[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17372-17375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2657, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 311 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 311

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2657) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
     the

[[Page 17373]]

     fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the bill and against 
     its consideration are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
     read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 311 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2657, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 
of 2004. H. Res. 311 provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all 
points of order against the bill and against its consideration, and it 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by first noting the first-class work of 
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee in bringing this 
legislation forward to the House floor. It was particularly refreshing 
to see the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston), and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), testifying in support of their work product 
before the House yesterday.
  It is a fiscally responsible bill that will ultimately encourage 
greater productivity and meaningful savings, and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is to be commended for his management oversight 
that will certainly ensure that organizational changes are administered 
better within the legislative branch's agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the largest appropriations bill and it is 
not the most important. However, this appropriations bill is important 
because it sets the tone for what the House leadership and the 
Republican House are working towards in terms of fiscal responsibility, 
effective organization, and result-focused management across the 
Federal Government.
  In brief, this appropriations bill provides $2.7 billion in funding 
for fiscal year 2004, including funding for the House, the Capitol 
Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, 
the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and the 
General Accounting Office. It is important to note, however, that this 
$2.7 billion figure is 1.2 percent less in total dollars than in the 
current fiscal year. This decrease represents a reduction in funding of 
almost $34 million compared to the current fiscal year.
  While Congress at times has demonstrated difficulty in restraining 
itself from spending money, it strikes me as a significant event that 
this bill before us today cuts the congressional budget for fiscal year 
2004. It is an indication that there is a continued commitment to make 
the government work more efficiently and that that commitment begins 
with ourselves in the legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule ensures the orderly consideration of the 
legislative branch funding legislation. I urge Members to support the 
rule so we may begin to debate this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, each week in the Committee on Rules, I see my colleagues 
using procedure to kill substance and stifle debate. And again last 
night, the Committee on Rules passed a closed rule on the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Act. This closed rule prohibits all amendments.
  I am again concerned to see that our obligation to debate and 
deliberate is sacrificed in the name of efficiency. The legislative 
calendar for the month of July is very full. We have much work to do, 
but this does not diminish or negate our obligations as Members of this 
body.
  The Committee on Rules rejected an amendment to transfer funds from 
the general administration account in order to carry out the Technology 
Assessments Act. The closed rule prevents offering that same amendment 
from the floor. We lose the opportunity to consider the amendment and 
to discuss the Office of Technology Assessment for the Congress and the 
office's mission to consider the impacts of technology.
  The closed rule also bars an amendment that would apply the Buy 
American Act to procurement of manufactured goods by the House. Who 
could disagree that we should buy American-made products for our 
offices, especially when unemployment is at 6.4 percent, the highest it 
has been in 9 years, and the economy continues to limp along?
  Should we have an opportunity to discuss whether or not the desks in 
our offices, paid for by the American taxpayers, should be made in 
America? Sure we should.
  Other issues in this bill merit discussion. The funding level for the 
Capitol Police is lower than in the 2003 fiscal year, and the funding 
is almost $80 million less than the Capitol Police requested. The 
closed rule provides only 1 hour of debate but will not allow this to 
be discussed. With the continual terrorist threats to the U.S., we 
should at least discuss the funding needs of the Capitol Police. We ask 
them to put their lives at risk every day to protect our staff, our 
visitors, and us; yet we refuse to take the time to discuss their 
funding levels.
  H.R. 2657 provides the Architect of the Capitol no additional funds 
for the Visitors Center. Today's Washington Post published an article 
on the delays and cost overruns on this project, which we are all 
concerned about. The Committee on Appropriations expressed serious 
concerns about the management of the project; and, indeed, there are 
certainly questions to be asked.
  We still have to ask questions about the expatriate corporations 
benefiting from this massive construction project. All of these serious 
concerns warrant further deliberation on the funding levels for the 
Architect of the Capitol; but, unfortunately, the Committee on Rules 
continues to trample on the rights of the minority. This venerable 
institution warrants a fair, open, and deliberative process in 
considering legislation; and I regret this is another opportunity lost.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I originally had intended to vote for this 
resolution and this bill, but then about an hour ago my staff brought 
it to my attention something which they discovered about this bill. 
Buried in the bill, in fact, not in the bill at all, but in the budget 
for the House Administrative Office, is a $750,000 item that would 
begin to provide expanded dental care for Members of Congress and their 
staff July 4 of next year. No Member on this side of the aisle, to my 
knowledge, knew anything about it, and no member of our staff knew 
anything about it. I am only the senior Democrat on the Committee on 
Appropriations, and yet I did not know that that provision was at all 
tied into this bill.
  So we called the majority staff and asked about it, and they told us 
that they did not know anything about it. I believe the person that my 
staff talked to on the majority side, but I do not know what that means 
in terms of who put that provision in the bill. I assume the tooth 
fairy. But somebody did. And

[[Page 17374]]

until that provision is removed or until we have an assurance that it 
is going to be removed, and I understand that the majority is going to 
remove it, nobody on this side of the aisle intends to vote for this 
rule or the accompanying bill.
  I happen not to have any objection to the idea that we provide dental 
coverage for every American in this country, but it was only 1 week ago 
when this Congress chiseled on Medicare benefits and chiseled on 
prescription drug benefits for retired seniors in this country, and for 
us to then find out that somebody has the bright idea that while we are 
chiseling on benefits for everybody else in this society, we are going 
to have an expanded medical benefit for Members of Congress is more 
than I am going to swallow.
  And I want to say something else. I am tired of people in Congress 
who want to provide benefits for themselves who will not provide those 
same benefits for the people we represent. I will never forget the 
experience I had last year when I went to a town named Antigo to open a 
small dental clinic for low-income people, and there I met a young 
woman whose husband had been sick for months. I think he had MS, but I 
am not sure. And she told me that there had been about 67 dentists in 
that four-county area. Only half of them would take Medicaid patients 
because of the low reimbursement rates. She told she went to every 
single one of those dentists trying to get some help to have the braces 
taken off of the teeth of her oldest child; could not find a single 
dentist to do it. So she finally held the kid down while the father 
took the braces off with a pair of pliers.
  I have had a bellyful of Washington politicians who want to deny 
people like that the needed healthcare, and yet will countenance this 
kind of end run in this bill today. I do not know who knew about this, 
but, by God, somebody knew about it, and I do not believe it was 
anybody on our committee on either side of the aisle. But it is a 
disservice for whoever tried this. It is a disservice not just to the 
taxpayer, but to every single Member of this House on both sides of the 
aisle because those Members, after they voted for this bill, they would 
have found out that they had voted blindly for a bill which allowed 
this to happen, and the public would have been justifiably angry, and 
the Members would not have been to blame.
  So I am glad that this is going to be taken out, but I am mad as hell 
that this ever happened. And I know the gentleman from Florida had 
nothing to do with it, and I know his staff had nothing to do with it, 
but I wish to God whoever did would 'fess up.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I share the gentleman's concern 
about this, and we are going to fix it. It should not have happened. No 
Member knew about this, and I am not sure yet who was responsible for 
it, but we will find the person who was responsible, and they will be 
dealt with appropriately. That is not right. The Members should not 
have something snuck up on them that they were not aware of. So I share 
the gentleman's concern. We are going to fix it very quickly here, and 
we will do our very best to find out just exactly how this happened and 
why.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his 
assurance. I know he is an honorable man, and I know that he would not 
have sneaked anything like this through. I want to know who did this, 
but I do not want it passed off to some low-ranking staffer in this 
place. Somebody got an order from somebody to do it, and every last 
Member of this House has a right to know who gave that order.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I could not be more in agreement with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey). We do have an amendment here we are going to ask unanimous 
consent to be added to the bill that would put limitation and delete 
that language so that no expansion of that service be available.
  Let me just add this. This is not the first time I have seen this 
happen. Some years ago I was involved in the settlement of some final 
appropriations bills, and language was put into the bill to 
dramatically change the Native American health system, and it was found 
and stripped out, and it found its way back into the bill. When that 
happens at any level, the person who is responsible for it ought to be 
fired at that moment. I hope we can do that in this case.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to say as I did at 
the Committee on Rules that we do not really have a problem with this 
rule or this bill. It, in fact, is the first appropriations bill, at 
least that I am told, that is less than the previous year. That is 
because we are suspending some of the funding on the Capitol Visitors 
Center to make sure we have a full handle on all the additional 
expenditures, and we are not going forward quite as fast as the Capitol 
Police chief would like, but it does not imply necessarily any 
criticism in either respect. So this should have not been a problem. 
This should have been a rule that we could have probably voiced.
  Not now. What we have is a serious affront to the institution. This 
was found by our appropriations staff person going through the bill. 
The majority staff was not even told about it. The Chair of the 
subcommittee was not even told about it. And it is just the kind of 
thing that makes the entire institution look bad.
  We just had a bill yesterday that was not a bad bill. We wanted to 
make sure that current Federal employees were treated the same as 
Federal retirees, but it is a very sensitive issue given the fact that 
we just passed a prescription drug program under Medicare that many of 
us feel is very inadequate. So when it is compared to the benefits that 
Federal employees get and the members of the legislative branch get, it 
looks even worse. But the proposal we have here to provide dental and 
vision benefits just for the legislative branch, the executive branch 
does not have them, is the kind of feather-bedding, of taking care of 
ourselves, of self-serving legislation that comes back to haunt us on 
both sides of the aisle. And I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), that this is 
serious stuff, and that we have got to find out where it happened and 
make sure it does not happen again.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Linder

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
resolution be amended by the form I have placed at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Linder:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 2657) making appropriations for 
     the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2004, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment specified in 
     section 2 shall be considered as adopted. All points of order 
     against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment refereed to in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows:
       Page 6, after line 22, insert the following:
       Sec. 102. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     provide supplemental dental or vision health insurance 
     benefits for Members and employees of the House of 
     Representatives.


[[Page 17375]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Georgia?
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) to explain the impact 
of this amendment.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the impact of this amendment would just 
delete any possibility that any increases or expansions of dental care 
or vision care will be expanded.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I thank 
the gentleman for that explanation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear I do not oppose any member of 
this society being able to have dental coverage or vision coverage 
under their insurance program. I would be very happy if my employees 
had it. I think all employees ought to have that coverage. I think all 
Americans ought to have that coverage. So I do not want this language 
to be misinterpreted as meaning that we are opposed to the idea.
  I think what we are all opposed to is the idea that this bill would 
slip this into law without having an open public debate about it so 
that it can be honestly dealt with and above-board in open-door 
sunlight fashion.
  And I would like to yield to the gentleman again to comment on this. 
I would like him to explain to the House exactly what the process will 
be so that every Member can be confident that they know what they are 
doing when they vote on both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, as we have just learned in the last hour or 
so, and the chairman has just learned it here, someone somewhere 
slipped language into the leg branch bill that expands dental and 
vision health insurance benefits for Members and employees of the 
House. And I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. A fair and open 
discussion of expansion of these benefits for everyone is a legitimate 
course for this House to take and vote up or down, but to hide it in a 
bill and slide it in is simply inappropriate.
  This language is eliminating language on the leg branch bill, and it 
says that none of the funds in this act may be used to provide that 
expansion of dental or vision benefits. It puts a limitation on those 
benefits where they are correct right now in the current form.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would 
simply like to make one correction. My understanding is that it is not 
actually the language in the bill which provides this. My understanding 
is that the key language was contained in the budget of the Chief 
Administrative Officer, which is financed by this bill. So we actually 
have to go to that document in order to discover the offending 
language.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman is correct, and if 
he would not mind yielding to the chairman of the subcommittee, he has 
something to say on it, too.
  Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to say he is correct. There is no specific language that just says 
funding in it. And I also want to say that as the chairman of the 
committee, it certainly would fall on me to know about this language. I 
have to confess I did not know about it, but I will certainly take 
responsibility and support the agreement to remove it.

                              {time}  1545

  I will also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that it may be a 
topic that at some point we should discuss. But, in the meantime, we 
should do it in open forum and not through the back door in this 
manner. This was put in as one of the administrative agency's budgets, 
but we do certainly agree to take it out.
  Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman would yield further, I think we know 
where to start now.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I thank the 
gentleman.
  I just want to clear up one procedural question. I think Members need 
to know which action will adopt the language which strikes this from 
the bill. Will it be the adoption of the rule, or the passage of an 
amendment after the bill is under consideration?
  Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman will yield further, it will be the 
adoption of the rule will strike the language.
  Mr. OBEY. If Members want to assure this provision is not in the 
bill, and if they want to be on record voting against any possibility 
that this will happen under this bill, they will vote for the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. That is correct. The adoption of the rule will put in 
place limiting language that will prevent any expansion of those 
benefits.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Without objection, the amendment 
is adopted.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution, as amended.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________