[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14425-14430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, under the authority granted to me and 
after consulting with the Republican leader, I now call up Calendar No. 
504, H.R. 5121, the legislative branch appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has that right. The clerk will 
report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5121) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 
     2003, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the text of S. 2720, 
the Senate committee-reported bill, is inserted in the appropriate 
place in the measure.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 4319

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to make a 
technical correction to the bill relating to a House matter. This 
amendment simply strikes a requirement that the GAO report to the House 
Administration Committee regarding its work on the Architect of the 
Capitol. We have been informed the committee does not have oversight 
for the Architect and therefore have been requested to delete this 
reference. I have consulted with my colleague and the ranking member, 
Senator Bennett, and I ask unanimous consent this technical correction 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr. 
     Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 4319.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment was (No. 4319) was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 33, lines 19 and 20, strike ``, the Committee on 
     House Administration of the House of Representatives,''.
       On page 34, line 24, through page 35, line 1, strike ``, 
     the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague and chairman of the 
committee, the Senator from West Virginia, for his help in bringing 
this matter to the floor.
  Mr. President, I am honored to present to the Senate the fiscal year 
2003 legislative branch appropriations bill as reported by the 
Appropriations Committee. I thank the chairman and ranking member of 
the full committee, Senate Byrd and Senator Stevens, and of course my 
ranking member Senator Bennett who has been a real partner in crafting 
this legislation.
  The bill is within its budget authority and outlay allocation, with 
total funding of $2.417 billion. This excludes House amounts which is 
the normal protocol.
  This is only $8 million--0.35 percent--over the request level and 
$164 million or 7 percent over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. 
Virtually all significant increases are focused on enhancing security 
for the Capitol complex.
  Highlights of the bill include--$675 million for the Senate, $31 
million over the enacted level and $11 million below the request. 
Significant increases are provided for the Sergeant-at-Arms, directed 
at increasing the security of the Capitol complex, including new mail 
handling protocols and a new Office of Emergency Preparedness.
  For the Architect of the Capitol, funding would total approximately 
$396 million compared to the request level of $363 million. The largest 
project in the Architect's budget that we are recommending is the 
expansion of the Capitol power plant's west refrigeration plant, which 
is critically needed due to aging equipment and increased capacity 
requirements, at a cost of $82 million. In addition, a number of 
critical security-related projects have been included such as an 
alternate computing facility for the legislative branch.
  The bill includes language aimed at helping the Architect of the 
Capitol improve his operations by creating a new deputy Architect of 
the Capitol who will also serve as the chief operating officer.
  We have worked closely with the General Accounting Office in these 
efforts to upgrade AOC operations, including a greater focus on worker 
safety, and I might add significant progress

[[Page 14426]]

has been made in the last year due to the efforts of this committee and 
the cooperation of the Architect's office, project management, 
accountability for performance, and coordination of roles and 
responsibilities.
  The Architect of the Capitol operation has been making some 
improvements over the past year and the employees worked very hard to 
do their part in addressing the anthrax cleanup, an historic challenge 
to all who worked on Capitol Hill. But there is much more to be done in 
making AOC a best-practices organization.
  They have been given tremendous additional responsibilities for 
executing a myriad of security projects, particularly the Capitol 
Visitor Center--which we want to ensure remains on schedule and on 
budget as it is today. Any visitor to Capitol Hill in the last 6 months 
or a year has noted the extensive construction underway. The 
authorities included in this bill should provide new tools with the 
goal of making the AOC a model for facilities management and 
construction management.
  Funding for the Capitol Police totals roughly $210 million which 
reflects their latest payroll and expense estimates. Funding has been 
provided to accommodate at 9.1 percent pay raise--which includes 
comparability pay--to help the Capitol Police recruit and retain new 
officers as they attempt to increase significantly the force size over 
the next few years to about 2,000 officers. Also included is authority 
for increasing pay for specialty assignments and providing authority 
and funding for full premium pay earned during the September 11th and 
October 15th incidents.
  I can say that the hundreds of thousands of visitors to Capitol Hill 
understand the important responsibility of the Capitol Police which was 
enhanced and challenged by September 11. We want to make certain that 
we have the very best men and women to protect this great national 
asset, all the people who work here, and our visitors whom we treasure 
very much.
  This bill will require that within 3 years the Library of Congress, 
just across the street, and Capitol Police officers be merged in order 
to improve security. This has been an initiative urged and encouraged 
by my colleague, Senator Bennett. The 3-year implementation period will 
allow time to work out the details, differences in retirement, training 
and equipment.
  The Government Printing Office, $122 million is included with the 
directive to the administration not to implement the recently announced 
policy directing agencies to violate our law and bypass the Government 
Printing Office for their printing needs. If such a directive were 
implemented, not only would the law be broken, but the process by which 
1,300 Federal depository libraries receive Government publications 
would be decimated.
  For the Library of Congress, including the Congressional Research 
Service, funding would total $497 million, an increase of $15 million 
over the enacted level, but $15 million below the request, reflecting a 
more realistic projection of the cost of new positions. New positions 
are provided for preserving the access of the Library's collections, 
including digital initiatives.
  The General Accounting Office will receive $455 million. This covers 
all mandatory and price level increases, and includes $1 million to 
continue their important technology assessment work which was initiated 
by Congress last year.
  The recommendation includes $13 million for the Center for Foreign 
Leadership Development. We have expanded what was originally the center 
for Russian Leadership Development to include newly independent states 
of the former Soviet Union including the Baltics. This program has 
proven successful in bringing emerging political leaders in Russia to 
the United States to learn democracy firsthand and to make certain they 
take those lessons home. Expanding this program to include these 
additional countries will continue to promote that critical goal.
  Before I turn it over to my colleague and friend Senator Bennett, I 
want to particularly thank all the staff on the Appropriations 
Committee for their work, and especially Carrie Apostolou, who has done 
a tremendous amount of work to make this bill ready for floor 
consideration, and Pat Souders of my own staff, who has worked closely 
with her.
  I thank Senator Bennett for his cooperation, and I yield the floor to 
my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I am grateful for the generous remarks 
of my friend and chairman, the Senator from Illinois. I am grateful for 
the cooperative way in which we have been able to work through this 
bill.
  The Senator from Illinois had the challenge of taking over this 
subcommittee in the middle of the session, and he had just come to the 
subcommittee by virtue of his assignment to the Appropriations 
Committee. He has demonstrated that he is a very quick study. He has 
moved quickly to get on top of these issues.
  I do not want to repeat the various elements of the bill he has 
described, but it is a good bill and it is one that I am happy to join 
in recommending to the Senate.
  As the Senator from Illinois has indicated, I have been advocating 
for some time a merger of the Capitol Police, at least with the Library 
of Congress Police, and looking at the other police agencies that are 
under our jurisdiction. We are now moving ahead with this. I think it 
only makes sense, in the new security environment in which we find 
ourselves. To have an area as small as the Capitol campus be divided up 
into jurisdictions under, not necessarily competing but certainly 
different police departments, does not make a whole lot of sense.
  I have made reference to this before, but I think it is appropriate 
here. One of the things that was particularly significant for the 
success of the Olympics in Utah was the coordination that occurred 
between competing law enforcement agencies. Of course, we were involved 
in a much bigger venue there, a much larger geographic area, but it was 
important that everybody got together and was able to communicate.
  Given the small nature but highly visible nature of the Capitol 
campus, it makes sense to have the police come together. I am grateful 
to my friend from Illinois for his support and leadership on this 
particular issue.
  We all know about the Visitor Center. We can't come into the Capitol 
without having it in our face every day. But the demands of the 
Architect of the Capitol to bring that project through are significant. 
So I think the decision of the committee to fund a Deputy Architect of 
the Capitol, creating a full-time manager for the day-to-day activities 
of the Architect of the Capitol, is the right decision.
  Senator Durbin has been particularly aggressive in trying to solve 
some of the management challenges the Architect of the Capitol has had 
over the past years. The decision to move toward a Deputy Architect, 
toward an operating officer to run the office of the Architect of the 
Capitol, is a good decision, and I think we need to highlight that in 
this bill.
  Finally, I want to make a personal comment about a very small but 
maybe high-profile aspect of this bill, which is the Russian Leadership 
Conference that now has been expanded, as Chairman Durbin has 
indicated, to include other countries.
  During the Fourth of July break, I was in Russia. This was the fourth 
time I had been there. I was very pleasantly surprised at the high 
degree of pro-American atmosphere we ran into. I was in Russia before 
when there was, frankly, an underlying current of suspicion--I wouldn't 
go so far as to say anti-American attitude in Russia, but suspicion of 
America and America's motives. We got that over the issue of the 
expansion of NATO, for which I voted and which I supported.
  The first time I met with members of the Russian Duma, they were 
automatically anti-expansion of NATO. And no matter what we tried to 
talk about, they would always bring it back to NATO and, what are you 
Americans doing?
  On this occasion, we met with officers of the National Council. They 
told us they were going to rename it the

[[Page 14427]]

Senate because they indicated they did not get appropriate respect in 
their own country, when everybody thought of the parliament being the 
Duma and they thought of themselves as the upper house. We are very 
careful in this Congress that we never use that term. And they thought, 
if they renamed themselves the Russian Senate, they would get 
appropriate respect.
  One of the members of that council told me this story. He said: My 
grandmother told me that all her life she has been taught to mistrust, 
indeed fear, NATO. However, she said, in the present atmosphere, if 
President Putin tells me that NATO is no longer a threat, I guess I am 
going to have to change my point of view.
  He told me that story to illustrate President Putin's popularity in 
Russia, but I took that story to indicate a significant change in 
Russian attitudes toward Americans, and it has been the Russian 
leadership group that has been participating in this function, that we 
have been funding out of this subcommittee, that has helped plant the 
seeds of that kind of circumstance.
  So even though it is a relatively small amount and has been a 
controversial program with Members of the House of Representatives, I 
can give personal testimony, if you will, that it has borne fruit, that 
the fruit has been significant, and I congratulate Senator Durbin on 
his continued support of this program and its expansion into other 
countries as well.
  So, Madam President, I am happy to join with Senator Durbin in 
recommending this bill to the other Members of the Senate and urging 
its passage.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring for S. 2720, the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
  The Senate bill provides $2.417 billion in discretionary budget 
authority. Per tradition, that amount does not include funding for 
exclusive House items, which will be added in conference. The 
discretionary budget authority will result in new outlays in 2003 of 
$1.935 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken 
into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $2.547 
billion in 2002.
  The Appropriations Committee voted 29-0 on June 27 to adopt a set of 
non-binding sub-allocations for its 13 subcommittees totaling $768.1 
billion in budget authority and $793.1 billion in outlays. While the 
committee's subcommittee allocations are consistent with both the 
amendment supported by 59 Senators last month and with the President's 
request for total discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2003, 
they are not enforceable under either Senate budget rules or the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. While I applaud the 
committee for adopting its own set of sub-allocations, I urge the 
Senate to take up and pass the bipartisan resolution, which would make 
the committee's sub-allocations enforceable under Senate rules and 
provide for other important budgetary disciplines.
  For the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, the full committee allocated 
$3.413 billion in budget authority and $3.467 billion in total outlays 
for 2003. The bill reported by the full committee on July 11 is fully 
consistent with that allocation. In addition, S. 2720 does not include 
any emergency designations or advance appropriations.
  I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget 
committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       S. 2720, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
  [Spending comparisions--Senate-Reported Bill (in million of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:\1\
    Budget Authority...................      2,417        102      2,519
    Outlays............................      2,547        101      2,648
Senate committee allocation:\2\
    Budget Authority...................      3,413        102      3,515
    Outlays............................      3,467        101      3,568
House-reported bill:
    Budget Authority...................      2,674        102      2,776
    Outlays............................      2,856        101      2,957
President's request:\3\
    Budget Authority...................      3,404        102      3,506
    Outlays............................      3,451        101      3,552
 
   SENATE--REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate committee allocatin:
    Budget Authority...................       -996          0       -996
    Outlays............................       -920          0       -920
House-reported bill:
    Budget Authority...................       -257          0       -257
    Outlays............................       -309          0       -309
President's request:
    Budget Authority...................       -987          0       -987
    Outlays............................       -904          0       -904
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Per tradition, the Senate bill does not include funding for exclusive
  House items, which will be added in conference.
\2\The Senate has not adopted a 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations
  Committee. The committee has set non-enforceable sub-allocations to
  its 13 subcommittees. This table compares the committee-reported bill
  with the committee's allocation to the Legislative Branch Subcommittee
  for informational purposes only.
\3\The President requested total discretionary budget authority for 2003
  of $768.1 billion, including a proposal to change how the budget
  records the accrued cost of future pension and health retiree benefits
  earned by current federal employees. Because the Congress has not
  acted on that proposal, for comparability, the numbers in this table
  exclude the effects of the President's accural proposal.
 
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 
Prepared by majority staff, 07-25-02.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for 
their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides 
Federal funding for the legislative branch.
  In reviewing this bill to determine whether it contains items that 
are low-priority, unnecessary, wasteful, or have not been appropriately 
reviewed in the normal, merit-based prioriti-
zation process, I applaud the Appropriations Committee for their fiscal 
restraint in including a minimal number of such items.
  For this legislation, only two locality-specific earmarks appear to 
be included. The bill itself includes $200,000 for Southern Illinois 
University for the purpose of developing a permanent commemoration of 
the Lewis and Clark Expedition. And an amendment to this bill that was 
adopted on the Senate floor provides $500,000 for the Alexandria Museum 
of Art and the New Orleans Museum of Art for activities relating to the 
Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Celebration.
  How refreshing it would be if the Appropriations Committee would 
demonstrate the same fiscal responsibility they showed in preparing 
this legislation in every one of the remaining appropriations bills. 
Unfortunately, this bill is the exception to the rule, because, as 
evidenced by the recently passed supplemental appropriations bill, the 
runaway pork-barrel gravy train shows no signs of slowing down on 
Capitol Hill.
  We must remember that while the amounts associated with each 
individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together they 
represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars at the 
expense of numerous programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-
based selection process. During this time of mounting deficits, we must 
be more prudent about where we devote limited fiscal resources. I urge 
all my colleagues to curb the habit of directing hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars to locality-specific special interests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 4320

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Bennett and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), for himself and Mr. 
     Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 4320.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. This amendment relates to the Capitol Police. It will 
enhance their ability to recruit and retain officers as they struggle 
to increase their strength while losing officers to other law 
enforcement agencies. All these changes in the amendment have been 
requested by the new Chief of Capitol Police, Terry Gainer, and the 
Capitol Police Board.
  Let me say briefly how proud we are that Terry Gainer is the new 
Chief of Police. Those of us from Illinois and Chicago know Terry 
Gainer well. He is a former member of the Chicago Police, legal counsel 
for the Chicago Police Department, and superintendent of the Illinois 
State Police. He came to

[[Page 14428]]

Washington, DC, was second in command in this the Capital City, and was 
then recruited to undertake this important responsibility. I am certain 
he is going to do an excellent, professional job considering the new 
challenges facing this department.
  The new authorities in the amendment authorize them to hire new 
officers without regard to age. There are technical corrections to 
existing authorities regarding recruitment and relocation bonuses and 
premium pay for unscheduled overtime. It also includes technical 
corrections to the committee bill regarding the consolidated disbursing 
function for the Capitol Police, salaries, appropriations. All of those 
are technical in nature, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, as indicated by my cosponsorship of the 
amendment, I endorse what Chairman Durbin has said and urge the Senate 
to adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4320) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4321

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

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4321.

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

 (Purpose: To set aside funds for activities relating to the Louisiana 
                   Purchase Bicentennial Celebration)

       On page 44, line 24, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, of the total amount 
     appropriated, $500,000 shall remain available until expended 
     and shall be equally divided and transferred to the 
     Alexandria Museum of Arts and the New Orleans Museum of Art 
     for activities relating to the Louisiana Purchase 
     Bicentennial Celebration''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the amendment would provide $500,000 
within the Library of Congress appropriations for activities related to 
the Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Celebration. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have no objection to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4321) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4322

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

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Cochran, and Mr. Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4322.

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

       (Purpose: Provide funding for the Congressional Award Act)

       On page 28, line 11, strike ``$108,743,000'' and insert 
     ``$108,243,000''.
       On page 63, insert between lines 10 and 11 the following:

     SEC. 312. TITLE II OF THE CONGRESSIONAL AWARD ACT.

       There are appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury 
     not otherwise appropriated, $500,000, to remain available 
     until expended, to carry out title II of the Congressional 
     Award Act 92 U.S.C. 811 et seq.).

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this amendment which we are currently 
considering provides $500,000 for the recently reauthorized 
Congressional Award Act offset by the reduction in the budget of the 
Architect of the Capitol. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have no objection to this amendment 
as illustrated by my cosponsorship.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4322) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4323

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

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr. 
     Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 4323.

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

(Purpose: To provide for a pilot program for mailings to town meetings)

       On page 5, line 26, insert before the period ``, of which 
     up to $500,000 shall be made available for a pilot program 
     for mailings of postal patron postcards by Senators for the 
     purpose of providing notice of a town meeting by a Senator in 
     a county (or equivalent unit of local government) with a 
     population of less than 250,000 and at which the Senator will 
     personally attend: Provided, That any amount allocated to a 
     Senator for such mailing shall not exceed 50 percent of the 
     cost of the mailing and the remaining cost shall be paid by 
     the Senator from other funds available to the Senator: 
     Provided further, That not later than October 31, 2003, the 
     Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Rules and Administration and 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate on the results of 
     the program''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this amendment, on behalf of Senator 
Specter, provides up to $500,000 in the miscellaneous items account of 
the Senate for a pilot program and additional funds for town meeting 
notices, an issue which Senator Specter has pursued for quite some 
time.
  In the fiscal year 2002 appropriations, we provided separate funds 
for town meeting notices subject to a Rules Committee authorization, 
which has not yet occurred.
  I would like to point out that Senators, on average, spend less than 
half the amount budgeted for franked mail--less than $3 million out of 
the $7.6 million budget. In addition, last year only a small number of 
Senators used town meeting notices. No Member, other than the Senator 
from Pennsylvania, has indicated the budget is inadequate. It doesn't 
appear that we have a significant problem, but in order to determine 
whether or not there is an interest in promoting town meetings with 
notices attendant thereto, and how widespread that problem might be, we 
have agreed to this pilot program for 1 year.
  We have requested that by the end of the next fiscal year the 
Sergeant at Arms and the Doorkeeper of the Senate shall submit a report 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if I may take a few minutes, I will be 
very brief.
  I wish to say a few things while the two managers of this bill are 
here. I had the opportunity in several Congresses to chair the 
Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee. I can truly say that it 
was one of the most rewarding experiences I have had as a Member of 
Congress.
  I understand how important the Library of Congress is to our country. 
We have certainly learned that with this bill. We were going through 
the years and there were cuts. No one wants to cut the Library of 
Congress. It is so important to the people of our States and of our 
Nation. Of the 13 appropriations bills, this one gets a lot of 
attention. It is as important as any of the appropriations bills.
  I want to take a brief period of time to tell the two managers of 
this bill

[[Page 14429]]

how impressed I am and how grateful I am for their recognition of the 
Capitol Police. There has never been a time, in my opinion, where we 
have recognized the dedication of the Capitol Police as it is 
recognized in this bill.
  We went through a ceremony yesterday where we placed roses on the 
table in front of the pictures of the two fallen police officers--
Gibson and Chestnut. When we walk in this building every day, these 
dedicated men and women are standing there, a lot of times not doing a 
lot, but every day they are there waiting to take bullets for us or for 
anyone who comes into this building which they are protecting. They do 
such good work.
  The Capitol Police Force is well trained. They are as well trained as 
any police force in the country. As a result of this legislation, they 
will be better trained, better paid, and better recognized for the work 
they do.
  I want this Record spread with the appreciation of the Senate and the 
people of Nevada and every other State where people come here and feel 
so safe as a result of the Capitol Police. As I said, I want the Record 
spread with the appreciation of the American people for the work the 
Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Utah have done on this 
legislation. It is landmark. It is so appreciated by me and every 
Capitol policeman. And anyone who knows anything about this 
legislation--or could learn--would also feel the same as I do.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from the State of 
Nevada for those kind words on behalf of myself and Senator Bennett. I 
am glad he made reference to the memorial service yesterday for 
Officers Gibson and Chestnut, because it is a sad reminder of the 
important responsibility that the Capitol Police have undertaken on 
behalf not only those of us who are privileged to work in this building 
but the thousands and thousands of visitors who come here for the 
thrill of a lifetime to see this seat of democracy. Those two men gave 
their lives in service to our country. We should be reminded at all 
times that all the members of the Capitol Police Force are prepared to 
do the same.
  There is no stronger advocate for the Capitol Police than Senator 
Harry Reid of Nevada. He speaks to me annually when this issue comes up 
to make certain we have not overlooked any element in terms of 
modernizing and professionalizing the Capitol Police. He is simply 
their strongest voice on the Senate floor.
  I might also add that a close second is Senator Wellstone of 
Minnesota, who has a close, personal friendship with so many of the 
members of the Capitol Police. He comes to me regularly with 
observations that really come from the heart. I thank him for his 
inspiration as well.
  I think this bill meets the needs of the Capitol Police. And as long 
as I am in this position or in any capacity, I will continue to strive 
for that goal.
  I believe pending before us now is the amendment relative to the 
account for mailing of town meeting notices, which Senator Specter of 
Pennsylvania has asked us to include.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset, I thank my distinguished 
colleagues, the Senators from Illinois and Utah, for holding this 
matter until my arrival. I came as soon as I finished my round of 
questioning of the Attorney General, who is currently before the 
Judiciary Committee.
  This amendment provides for $500,000 to be made available for a pilot 
project for mailings of postal patron postcards by Senators for the 
purpose of providing notice of town meetings in counties with 
populations of less than 250,000.
  The reason for this amendment is to stimulate town meetings by 
Senators and to make us more aware as a body, individually and 
collectively, of what our constituents are thinking.
  Until fairly recently, there was no limitation on mail and notices 
could be sent out to the largest of counties at a very considerable 
expense as a matter of record, so that the public knew how much a 
Senator was spending. Those figures were published with some frequency 
as to the mail expense accounts.
  My own thinking is that there is no better use of our expense 
accounts than to communicate with our citizens about where we go 
personally to hear what is on their minds. Within the beltway, we are 
very insulated. In fact, people beyond the beltway do not even know 
what the ``beltway'' expression means. However, when we talk to each 
other, and do not communicate with our constituents, we do not have a 
feel for what is going on. The basis of representative democracy is 
that we are reflecting the will of our constituents. In order to do 
that, we have to know what it is.
  When I say reflecting the will of the constituents, I do not mean 
taking a public opinion poll, or even if there is an enormous 
preponderance of the constituents, to follow that without question. I 
think Edmond Burke, centuries ago, laid down the proper standard, that 
an elected official in a representative democracy owes to his 
constituents his independent judgment. One of the factors Edmond Burke 
enumerated was the concerns, sensibilities, and views of the 
constituent.
  These town meetings are very difficult affairs, perhaps even 
categorized as rough affairs. I have done 19 of them during the month 
of July, mostly during the Fourth of July recess.
  My practice, which I know is standard for many of my colleagues who 
undertake these meetings, is to make a very short introductory 
statement, limiting it to five, six, or seven minutes, and then to 
respond to questions. The questioning segment is the hot spot. I know 
the Presiding Officer and the other Senators in the Chamber, and any 
who may be watching on C-SPAN, know that because we have all had the 
experience.
  This is not puff mail which you send out, where the effort has been 
made to limit what a Senator can do, sending pieces extolling the 
virtues of the individual Senator. This is an occasion where you are 
really on the line and have to identify and justify your votes and your 
positions.
  Beyond the votes and existing positions, the town meetings acquaint a 
Senator with many issues the Senator does not know about, and that is 
the educational process. So it is not only a matter of responding to 
constituents, rather it is learning from constituents what the new 
issues are.
  Since I completed the town meetings in July, I can say to my 
colleagues that there is great interest out there in Pennsylvania--and 
I believe Pennsylvania is a very representative State with more than 12 
million people--about the need for a prescription drug program. The 
seniors are really hurting. Many instances were called to my attention 
by individuals who have low income with very high pharmaceutical bills. 
This is something that is really at the very top of the agenda. Enron 
and corporate scandals, prescription drugs, and terrorism were the 
three major subjects I heard about in the town meetings.
  I am hopeful--and I have talked to authors of the bills on both 
sides--we will come to an agreement here and we will legislate on this 
subject and let it go to conference with the House of Representatives. 
I believe our job is to reconcile the differences. While we are talking 
about substantial sums of money, in the overall picture, an 
accommodation is better than having Senators adhere strictly to some 
top-dollar figure and not go beyond that. I believe there is a majority 
in the Senate to reach an accommodation somewhere between what the 
proposed bills have specified. My soundings are that a prescription 
drug program is something the American people not only want, but really 
need.
  Along the same line, I sense overwhelming anger about what is 
happening in corporate America and what is happening with Enron and 
WorldCom, which were the subjects during the Fourth of July recess. 
This is not some theoretical matter about fraud and criminal conduct 
that ought to be prosecuted, this is a matter which is reaching Mr. 
Average American, Mr. Lower Income American, regarding retirement 
funds, which have

[[Page 14430]]

been fractionalized. I am glad to see the conferees agreed on a program 
yesterday, with the Senate bill taking dominance.
  Even with the work I have had as a prosecutor on fraud cases and 
business fraud, I am surprised at what has happened here. Every day 
there is a new revelation. For the major banks to be complicit, at 
least according to public reports on Enron, is beyond shocking.
  We really rely, in our society, on the accountants, the attorneys, 
and the bankers, who are really in a quasi-fiduciary, if not strictly 
fiduciary capacity, to catch these matters, and especially where it is 
so lucrative. For them to yield to the pressure to cut corners and to 
sanction fraud in order to keep a customer or to please a customer is 
just really beyond the pale.
  We have had a lot of problems in the long history of this country, 
however, I think this is one of the most extraordinary. The day before 
yesterday, we found out about the bankers being complicit, or allegedly 
complicit, with Enron. We see the SEC investigation disclosed 
yesterday, as stated in this morning's press, about AOL having 
fraudulent transactions and boosting their profits fraudulently. It is 
a surprise to me that an entity as sophisticated as Time Warner would 
be taken in by corporate chicanery.
  So these are matters which are very much on the minds of the American 
people. You have to go to a town meeting and take the temperature of 
the people to really see how very serious it is.
  This amendment provides that $500,000 will be used to send out postal 
patron notices, providing that the Senator pays 50 percent. So we have 
a good co-pay provision here. Senators are not going to be inclined to 
send these postal patron notices out without having to pay for one-half 
of the cost themselves, with the critical requirement that the Senator 
has to appear. The limitation is put on counties with fewer than 
250,000 people because if you send it to a county such as Allegheny 
County, which has Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia County, it is an enormous 
expense. We can communicate with our constituents in those major 
metropolitan areas in ways other than by coming to the county.
  However, if you talk about Potter County, in north central 
Pennsylvania, on the northern tier abutting New York State, or you talk 
about Fulton County, on the Maryland border, those folks really like to 
see you. You send out a notice, and you get 35 people, and you sit and 
talk to them. I was in Forest County, and we did not get 35 people, 
however, I learned a lot from being in Forest County. I think the 
people in Forest County learned something, too.
  So I thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment. We had it in 
last year at a higher figure, subject to authorization. We could not 
get the hearing worked out. However, I know that this is a test case. I 
am going to be encouraging my colleagues to do these town meetings, so 
when the audit comes up, my name is not the only name listed as a 
recipient. We will await the results of the audit on the pilot program 
to see just how effective and important this program is.
  Again, I thank my colleagues and thank the Chair, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  If there is no further debate on this amendment, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4323) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4324

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Dodd and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4324.

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

     (Purpose: Providing public safety, exception to inscriptions 
                     requirement on mobile offices)

       On page 9, between lines 17 and 18, insert:

     SEC.   . PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO INSCRIPTIONS REQUIREMENT 
                   ON MOBILE OFFICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3(f)(3) under the heading 
     ``ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS'' in the appropriation for the 
     Senate in the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1975 (2 
     U.S.C. 59(f)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following flush sentence:

     ``The Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may 
     prescribe regulations to waive or modify the requirement 
     under subparagraph (B) if such waiver or modification is 
     necessary to provide for the public safety of a Senator and 
     the Senator's staff and constituents.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     apply to the fiscal year that includes such date and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this amendment amends title II of the 
U.S. Code to authorize the Rules Committee to establish regulations to 
waive or modify requirements on mobile offices for public safety 
reasons.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I am in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, if there is no further debate on the 
amendment, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4324) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, unless the Senator from Utah has any 
further amendments or modifications, I do not believe there are any 
additional actions on the bill.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, one of the pleasures of handling this 
bill is that there are almost always no additional amendments or 
complications.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Utah and yield back all my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Utah yield back his time 
as well?
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Utah yields back all his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
passage of H.R. 5121, the legislative branch appropriations bill, occur 
at 1:50 p.m. today, with rule XII, paragraph 4 being waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________