[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16362-16363]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PERMITTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS TO HIRE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS POLICE 
                               EMPLOYEES

  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4816) to permit the Librarian of Congress to hire Library of 
Congress Police employees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4816

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMITTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS TO HIRE LIBRARY 
                   OF CONGRESS POLICE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1006 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (2 U.S.C. 1901 note), is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``Training, Detailing, and 
     Hiring'' and inserting ``Training and Detailing'';
       (2) by striking ``(a)'' and the heading of subsection (a);
       (3) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of subsection (a) as subsections (a) and (b); and
       (4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4816, a bill that will 
restore the Librarian of Congress' authority to hire Library of 
Congress Police employees.
  To understand this legislation, one must first understand the chain 
of events which brings this legislation to the floor of the House. 
Language was included in last year's appropriations bill which stripped 
the Library of its authority to hire new police officers. Our committee 
was not consulted and did not support that language.
  The language further called on the United States Capitol Police to 
begin detailing officers to the Library of Congress as a way to force 
the beginning of a merger of the two agencies before the appropriate 
committees of jurisdiction had even had a chance to fully deliberate 
the merits of a merger.
  Over the past several weeks, draft memorandums have circulated back 
to the committee which attempt to effect this transfer of officers to 
the Library. All of these memorandums have contained provisions that 
are not only objectionable to the committee, but raise more questions 
about the transfer and the merits of a merger.
  It is the committee's steadfast position that such a sweeping action 
affecting security must be conducted in a manner which undeniably 
results in greater security and greater efficiency for both the 
Congress and the Library of Congress. There are a multitude of complex 
issues that really need to be dealt with in order to ensure that any 
steps taken by the Congress toward a merger are taken in a deliberate 
manner, with the long-term interests of both institutions in mind.
  Many details of the potential merger or the initial detailing of 
Capitol Police officers have yet to be addressed, in my opinion, in a 
satisfactory manner, details such as the composition of a new command 
structure, differences between Library Police procedures and 
regulations because there is a large difference in the way we operate 
with the Capitol Hill Police and the way the Library of Congress 
operates in their missions and their tasks. We really, I think, need to 
look at those issues, plus the disposition of large numbers of Library 
Police who would be forced into retirement, the reconciliation of two 
distinct agency missions, the manner in which grievances are handled, 
the manner in which recruitment and morale of the United States Capitol 
Police could be affected, and ultimately, the life safety of the 
hundreds of thousands who serve, work or visit in the Capitol complex. 
The Committee on House Administration and the Congress have a 
responsibility to ensure that unresolved details like these are not 
swept up in a hasty and broken process.
  Our committee was exercising appropriate oversight and due diligence 
in this process at the time this authorizing language, which originated 
from the other body, appeared in an appropriations conference report, 
placing the cart squarely in front of the horse.
  Now, because the Librarian is unable to exercise any hiring authority 
to bring new police onto the Library force, there is a growing manpower 
gap which some argue could impact the security mission of the Library; 
and frankly, I think this is putting the Library in a Catch-22 
position.
  Additionally, the attention being paid on fixing the current 
situation is siphoning resources from the United States Capitol Police 
during what we know is a very crucial time. The growing need for 
officers at the Library is an urgency of the Congress' own creation and 
should be fixed by the Congress. The mission of the Capitol Police is 
to protect the Congress, and at a time when that mission is under 
threat from terrorists, any distraction, I think, is detrimental to the 
interests of the institution and could have dire consequences.
  Madam Speaker, I am intimately involved with and deeply concerned 
about the security of this campus, as I know our ranking member is and 
all members of our committee and frankly all Members of this House. It 
is arguably the most important issue which our committee has 
jurisdiction over as it deals with matters of life and death. That is 
why I urge passage of this legislation.
  We need to remove the restriction on the Librarian's authority to 
hire police officers so that we may mend this broken process and allow 
the authorizers to handle this complex issue in an appropriate manner. 
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill so our security officials 
can meet their missions and focus their attention and their thrust on 
protecting everyone in the Capitol complex, especially in this 
heightened security threat environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation restoring authority 
to the Librarian, and upon passage, I hope the other body will act 
quickly to lift these constraints on the Librarian and that the 
appropriators in both bodies will provide the funding necessary to 
train and pay the officers that can be hired pursuant to this 
resolution.
  Let me just close by saying, also, I think we can have discussions 
about this with the other body, within appropriations and within the 
authorizers of both Chambers. But I think right now in the best 
interests of everybody involved, if we take this measure, it will help 
the Library of Congress, which is in really a very difficult situation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 16363]]


  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. I would like to again associate myself with the remarks 
of the distinguished Chair from Ohio. I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman for moving so resolutely to address the problem caused by last 
year's appropriations bill.
  This predicament, which he has thoroughly outlined and that his 
legislation would correct, could properly become a case study for why 
the House rules prevent appropriation bills from including legislative 
provisions and vest the responsibility for such matters in the 
authorizing committees.
  I support and applaud the chairman's determination to ensure that the 
Library of Congress does not become a weak point in the Capitol's 
security perimeter. That, Madam Speaker, we simply cannot afford.
  I have, as well, a letter from James Billington, where he quotes, I 
think, very appropriately that ``the Library has been without an 
adequate police force for more than a year. The U.S. Capitol Police 
received funding to hire 23 officers that, under the 2004 legislative 
branch appropriations bill, were to be detailed to the Library of 
Congress. As a practical matter, we cannot get them until we have 
approval of a memorandum of understanding between the Capitol Police 
and the Library. The 2004 appropriations bill removed the Library's 
ability to hire police employees, and an additional 10 officers have 
left our force through attrition. Unless,'' as the chairman's bill 
provides, ``action is rapidly taken to remedy this situation, we will 
soon have a police force staffed at only two-thirds of its authorized 
strength, clearly unacceptable in today's world.''
  I trust, as the chairman has indicated, that the Senate will follow 
his leadership in this regard. Again I applaud his efforts to prevent 
the usurpation of the authorizing committee's responsibility. I urge 
the passage of this.
  Madam Speaker, I support the Chairman's motion and urge its adoption.
  Section 1015 of Public Law 108-7, enacted on February 20, 2003, 
provided for the merger of the Library of Congress Police into the 
United States Capitol Police. The section, which originated in the 
Senate and was enacted in the Legislative appropriation for fiscal 
2003, was never the subject of formal hearings in the Committee on 
House Administration. Section 1015 provides that the merger of the two 
police forces will not take place until an implementation plan, 
developed by the Chief of the Capitol Police and submitted to the 
Capitol Police Board, the Librarian of Congress, and the appropriate 
committees, has been approved. Pending that approval, which has not yet 
occurred, Section 1015 authorized the Librarian to fill vacancies in 
the Library Police ranks with applicants who satisfy the employment 
standards of the Capitol Police, to the extent practicable.
  Seven months later, Section 1006 of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act for 2004, another provision not subjected to 
hearings in our committee, eliminated the Library's authority to hire 
police officers pending the merger with the Capitol Police. During 
fiscal 2004, Section 1006 allows the Librarian to select and recommend 
to the Capitol Police enough qualified officers to replace those which 
the Library loses through attrition this year, and up to 23 more. 
Nevertheless, the restriction on the Library's hiring of police 
officers has in practice resulted in a serious manpower shortage for 
the Library. The Librarian, Dr. Billington, has warned our committee 
that if nothing changes, the Library may soon have a police force 
staffed at two-thirds of its authorized strength. I certainly agree 
with Dr. Billington that such a posture is unacceptable in these 
perilous times.
  Madam Speaker, the Chairman's bill would restore the Library's 
authority to hire police officers pending the merger. Under the bill, 
the Librarian must still, to the extent practicable, hire individuals 
who meet the standards of the U.S. Capitol Police, as determined by the 
Capitol Police chief. Since it is not clear at this time how soon the 
merger implementation plan may win the approval of the appropriations 
and authorizing committees involved, including the Committee on House 
Administration, restoring the Library's control over its police hiring 
is the prudent course for us to take.
  Madam Speaker, the Library of Congress is the nation's preeminent 
cultural institution. This Congress should take every reasonable step 
to assure the proper protection of the Library's 4,000 employees, 
millions of books and artifacts, and its capital facilities, so the 
Library can continue serving the American people and their Congress. 
Restoring the Library's ability to hire enough qualified police to 
support its mission is not only reasonable, but essential.
  I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Ney] for moving so resolutely to address the problem caused by 
last year's appropriations bill. This predicament, which the chairman's 
legislation would correct, could properly become a case study for why 
the House rules prevent appropriations bills from including legislative 
provisions, and vest the responsibility for such matters in the 
authorizing committees. I support and applaud the chairman's 
determination to ensure that the Library of Congress does not become a 
weak point in the Capitol's security perimeter. That, Madam Speaker, we 
simply cannot afford. I trust the Senate will follow the chairman's 
leadership in this regard.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter on this subject from 
the Librarian of Congress:

                                    The Librarian of Congress,

                                                    July 15, 2004.
     Hon. Robert Ney,
     Chairman, Committee on House Administration, House of 
         Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for taking the time to speak 
     with me on Tuesday regarding the library's Police force. I 
     truly appreciate your call and concern.
       The Library has been without an adequate police force for 
     more than a year. The U.S. Capitol Police received funding to 
     hire 23 officers that, under the 2004 Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Bill, were to be detailed to the Library of 
     Congress. As a practical matter we cannot get them until we 
     have approval of a memorandum of understanding between the 
     Capitol Police and the Library. The 2004 appropriations bill 
     removed the Library's ability to hire police employees, and 
     an additional ten officers have left our force staffed at 
     only two-thirds of its authorized strength--clearly 
     unacceptable in today's world.
       I do not see any realistic alternative solution other than 
     a short-term detail of U.S. Capitol Police officers to the 
     Library of Congress police for filling this devastating gap 
     in our police manpower. The memorandum of understanding 
     currently before the House Administration Committee will 
     accomplish that goal and return our police staffing to safe 
     levels.
       The outcome of any merger of police forces must be decided 
     by the Congress. The Library will work with you and all other 
     stakeholders on the architecture of this solution. But we 
     must have this immediate infusion of police officers.
       With true appreciation for all that you do for the Library 
     of Congress, I am,
           Sincerely,
                                              James H. Billington,
                                        The Librarian of Congress.

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I just want to thank our ranking member from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) 
for working on this. It is a crucial issue. I believe our thinking is 
correct on this, to work together, to work with the appropriators and 
look at the long-term interests.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) that the House suspend the rules and pass 
the bill, H.R. 4816.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________