosponsoring, has had a 
long bipartisan history. I remember Congressman Bill Brewster, 
Congresswoman Jane Harman, Congressman Chuck Schumer, and many others 
on this side of the aisle that have championed this cause. I have also 
worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) on a parallel 
amendment.
  Many of us sit on the Committee on the Budget, and we have struggled 
with this budget process; and I am sympathetic with the plight in which 
the folks on the Committee on Appropriations find themselves. But I 
also, having heard from the previous speaker, realize the enormous 
pressure that is on the Committee on Appropriations and the 
appropriations process. If we have 22,000 projects that are being 
requested that are not currently in the budget, it is tempting at every 
turn to try to accommodate one or another of those projects, if not 
hundreds of them. And we have had bills at the end of the session for 
several years running that have been enormous catchall bills, and these 
bills have been the opportunity for some of us to cause some mischief 
in the process. If we adopt this lock-box approach, it puts additional 
structure and discipline in how we deal with our responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the Committee on Appropriations 
members who are in conference with the Senate. I think those Senators 
cause us a lot of grief. But I think that if we have something like 
this lock-box rule that we go into that conference committee with, we 
can say to those Senators, look, we are going to draw the line. We did 
something bold in the House. We committed ourselves to deficit 
reduction, to using these savings to insulate Social Security and 
Medicare from any further compromising with respect to the integrity of 
those programs, because we spend too much.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we join in a bipartisan effort and adopt 
this lock-box amendment.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another one of those gimmicky amendments that 
pretends we can deal with some fundamental fiscal problems with a 
little tinkering with the process. It is based on a very fundamental 
myth, and that is that somehow over the years, there has not been 
discipline in discretionary spending. In fact, the history of the 
Budget Act is that the one part of the budget that has been subject to 
discipline has been discretionary spending.
  The budget process, if it works, sets limits on discretionary 
spending. The Congress then works within those limits through House, 
through Senate, through conference committee, through negotiations with 
the President. That process works when those initial limits are 
realistic and have some relationship to reality.
  To somehow pretend that this is not an ongoing dynamic process with 
changes as we go through the process from subcommittee to committee, to 
the House, to the Senate, just flies in the face of reality. It is an 
ongoing, dynamic process where in the end, our product is what we pass. 
It should be governed by realistic limits on discretionary spending.
  The reason the process has broken down last year, this year, and the 
year before is that we start with unrealistic discretionary limits so 
they totally break down, we end up with a catchall at the end, which 
frankly, in my judgment, results in us spending more than if we had 
started at realistic discretionary spending limits. Vote no on this 
gimmick. It does damage; it does no good.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to add that this gimmick has been supported by 328 Members 
of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague for again 
toiling in the field of the esoteric budget law; but this is important 
work, and to respond to the previous speaker, to suggest that there has 
been some kind of model of physical discipline in discretionary 
spending in recent years I think is simply to ignore the facts.
  The facts are that discretionary spending has been growing at a very 
rapid rate, far greater than the speed at which the economy is growing 
or inflation. I think we clearly need a tool like this for some fiscal 
discipline. I am happy to note that such a large, overwhelming majority 
of this body have supported this at one time or another. I am sure 
Members will want to be consistent in their voting, so I am very 
hopeful that this will pass.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that all this amendment does is it 
gives a Member of this body the option to use the savings from an 
amendment; when he or she reduces a particular account, it creates the 
option to make sure that that savings actually becomes a savings and 
does not get spent somewhere else.
  Now, if we want to do a transfer amendment, if we want to take from 
one account and put into another account, we can do that; and this 
amendment would not change that at all. The flexibility to shift money 
around from account to account would remain. But today, under our 
current budget rules, if what we really want to do is reduce spending 
and not spend it somewhere else, but actually use it to retire some 
debt and lower the burden on taxpayers in this country, we have no 
assurance that that will happen, because after we pass the amendment 
that reduces that account, that money can later be spent somewhere else 
in the process.
  What this amendment does is it gives a Member of this body the option 
to say, no, I do not want to spend this money anywhere else; I want to 
see it go for some debt reduction. For that I think it is a very 
valuable tool, a very important tool; and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the sponsor of this 
amendment and most of the folks who are supporting this voted for a 
budget that cut less from the national debt and took more time to get 
to balance than did the Democratic alternative which they voted 
against.
  I serve on the Committee on Appropriations. We have 13 separate 
appropriation bills. Every Republican chairman as he has reported his 
bill to the full committee has said, we do not have enough resources to 
fund the priorities that we have within our responsibility. Every one 
of the Republican chairmen has said that.
  This is not a case where the Committee on Budget has given the 
Committee on Appropriations so much money it does not know what to do 
with it. We cut $3 billion under the President's proposal for 
education, and 2.7 million children will not be served because of the 
budget that we passed.
  Now, the fact of the matter is, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce) talks about bringing down the deficit. I

[[Page 12011]]

am for that. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment; I voted for the 
1997 agreement. I have been a fiscal conservative in the sense that we 
need to bring down spending. I voted for the 1993 bill, which, in my 
opinion, has made the most contribution to really bringing down the 
debt, not nickel and diming by this project or that project, but by 
hundreds of billions of dollars. That took courage. That is the way we 
ought to go, not, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) says, by 
adopting gimmicks that are easy for a lot of people to adopt.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  This is not, obviously, the first time this has come up. Mr. 
Chairman, 238 Members of this institution have supported this amendment 
in the past and my friend from California (Mr. Royce), in fact, was the 
sponsor of it, I think, in the last Congress.
  When we introduce an amendment to an appropriations bill to try to 
exercise some fiscal responsibility, reduce a line item that we may not 
particularly support, it is nice to think that after that amendment 
passes, the money does not disappear into some other program or some 
other spending item, and that, in fact, can go to debt reduction which 
I consider to be on equal footing with controlling the size of the 
budget, providing meaningful tax relief to working Americans, saving 
Social Security.
  These are all important objectives, and it would be nice to be able 
to pass this amendment and have it in law so that when Members of 
Congress propose reductions in appropriations, that those reductions do 
not have to be offset by some other spending increase in some other 
part of the budget.
  I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his courage in offering 
this amendment, and I hope that all of the 328 members who have 
supported this amendment in the past will stand up and do so again. It 
is good budgeting.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, in my last 30 seconds, I would 
just like to point out that this has been around before. All it does is 
says, a Member of Congress, if they want to cut spending in an 
appropriations bill, can dedicate that savings to another bill, to 
another program that is more valuable, or to pay off the debt. Mr. 
Chairman, 328 members of this Congress voted for this, 45 
appropriators. If a Member wants to find out, if he or she wants to be 
consistent with their vote when we vote on this, come on down, we have 
a list right here.
  Mr. Chairman, this is scored by the Citizens Against Government 
Waste, it is scored by the National Taxpayer Union. It is a common 
sense amendment, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to vote no on 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues the practical 
problems we have with the legislation which we face. Many, many times 
we have lost $1 billion in the defense bill, and our defense bill is 
$288 billion this year. But when we lose it on the House side, if 
somebody offered an amendment on one, say it was the F-22 and the 
Senate had a different figure, we would go into the conference and have 
a very difficult time resolving it. We would lose our flexibility.
  There is no easy way to reduce the deficit. It can only be done with 
very difficult decisions. In defense, we figure we are $15 billion to 
$20 billion short. So if we took out this kind of money, it would 
actually affect national defense in a very derogatory way.

                              {time}  1230

  So I would hope the Members would understand the importance of this 
vote. This is absolutely essential to our flexibility in dealing with 
the other body, so that if something is cut in the House, we can go 
back and renegotiate and hopefully be able to either restore something 
or, in the end, get the Department to pay attention to what we are 
telling them to do.
  Last year we cut the F-22. We said we needed more testing. We cut a 
lot of money out of it. If we had not had this flexibility, this 
program would have been killed. We would not have had this flexibility.
  I would urge the Members to reconsider the vote on this particular 
amendment. There is no easy way to do it except to vote up or down on 
these issues. I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 235, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--184

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield

                               NOES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez

[[Page 12012]]


     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cook
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Dicks
     Engel
     Filner
     Hobson
     Hyde
     Kuykendall
     McCollum
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Towns
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  1253

  Mr. DICKEY and Mr. McCRERY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BEREUTER, DEUTSCH, HOLT, SUNUNU, CUNNINGHAM, ENGLISH and 
BAIRD and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4516) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 530, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment. If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 373, 
nays 50, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 313]

                               YEAS--373

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--50

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Brown (OH)
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Conyers
     Costello
     Davis (FL)
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Kennedy
     Kind (WI)
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Royce
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Tanner
     Towns
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cook
     Cubin
     Engel
     Filner
     Hobson
     Hyde
     Kuykendall
     McCollum
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  1310

  Messrs. FARR of California, MINGE, PETERSON of Minnesota, SHAYS and 
TOWNS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________