[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 19]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 25944-25945]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4818, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN B. LARSON

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                      Saturday, November 20, 2004

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on House Administration, our panel has 
authorizing responsibilities over much of the legislative-branch 
portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. Like the rest of the 
omnibus, the legislative portion is not perfect, but the sundry 
agencies under our jurisdiction will generally have the resources they 
need to continue providing their services to the Congress, and to the 
American people.
  Of course, as a procedural matter, I am disappointed that a 
freestanding legislative appropriation did not become law in a regular 
process, before the start of the fiscal year. Such a bill, H.R. 4755, 
passed the House in July and later passed the Senate in plenty of time 
for conferees to report. I recognize that this was not the fault of the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] or the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Moran]. I hope they and all Members have the opportunity to 
consider the fiscal 2006 bill in a timely, orderly and ordinary 
process.
  With respect to specific agencies under the jurisdiction of my 
committee, I am pleased that this bill funds a staff fitness facility 
for the House. This important facility will provide a way for our 
employees to remain fit and healthy. None of us can properly discharge 
our duties without the support of our staffs and the other House 
employees. This long-awaited facility will be a tremendous addition to 
the House, making it, as well as our employees, stronger.
  I am disappointed that the bill does not include a House provision, 
authored by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Kirk], eliminating funding 
for the Capitol Police mounted unit. In my judgment, the police have 
failed to articulate a sufficient rationale for spending hundreds of 
thousands, millions over time, for this purpose. There is little doubt 
that the U.S. Park Police can benefit from maintaining a mounted unit, 
since the Park Police must patrol thousands of acres of parkland in the 
District of Columbia, much of it well off-road. The Capitol Police 
faces no such situation, and in fact, will have to spend tens of 
thousands each year simply to remove the manure from the carefully 
manicured and fairly small Capitol grounds. Absent a sufficient 
justification that the Capitol Police mounted unit was worth its cost, 
I supported the efforts of my Illinois colleague to save the taxpayers' 
money. I look forward to the important report by the Government 
Accountability Office, due in March, on this subject.
  I share the concerns expressed in the conference report about the 
ongoing efforts to reorganize the police. I look forward to reviewing 
the results of the GAO's contributions in this area. The conferees also 
directed the Capitol Police to review all existing operations and 
general expenses to determine whether any ``outsourcing'' opportunities 
may exist. That term has come to mean the wholesale transfer of jobs 
overseas, and as a result, its use in the report may disturb many. 
Naturally, I am eager to review the Capitol Police's report to the 
appropriators on this subject, and on the USCP's expensive but 
mechanically unsound Command Vehicle. It seems that these subjects, and 
many others related to USCP operations and expenses, would make 
excellent subjects for formal hearings next year in our committee.
  In connection with the Capitol Police, I am greatly concerned that 
several legislative provisions within the jurisdiction of the House 
Administration Committee found their way into this appropriations bill. 
In November, I joined my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], 
and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Rules and 
Administration Committee, in a joint letter to the Capitol Police Board 
directing the Board not to request further such provisions in its 
future budget requests, and reminding the Board that it should bring 
proposed legislation to those committees for consideration. Only in 
this way

[[Page 25945]]

can the authorizing and appropriations processes work as designed, and 
for the good of the men and women of the Capitol Police and the people 
they serve. The Capitol Police was certainly not the only agency within 
our jurisdiction which asked for legislative provisions in its budget 
request this year. The others should similarly heed the message we 
conveyed to the Police Board.
  With respect to the Library of Congress, while I am pleased that the 
Congress will extend temporarily the authorization for the National 
Film Preservation Board and Foundation, which enabled the funding of 
this important work for another 2 years, I am dismayed that separate 
reauthorization legislation, under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committee and House Administration, has not passed. I trust these 
committees can quickly address this matter next year. I agree with the 
conferees, who lauded the work of the Copyright Office with respect to 
digitizing future and historic copyright records. The Copyright Office, 
which depends on the public to defray a portion of its expenses, is 
headed in the right direction in this regard. I also note the 
continuing good work of the Congressional Research Service, without 
which none of the Members of either House could do his or her work 
effectively.
  I am hopeful that our committee can authorize a student-loan 
repayment program for the Office of Compliance. This important tool has 
helped numerous Federal agencies, including the House, to attract and 
retain the staff needed to build an effective organization.
  With respect to agencies within our committee's jurisdiction and 
funded in bills other than the legislative appropriations bill, I am 
glad to see that the conferees agreed to fund the Election Assistance 
Commission above the amount proposed by the Senate. The $14 million 
appropriated will help continue the work started by the EAC to serve as 
the clearinghouse for Federal elections. Although, the EAC got a late 
start, with the commissioners not taking office until December 2003, 
they must continue working to improve the election process. If Congress 
considers a supplemental appropriations bill next spring, the EAC 
should consider requesting additional resources.
  Yet again, I am not pleased that the majority bypassed the committee 
and inserted into this bill a provision allowing contributions to 
campaigns for Federal office to be diverted to campaigns for State or 
local office. While this may be a meritorious idea, I certainly believe 
it should have been considered in an orderly process in the committees 
of jurisdiction, and not simply added to a massive appropriations bill.
  Finally, the Smithsonian Institution received an increase of 3.1 
percent over the fiscal 2004 budget, an increase of more than $19 
million, but still 2 percent below its request. The funding level was 
reasonable given the overall budget constraints this year, but, as in 
the past, will not fund an aggressive approach to the Smithsonian's 
aging infrastructure and inadequate maintenance. I hope that Congress 
will soon recognize that its year-by-year, finger-in-the-dike approach 
to budgeting actually accelerates the deterioration of the physical 
plant of our nation's greatest repository of knowledge and ongoing 
research.
  Congress last year finally authorized the National Museum of African 
American History and Culture, which is in preliminary phases of 
engineering studies, staffing and planning, and which does not yet have 
a location or director. The $5 million request to continue the start up 
process was reduced to $3.9 million, which will impede the process. The 
Board of Regents expects to make a site recommendation to relevant 
committees, including House Administration, late next year.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hard work of the Appropriations 
Committee and look forward to working with the committee on matters of 
common concern next year.

                          ____________________