[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13549-13579]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 334 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2985.

                              {time}  1603


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Linder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  The legislative branch bill, Mr. Chairman, provides for $2.870 
billion, an increase of only 1.7 percent over the fiscal year 2005. The 
bill represents a $270 million reduction from the budget request.
  Mr. Chairman, although we did not agree on every item on this bill, 
we worked very closely with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to 
produce a bipartisan bill for the legislative branch. I want to thank 
all the committee members for their contributions in putting this bill 
together.
  While small in size, this is the bill that funds the work of the 
Congress, and it is a bill that we all can be very proud of.
  The bill includes funding for the operations of the House and several 
joint items, the Capitol Police, the Compliance Board, the 
Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, the Library 
of Congress, the Government Printing Office, the General Accountability 
Office, and the Open World Leadership Program.
  There will be no reductions in the current workforce.
  The bill provides for all personnel cost-of-living increases and all 
other pay-related costs.
  The bill also was reported out of the full committee on a voice vote.
  The Capitol Visitor Center is funded at the cost-to-complete level of 
$36.9 million. The bill does not include funding for CVC operating 
expenses.
  The bill establishes an Inspector General for the Capitol Police. The 
bill terminates the mounted horse unit and transfers the horses and 
equipment to the U.S. Park Service.
  As part of an amendment in the full committee, I offered, and the 
committee adopted, the Continuity in Representation Act at the 
Speaker's request. This bill has passed the House twice, and just 
recently, the vote in March was 329 to 68.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and one that benefits the entire 
legislative

[[Page 13550]]

branch. Ultimately, this is the bill that reflects the work of the 
House. We are all in this together, Mr. Chairman, and because of that, 
I feel very strongly that this legislation should have the support of 
the entire House.

[[Page 13551]]

TH22JN05.001



[[Page 13552]]

TH22JN05.002



[[Page 13553]]

TH22JN05.003



[[Page 13554]]

TH22JN05.004



[[Page 13555]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. 
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this seems a strange thing to say on a bill as 
small as the bill to fund the congressional budget, but I honestly 
believe, because of the attachment of the proposal for the continuity 
of Congress, that this bill is by far the worst bill to come to the 
floor in this session of Congress.
  I believe that that continuity of representation provision attached 
to this bill is an assault on constitutional government. I believe it 
is an assault on checks and balances. It is an assault on the rule of 
law. It is an invitation to one-man rule and dictatorship. I think it 
is profoundly misguided, profoundly misgotten, and I think a profound 
disservice is done in not having months and months of hearings with 
constitutional scholars before such a drastic proposal is brought 
before the House.
  I think there is a very good reason that the Senate has not taken it 
up. It is because it is a turkey of a proposal. It could leave us 
literally with 75 and 80 percent of the congressional districts in this 
country unrepresented in a time of crisis, at a time of terrorist 
attack, and unrepresented in the halls of Congress, and I think that is 
a bad way to do business.
  What I would like to do now is to talk about another problem in this 
bill. That is the Congressional Visitors Center. I really believe that 
the Congressional Visitors Center has been mismanaged in such 
spectacular fashion that it is really sort of a metaphor for the way 
that the entire Federal budget deficit has been mismanaged, and let me 
explain what I mean.
  This project originally started as a $95 million project to have a 
modest expansion of the Capitol, to give tourists an opportunity to 
come in and see a movie about what the Congress was all about before 
they visited the Capitol. But the security assault on this Capitol and 
9/11 has, in my view, been used as an excuse to expand this operation. 
We have also had other efforts from the Library of Congress and other 
institutions to further expand this proposition; and so as a result, 
today, this project is a $500 million-plus project. It is more than a 
year behind schedule, and I think it is wasting taxpayers' money and 
wasting an opportunity that we had to provide much-needed usable space 
for the Congress at the same time.
  What is happening out on the East Front is that over 2 acres of 
underground space is being added to the Capitol. Some of that is being 
added for purposes of a visitors center and some of the other space is 
being added for the purpose of expanding space under control of the 
Senate and the House to do their work.
  We all know that this Congress needs more working space. In my view, 
the number one need of the Congress for working space is the need for 
additional rooms for conference committees between the Senate and the 
House because most of our hearings, especially on the Committee on 
Appropriations. When I came here, they were held behind closed doors. 
The press was not in, the public was not in. So there was plenty of 
room for a few people to get behind closed doors and work out deals and 
that is not the way government is supposed to work today.
  Today, when we have a conference committee, the press has a right to 
be there. We need our staffs there, and the public has the right to be 
there, too. We have no real room in the Capitol for that kind of 
facility.
  This is an opportunity to create that kind of room. Instead, what has 
happened? Instead, the only appreciable room of any quality in the new 
House space is what is called the House hearing room, but in plain 
language, that room is really a media center. That is going to be where 
the press focuses whenever there is a hearing in that room because it 
will have all of the creature comforts for the press. That room will 
have ample room for one hearing, one presentation, and whoever runs the 
Congress will be able to decide what subject it is that gets that 
attention. If you are trying to hold another public hearing on another 
subject in the Capitol, you are going to be stuck in tiny rooms that 
are worthless in terms of public access.
  When I visited the visitors center, I asked the Architect why, with 
these vaulted ceilings that you have set aside for this hearing room, 
why could you not simply reduce the height of those rooms and at least 
provide two rooms of approximately the same size so that we had enough 
overflow room for the committees to do our work and to have conference 
committees? I have yet to get an answer from the Architect's office.
  That is my problem. My problem is that with all of this space being 
created, much of it is not usable for the purpose that we need it used 
for.
  Then we come to the other portion of the add-on, which is the portion 
devoted to the visitors center. Originally, that visitors center was 
supposed to have two media theaters so that the public could come in, 
see a short film about the Congress, and then be on its way.
  Here is the problem. We have those two small orientation theaters, 
but in addition to that, we have this huge congressional auditorium, 
which is going to seat 450-plus people. I asked the Architect, and this 
is a vaulted theater, I asked why do we need another theater in the 
Capitol? What I was told by the Architect is, ``Well, you can bring in 
large constituency groups.'' I would like to know how many Members of 
the House have ever brought 500 people into the Capitol. I do not think 
there are going to be many people would raise their hands.
  The second thing the Architect told me is that, ``Well, we need a 
place for where the House of Representatives can meet when the House 
Chamber is being remodeled.''

                              {time}  1615

  That I found a might strange, because we have just redecorated the 
Committee on Ways and Means room in the Longworth Building. That room 
was originally created to serve as an alternative meeting place for the 
House of Representatives when we had to repair this Chamber. So we have 
already got a spare room.
  In addition, we have another spare room I cannot talk about because 
it is classified, but it is being built off campus somewhere. So in 
essence we will have three spare rooms. I do not know how much the off-
campus room is costing the taxpayers or how much the Committee on Ways 
and Means room cost the taxpayers, but this room is going to cost a 
bundle.
  I keep asking ``What is the real purpose for this room?'' You finally 
go back 10 years and look at the original plans, what do we find out. 
We find out that this was originally included in the plans at the 
request of the Library of Congress because they wanted another theater 
to show movies and give presentations. That might be nice for them to 
have, but this project is already 400 percent over original cost. I do 
not think it makes any sense. I think this is the last chance that we 
are going to have to reconfigure this center so we have some additional 
working space instead of the Taj Mahal show space we are going to have.
  Another thing I do not like, we have been told we are likely to have 
three congressional seals in the new visitors center. Those seals, I 
have been told, will cost up to a million bucks. Does any Member really 
want to take the political heat when taxpayers find out that somebody 
is talking about spending $1 million on three congressional seals? Do 
Members remember the Cain that was raised when marble floors were put 
in four of our elevators in the Capitol? Does anybody have any memory? 
I would like to think so, but I guess not.
  Mr. Chairman, I consider myself to be an institutional man. I usually 
support this piece of legislation; but out of frustration, I am not 
going to support it today because I think this Capitol Visitors Center, 
when it is finally built, is going to draw flies in terms of bad 
stories about waste of taxpayer money, misuse of space, and we are 
going to wind up not having enough room for the principal function of 
government. If this is, indeed, supposed to be a working Capitol, then 
we ought to be able to do better than this floor plan.

[[Page 13556]]

  I really believe this package has been brought to us by staff who do 
not really understand how committees work and do not really understand 
the principal needs of this institution. This is the last time we are 
going to have a chance to repair this package and make it more usable 
for the 100 years at least that it will be used. I urge Members to vote 
against this bill so we can start over.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to extend thanks to 
the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis). By this time next week, we will have 
completed all of the appropriation bills. This is a history-making 
event in the House of Representatives. I have been here for 11 years; 
and for the 11 years I have been here, I do not know of another time 
when we have completed all of our appropriation bills going right up to 
the July 4 recess break.
  That is in large part due to the cooperation that the chairman 
received from the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), but in large part also from the leadership exhibited by the 
chairman of the full committee. He set a very, very high bar, a high 
standard, and all of the subcommittee chairs comported with that; and 
we will have sent to the Senate all of our appropriation bills as of a 
week from today or a week from tomorrow. That is an accomplishment that 
should not go unnoticed, and I compliment the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their 
leadership and also the subcommittee chairmen for that kind of goal 
setting and then meeting those goals.
  Secondly, this is an important bill. This is the legislative branch 
bill. This is the bill where we say to all of the people, and I 
personally say to all of the people around the Capitol campus, thank 
you for the good work you do. The clerks, the people taking down our 
words here, the Congressional Record that will be printed overnight, 
the Parliamentarians who do such good work in directing the proceedings 
of the House, all of the Capitol Hill police who stand guard 24-7 and 
protect the Capitol, the attending physician's office who keep us all 
healthy, the people who work in the cloakrooms, the people who help us 
write bills, the people at CRS who help us make sure that we get the 
words correct and get them done correctly in the bills that we prepare 
and take a lot of credit for.
  The folks who work at the Library of Congress. The most magnificent 
facility on the Capitol campus is the Library of Congress. I hate to 
say it, but it is even more magnificent than this building, but the 
Library of Congress is a magnificent facility. Members have an 
opportunity to take full advantage of many of the books there and 
research that can be done. The Botanical Gardens is also a part of our 
campus. This is the bill that funds all of that.
  This is Congress' opportunity to say thank you to all of the people 
who work around here. It includes the lawyers who make sure that we do 
things correctly, and all of the people who work hard day and night to 
keep this building open, keep Members on the right track, and make sure 
that the things we do are done by the book.
  So I pay my compliments to all of the people who make this 
magnificent facility that we call the United States Capitol the great 
place that it is, where we make the laws and have the debates and have 
the opportunity to represent the people from all over the country. We 
could not do it without this bill, without the funding in this bill, 
and we could not do it without the people who provide all of the 
services, and are very dedicated, many of whom work late hours to keep 
this place going. I want to take my hat off to those folks.
  I want to say a word about the visitors center. I want to say this: 
it is a done deal. The leadership decided several years we needed a 
visitors center. Has it been done all correctly? No. And the points 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) makes are correct points. 
A lot of the work that has been done has been done by direction of 
staff of the principals. The principals really have not been that 
involved. They said they wanted a visitors center, and then they 
allowed the staff over the last 4 or 5 years to give direction. The 
architects have had many masters on this visitors center, 
unfortunately.
  But it is going to be built, and it is going to be a magnificent 
opportunity for people to have good shelter and safety. And after 9/11, 
we do not want people standing outside, we do not want people standing 
in inclement weather, and there will be an opportunity for people to 
get a little bit of history before they enter the Capitol. To say we 
should throw the whole bill out because of the visitors center does not 
make sense.
  I also want to say something about a subject I have felt very 
strongly about for the last few years, thank the architect and the 
chief operating officer and others for helping me with this, and that 
is the development of a staff health fitness center. It is under way in 
the Rayburn garage. It is for the staff around here who work long 
hours. There will be a health fitness center that they will be able to 
take advantage of, to stay healthy and be able to exercise, to have an 
opportunity to do the same thing that all of the Members have the 
opportunity to do. I am grateful that we are finally getting that kind 
of opportunity for our staff to be able to make this happen.
  With respect to the provision that was put in the bill having to do 
with respect to what do we do around here if another disaster happens, 
if the Members are injured or killed in some kind of an attack, there 
has to be something that guides the direction of the House in the event 
that something happens. The Speaker decided in order to get this moving 
and in order to get the Senate to go along with something, it had to be 
included in a bill, and it was put in this bill. It was put in, really, 
to get something done, to make something happen, to have some provision 
in the event that something happens.
  It is probably not the best way to do it, but maybe it will end up to 
be the most efficient way to do it, to get the Senate finally to come 
around and sit down and talk to us about what do we do if something 
happens around here and how do we account for succession.
  The Constitution calls for elections, not appointment. When there is 
a vacancy, there has to be an election. That is the way we get Members 
to congregate in this House. That is the way it should be.
  My point is the idea that this was included and is some sort of 
nonessential thing, it is essential that we have a provision in the law 
that allows us to account for a situation in the event that Members 
need to be replaced. That is really the reason it was put in.
  It is a part of the process here. If we want to get things moving, 
this is one of the ways to do it. It is not unprecedented. We have 
included other provisions in bills before to try and get some 
compromise with the Senate. I congratulate the Speaker for trying to 
get something done on this. If it does not happen here, it probably 
will not happen. We need to have this provision in the law.
  I ask every Member to consider the good work that goes on around 
here, the fact that this is the bill that funds all of this. This is 
the bill that takes care of all of the work that we do around here. It 
is a good bill. My compliments go to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the work of the 
staff people that made it possible for this bill to come to the floor 
today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of 
the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time, but most 
particularly for his leadership.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made several points. Some of 
them were consistent with the comments of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. LaHood) that there are a lot of

[[Page 13557]]

good things about this institution and the facilities that we fund.
  But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out some of the 
concerns that many of us share over the Capitol Visitors Center. I 
share those concerns as well, having been the ranking member of the 
legislative branch subcommittee before it was incorporated in the full 
committee. We raised these, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), 
and I.
  It is not meant to be argumentative, but we have created a situation 
where the Capitol Visitors Center is going to create some substantial 
problems in the future. We have a facility that is going to cost well 
over what was originally estimated. The original estimate was $165 
million. We are now over half a billion dollars. We were going to try 
to get private money. It is all Federal money now, of course. We were 
going to have it ready for the January 2005 inauguration. Obviously, we 
are way behind schedule; but that happens in a lot of construction 
projects.
  We recognize this is going to be completed, and there will be a 
number of things that we will be proud to show. But some of these 
situations are going to cause more problems than they are worth. For 
example, we are creating an enormous capacity for visitors. One would 
think that would be a good thing, but what is going to wind up 
happening, they are going to be given a virtual tour of the Capitol. 
The reason for that is we have the capacity for twice as many people to 
come into that Capitol Visitors Center as can ever come into the 
Capitol itself.
  Now, do you want to be the Member who tells your constituents, after 
traveling from any place in the United States, and for many of them it 
takes a whole day to get here, they stay here, they are all excited and 
they get to the Capitol Visitors Center and want to go to the Capitol 
and you have to tell them well, actually, there is no room?
  Half of the people coming into the Capitol Visitors Center are 
probably going to have to be informed there is no room in the actual 
Capitol for you to be able to make a visit today. That is a substantial 
problem. I think we should have figured that out. I am glad we have 
capacity; but, again, is it consistent with our real objective, which 
is to enable all our constituents to see the U.S. Capitol itself?

                              {time}  1630

  The taxpayer is paying for this. A lot of the decisions have really 
not been made by the Members as much as staff, I have to say. It is not 
the staff of the appropriations subcommittee that has made those 
decisions, but we have got some major concerns. I think they are well-
founded concerns.
  I want to raise one now, though, that is not a matter of legislation, 
but it is one that has been brought to my attention as cochair of the 
Congressional Prevention Coalition. We have tried to do some things to 
address public health concerns.
  One of them is in regard to smoking. We have a ban on smoking in all 
Federal buildings but we exempt congressional office spaces. I do not 
want to change that necessarily, I can understand why there is an 
exemption in place, but we have a particular problem with the Rayburn 
cafeteria.
  With that, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of 
the full committee on this because I do think we need to address it. In 
the Rayburn cafeteria, the main dining room is overflowing with patrons 
generally every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; and so those patrons 
are forced to spill over into the designated smoking area. The same 
thing happens when we close the main cafeteria for receptions and 
special events. Because that main designated area is the only place 
available on that floor for smoking, it gets pretty asphyxiating 
according to many of the staff who have contacted me. I think we need 
to address it because some of these people have real serious health 
problems in terms of their breathing capabilities; some have asthma and 
other related problems. They just cannot deal with all of that smoke 
and they do not have any choice to avoid it given the situation that 
frequently occurs.
  I yield to the chairman of the full committee to see if he has some 
suggestions in how we could alleviate this problem for the nonsmokers.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much the gentleman having 
this colloquy with me and raising this important issue. As we have 
discussed, the smoking policy in the House office buildings is under 
the jurisdiction of the House Office Building Commission. That 
commission is made up of leaders on both sides of the aisle; and, 
frankly, I am very hesitant to interfere with their responsibility or 
their work. But I think it is very important that the gentleman is 
raising this issue today, and I am happy to have this discussion with 
him.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the chairman and I thank the interest 
of Ms. Johnson, the lead staff for the committee on legislative branch 
issues. Would the chairman be willing to make sure that this gets 
raised to the appropriate people so we could address it in a 
constructive way?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would be very happy to join with the 
gentleman in that discussion. I think I probably will discuss it with 
my wife as well; but in the meantime, you and I work together on the 
committee, and I am happy to work with you on almost any issue you 
might raise.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I 
think we will pursue it in that manner rather than trying to find some 
legislative solution.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Lewis, the committee 
and the staff for their fine work on this bill and the process. We are 
coming down the home stretch, and we should all be proud of that.
  This bill contains $10.5 million to pay our heating bill, natural 
gas. That is a 25 percent increase over last year. When we get that 
kind of an increase, the Architect asks us for more money and we 
provide it. If natural gas prices continue as they are, next year we 
will be looking at a 3 to $4 million increase to heat our Capitol 
complex for the same amount of heat. We can do that. We will provide 
the money. But when our folks back home heating their homes, running 
their businesses have these kind of natural gas increases, I think it 
is time for Congress to act.
  As we speak, the fertilizer industry, the petrochemical industry, and 
the polymers and plastic industry are all making plans to leave this 
country permanently, because they use natural gas as heat and they use 
it to make products as an ingredient. Forty to 55 percent of their 
costs are natural gas. Natural gas prices in this country are an island 
to themselves. When we buy 58 or $60 oil, the whole world does. Our gas 
prices this week are $7.60. Canada's are $6, Europe's are 5-something, 
China's are $4 giving them a huge advantage, Trinidad $1.60, Russia 90 
cents and North Africa 80 cents.
  Folks, we will be looking next year at a 3 to $4 million increase to 
heat this Capitol. By that time, we will have lost some of the 
industries that I have talked about, and we will have seniors leaving 
their homes because they cannot afford to heat them. I am challenging 
this Congress to deal with the natural gas issue, the clean fuel, the 
fuel that does not have pollutants, the fuel we have an unlimited 
supply of for the next 50 to 100 years; and I am challenging this 
Congress to deal with natural gas.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for allowing me to participate in this discussion. Would the 
chairman enter into a colloquy with me regarding an amendment I had 
wished to offer relative to placing a plaque in Statuary Hall?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield, I would be 
pleased to do so.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As the gentleman knows, I was interested in 
offering an amendment today that would

[[Page 13558]]

require a plaque to be placed in Statuary Hall which would recognize 
that church services were held in the House Chamber from 1800 to 1868. 
Throughout the 1800s, the Speaker's podium in the Old House Chamber was 
converted into a preacher's pulpit on Sundays for church services. 
These services were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. The services were 
open to the public and became so popular that Thomas Jefferson and 
James Madison attended regularly.
  As the gentleman knows, I withdrew my proposal in light of ongoing 
activities relative to the exhibitry in the Capitol Visitors Center. I 
wonder if the gentleman would not mind, please, explaining his 
understanding relative to Statuary Hall and the exhibit hall in the 
soon-to-be-opened Capitol Visitors Center.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me tell the gentleman that 
I am very appreciative of his interest in the institution's history. As 
he is aware, the Speaker controls the placement of plaques on the House 
side of the Capitol. Their placement is very restricted, and we attempt 
to achieve recognition of events and places normally through other 
means.
  The Capitol Visitors Center is being designed to provide our visitors 
with a much fuller understanding and history of the House and Senate. 
Included in the CVC is a 16,000 square-foot exhibit hall. In this 
exhibit hall, the architectural and legislative history of the 
institution are highlighted.
  As part of the currently proposed CVC exhibits are detailed sections 
on the history of the Capitol and included in this is the fact that 
when the Capitol was originally built, it was used for more than 
legislative meetings. It was commonly used as the community center for 
the citizens of Washington, D.C. During that time, there were few 
places for meetings or church services. Thus, it is correct that such 
religious services were held here.
  All these facts are included in the CVC exhibits, and I would 
encourage that the education of citizens be pursued in this venue so 
that a more complete history beyond a plaque can be presented.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I 
appreciate so much his working with me on this and look forward to 
appropriately recognizing the fact that there have been religious 
activities in this Capitol from the beginning of our Nation through the 
first 70 or 80 years.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. There have been, and I very much appreciate 
the gentleman's interest in this matter. He and I will be pursuing it 
as we go forward in the months and, indeed, the years ahead.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation 
and commend my chairman for the good job that he has done, but I am 
opposed to one portion of the bill. The Baird/Rohrabacher amendment, 
which we will debate in a few moments, will remove title III from this 
appropriations bill. Title III not only should not be in this 
appropriations bill; it should not become law no matter how it is 
brought up. Title III is a statutory plan that has been rejected by the 
United States Senate because it will not work. It will not work because 
it was intended to ensure not the continuity of Congress but, as it 
turned out, it was intended and it is intended by what you can see and 
what it does to ensure the continuity of the election process, which 
are two different items.
  The task force that got together to try to come up with a solution to 
this challenge of what we are going to do in case of a catastrophe 
where many of our people are killed or incapacitated became confused 
about what they were supposed to be doing. The idea is not to ensure 
the election process, but to ensure that this Congress can act in a 
time of emergency.
  Instead, what we have gotten as our alternative, which is in title 
III of this bill, will put us in grave jeopardy for 7 weeks after a 
national catastrophe. I am pleading with my Republican friends to 
please open their eyes and not let the ego of the people on this task 
force who put together this and now will not look at any other 
alternative get in the way of watching out for the people of the United 
States.
  If al Qaeda or any other enemy of our country manages to create a 
situation or explode a bomb or murder or incapacitate large numbers of 
our people, we cannot wait for 7 weeks of a special election in order 
to deal with that. What we have been offered is a plan that will lead 
to martial law at exactly the time when we need Congress functioning to 
represent the interests of the American people.
  I am pleading with my Republicans to please not blindly follow along 
with a task force that got its working orders confused with what they 
were trying to do. Please think about what will happen if we have 
another major bombing in this country and it happens in this city. Let 
us not incapacitate Congress from working for 7 weeks, which is what 
title III does. Title III would say that we have to wait for special 
elections for up to 7 weeks. This is outrageous.
  There is an alternative. The Baird/Rohrabacher constitutional 
alternative changes the rules. The alternative to what we have been 
offered by this task force which, as I say, lost their way on this is 
that we should change the way we do things so that we can cope with the 
challenge of this type of threat to our society, that is, we will run, 
we will select an alternate to run with us, the voters will vote for a 
team of people so that if we are incapacitated or murdered, the 
alternate can take that seat right away and Congress will not cease to 
function for 7 weeks.

                              {time}  1645

  That person is elected, just like the Vice President of the United 
States is elected and will take over for the President of the United 
States. No one claims that the Presidency would not be elected if the 
Vice President takes over.
  We have to get rid of these cliches. We have got to get rid of these 
blocks on thinking what will happen. Put ourselves in a position of 
what will happen in a catastrophe. Waiting 7 weeks for special 
elections, as presented in this bill, would be a disaster.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say I understand the 
points that the gentleman is making. I believe he has a constitutional 
amendment that proposes an alternative approach. I must say the Speaker 
has been most concerned, and he asked me to put this in this bill, 
because a constitutional amendment takes so long to accomplish. We 
could be out there for Lord knows how long if it is ever accomplished. 
In the meantime, he has a proposal that will go forward and will be 
altered significantly as we go forward in order to expedite the 
process. That is what the Speaker is asking us to do here.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is there any 
reason that we could not move forward with a constitutional amendment 
and a statutory proposal at exactly the same time that would accomplish 
the mission rather than leave us vulnerable for 7 weeks after a 
catastrophe?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield 
further, he does have a constitutional amendment proposed. He knows how 
long and how risky constitutional proposals are. They hardly ever 
happen. And, therefore, the Speaker wants to make sure this proposal 
goes forward, and that is what we are suggesting.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to simply say I congratulate the gentleman from California. I 
agree with the gentleman from California. I would be perfectly willing 
to vote for this proposition today if we had a constitutional amendment 
going at the same time, so that the solution in this

[[Page 13559]]

bill would be only a temporary solution until we got a real one.
  Without the Rohrabacher approach, or something similar, and I happen 
to prefer the one he introduced in the last Congress, but without 
something like that, we guarantee that we can have the President 
governing with literally a handful of people in the Congress. We could 
have hundreds of districts with no representation whatsoever. That is 
not continuity. That is chaos. That is martial law. That is one-man 
rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support both of the legislation and 
appropriation bill before us and also in strong support of the Capitol 
Visitors Center project. Having been very intimately involved in this 
project, I had the only two bills that were introduced and actually had 
congressional hearings on authorizing the visitors center, and then 
being the Speaker's designee to the Capitol Preservation Commission, 
which oversees this also on public works. I followed this project from 
day one.
  Let me just for the record set the record straight. First, about 
private money, we did start out raising private money. Mr. Chairman, 
the last fundraiser that was held to raise private money I participated 
in downstairs in the Speaker's dining room on the evening of Monday, 
September 10, 2001. As the Members know, our world changed and the 
project changed, and after that we put substantial money into the 
project. Correct, it then went to $265 million. There was money put in 
the project prior to that time because we had two police officers 
killed at the front door of the Capitol. Go back and read the testimony 
of the Sergeant at Arms where he described the scenario that we should 
have prevented if we had built the structure in advance. So that is why 
there was additional money put in.
  If we look at the record, in October of 2001, we put in $38.5 
million; and then in April of 2002, $33 million. Add that up, and it is 
about $70 million. It was all for security after September 11 to 
protect this, the people's House.
  The additional $70 million for expansion of space, when we built the 
project it was supposed to be smaller. I insisted, as a developer and 
former real estate person, that it be larger; that we create as much 
shell space as possible, because we are not going to dig up the front 
yard of the United States Capitol every year. So we built all of that 
shell space.
  In November of 2001, we decided to build out the additional space for 
the House of Representatives. It was a wise decision because we will 
save a tremendous amount of money. As a developer, I could tell my 
colleagues if we go back afterwards, it will cost us twice as much. So 
we actually saved money.
  Other improvements are for utilities. Some utilities fell apart as we 
dug them up, and we could see some of the results; so we will actually 
save money in utilities.
  This is a wise investment. It gives the people of the United States a 
place to visit, to see the history, the artifacts, and also deal with 
the capacity issue, because we could never fit them all in this 
wonderful historic building that is overcrowded, without even the basic 
accommodations for visitors like restrooms.
  So I strongly urge the adoption of this bill and also every Member's 
strong support of the largest addition in the history of the Capitol 
for the people of the United States.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  I wanted to speak on this bill and in support of this bill. As a 
former chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I had the honor 
of serving as the chairman, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) as ranking member, and during our period of time, holding the 
gavel for this, we did a lot of reforms, and I think we worked very 
closely with groups that are well used but underappreciated, such as 
the Office of Compliance or the Library of Congress or the Government 
Printing Office. We tried to work with these agencies and come up with 
some reforms that we thought were helpful, and ideas, and we worked for 
them.
  I wanted to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) we did a 
lot of work on the Capitol Visitors Center. I think we had a lot of 
good suggestions. Many of those suggestions were adopted by the House 
in our bill, but unfortunately as the bill progressed through the 
Chambers and got on the other side, the other body insisted on doing 
things which we thought could have addressed some of the concerns which 
he has raised today.
  So I want to say the House is on record as trying to get a grip on 
the Capitol Visitors Center, unfortunately without the cooperation of 
the Senate.
  Another group that we have had a lot of, I will say, growing pains 
with is the Capitol Hill Police. There are a lot of concerns about 
making the Capitol campus a fortress. As we walk up here with the 
eighth grade class from home to be greeted by officers with machine 
guns on the House steps, it is a little much; and this is something 
that we have a good discussion about on a Member-to-Member basis, how 
much security should we have?
  The Chief of Police has suggested in the past, several times, that we 
build a wall all around the Capitol, to which, on a bipartisan basis, 
we have rejected the notion; and yet a wall is not just made out of 
bricks and mortars but can, in fact, be made out of human beings, and I 
think to some degree we do have that boundary right now.
  And that is why it is perplexing to me that the Chief of Police would 
insist on a mounted horse unit, a unit which the House had decided was 
not cost efficient in the past and had cut out. This year the bill does 
not fund the horse mounted unit, and I think that it should remain that 
way. I know that there is going to be an amendment to restore it, but 
if we look at the strategic plan of the Capitol Hill Police, they do 
not even mention their own horse mounted unit. In fact, to quote the 
GAO report, it says: ``Upon review of the draft United States Capitol 
Hill Police Strategic Plan for FY 2004 to 2008, and the United States 
Capitol Threat Assessment, it is unclear how the horse mounted unit 
supports the Capitol Hill Police strategic mission or how the horse 
mounted unit would be deployed against threats to the Capitol, because 
there is no mention of the horse mounted unit in the documents.''
  The point is that if the Capitol Hill Police feel that the horses are 
so important, why are they not mentioning it in their strategic plan? 
Last year during the debate on this, it was suggested they are better 
for crowd control. But we do not have crowd control problems here at 
the Capitol. We do not have demonstrations. We do not have rock 
concerts. We do not have large masses of people who are coming out to 
watch or participate in an exhibit. We do have lines of people. We do 
have lots of people, but mounted police are used best on queuing up 
large groups of people and pushing back crowds, and that is a threat 
that we just frankly do not have.
  But what is the cost of this? Their budget calls for $145,000, they 
say, and we get free rent. But they do not mention that the stable for 
these horses is 20 miles away from the United States Capitol and that 
each day not only do the horses have to commute, and Members know what 
stress that must be on the horses because, good gosh, we have to put up 
for that, and I do not remember the horses being allowed to get on the 
Metro system.
  But in addition to the horses having to commute, so does the manure. 
That is right. We have a gigantic pooper-scooper program for the 
mounted horses, that not only do they come here commuting like the rest 
of us, but then somebody has to follow behind them, I guess with a 
baggy from Safeway, as they do in the neighborhoods down in Alexandria. 
But they have to haul manure off campus at a cost, Mr. Chairman, of 
$53,000 a year.

[[Page 13560]]

And for what? To keep some guys on horses in a very tight, small area. 
This is not acres and acres of land that goes all the way to the 
Washington Monument. This is a confined area called the United States 
Capitol.
  This is just one of the reforms that this House has gone on record of 
supporting. This bill does support it now. I think that we should pass 
the bill as it has been passed by the committee.
  I do want to say one other thing. I am supporting the bill. I do 
think that the committee has done a good job on continuing a lot of the 
reforms that are in it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumen-
auer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the gentleman from 
Illinois' (Mr. LaHood) earlier comments about the fitness center for 
our employees. When I first came here soon after the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), I was struck that the showers that were 
available for our employees were kind of secret. We, I think, cracked 
the code, found out where they were, and published a map. And we were 
able to work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran), the former subcommittee chairs and ranking members in 
slowly moving some things forward. There are now some new showers. Now 
the fitness center is under construction.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and the 
committee. I think this is an important development for our employees. 
It is important for their health, for their morale, for their 
efficiency, for their being able to bike and walk and run to work, I 
think it is an important signal for them that we value their work.
  I also appreciated comments that he made about the gem, which is the 
Library of Congress. I must confess I have some concerns in looking at 
this budget. We basically flatlined the Library of Congress, and we 
have missing from this, and part of the reduction is, the money that 
has been set aside for facilities to deal with the massive amount of 
information that is compiled by the library. The Library of Congress is 
the largest repository of information in the world. We have an 
obligation in Congress to support their efforts, and it is time 
sensitive. Not only are they running out of space, running out of room, 
there are issues of being able to protect the materials that they have. 
And I am afraid that if we slip a year, then we slip another year, we 
end up putting a burden on the people who run the Library of Congress 
and we put part of that collection in jeopardy.
  Look at what happened to the Library of Congress Jefferson Building 
being neglected for decades and it took a major renovation for the 
library, that gem that we are all so proud of, to be fit for use in 
time for its centennial.

                              {time}  1700

  I know the committee has a difficult time because there are tight 
spending restraints, but I would urge the Committee on Appropriations 
and, indeed, each Member of this body to take a careful look at our 
stewardship responsibilities for the Library of Congress.
  We all direct our constituents there because we are proud of it. We 
all take advantage of the material. This is an important little detail 
that is going to make their job harder; and I am afraid in the long 
run, if we are not careful, it is going to be the abrogation of our 
responsibility to maintain this largest collection of information in 
the history of the world.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague, and I 
appreciate his leadership on this issue. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) spoke eloquently about the need for the Rohrabacher/
Baird amendment; and I would like to address it briefly, if I may.
  Madison is quoted on this topic, but let me quote Madison from 
Federalist 47. He said: ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, 
executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or 
many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be 
pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''
  Now, I would like, if I may, to ask my colleagues, before we pass 
this appropriations bill with legislative language in it alleging to 
maintain continuity, to maybe address a couple of questions, before my 
colleagues vote on this, and I will yield time. Not for a filibuster, 
but just to address some questions.
  How will we, given Madison's concern, maintain checks and balances 
during the 49-day period until we have the special elections? I would 
be happy to yield 30 seconds to anyone who plans to vote for this bill 
to address that question.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I will address it in this way: I was here 
on 
9/11, as the gentleman was. There is absolutely nothing for the Members 
of Congress to do. That is the answer to the gentleman's question. The 
whole thing was taken over by the administration. There is not going to 
be anything for any Member of Congress, any major decisions to be made 
during that period of time. We do not need to be around here.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the fact is this 
Congress took a number of very important actions, as the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois knows, during that same time period. Let me ask 
this: If what the gentleman is saying is that we are not going to do 
anything, the executive branch has all the control, then how do we not 
just define Madison's very definition of tyranny? And if that is the 
case, are we not with this bill promoting tyranny in this country?
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, we were all meandering around here trying 
to figure out what to do, trying to figure out how to get our phones 
working. All of the major legislation that was created was created long 
after the period of time that the gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would beg to differ, 
and the gentleman, I think, is inaccurate historically.
  Mr. LaHOOD. If the gentleman will further yield, what is the time 
frame?
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I do not have it on the top of my head, my 
friend; but I can say that it is much faster than 7 weeks. I would 
assert, furthermore, that if the gentleman's assertion is that we do 
not need the United States Congress post a catastrophic attack, I think 
you are making a mistake and doing a disservice. If that is what you 
are voting for, then let us be honest with the American public, as 
apparently the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has been.
  We are voting with this bill to allow martial law, and I think that 
is a grave mistake.
  Let me continue, if I may, and ask a few other questions. How many 
millions of Americans are you willing to leave without representation 
as article I, section 8 responsibility such as declarations of war, 
appropriations of funds, et cetera, are made? How many millions of 
Americans is the gentleman willing to leave without representation?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I was going to respond to the gentleman's other 
questions.
  Mr. BAIRD. Okay. So we do not have that answer.
  Let me ask this question: under the bill, the section that is 
proposed, I have yet to figure out what happens to this body.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that with these questions 
remaining, we should not be passing this

[[Page 13561]]

legislation in the manner in which we are. We need a full and open and 
extensive debate on this.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to yield time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); but before doing so, I just 
want to mention that the previous speaker had a constitutional 
amendment regarding the issue of continuity in the last Congress, and 
on that constitutional amendment the vote was 63 yeas and 353 nays. To 
say the least, the constitutional approach is difficult.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for 
yielding me this time; and I want to congratulate him on the fine work 
that he has done, not only on this legislation, but on all of the 
appropriations bills.
  We have debated this issue, Mr. Chairman. We debated this issue in 
the 108th Congress. We have had three markups on this issue, two in the 
Committee on House Administration, one in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and we had 122 Democrats who joined with us in support of a 
responsible piece of legislation which, in fact, encourages the 
Madisonian vision of an elected people's House.
  Now, I heard my friend from Wisconsin talk about the fact that if we 
are going to pass this legislation, he would support it if we went 
ahead with a constitutional amendment. It was the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations who just said we had that 
debate. Sixty-three Members of this House chose to support a 
constitutional amendment. The only reason that we are here at this 
moment having this debate is that the other body has refused, last year 
and since March of this year, to proceed with acting on this House's 
housekeeping matter. It is a housekeeping matter for the House of 
Representatives to maintain the process of elections.
  Now, I think that if we look at the debate that we have had, if we 
look at the fact that we have continued since September 11 of 2001 to 
focus on a wide range of matters that impact this institution and the 
challenge that we never faced in our history, I believe that having 
this very important legislation that was passed by a margin of 329 in 
this Congress, 329 to 68, that including it now in the legislative 
appropriations bill is the most appropriate way to deal with it.
  We chose in the Committee on Rules to allow the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird) to have an opportunity to strike this measure; 
and in just a few minutes, we are going to, once again, have a vote on 
whether or not we allow the process of elections to go ahead.
  Now, it is very true, it is very true that it would be difficult, it 
would be messy, it would be ugly; but Walter Dellinger, the former 
Solicitor General, a great constitutional scholar from Duke University, 
made it very clear in his testimony before the Committee on Rules, when 
we talked about this issue, that he would prefer to see a House of 
Representatives that is comprised of fewer Members that are actually 
elected by the people than would be appointed.
  Now, my friend from Washington State talks about the fact that these 
appointed people would be running our country and we would not have 
elected people. Under the constitutional amendment that my friend 
supports, we could see this institution, the people's House, consist of 
individuals who are appointed making decisions over those who are 
elected; and I think that is counter to the entire intention that was 
put forward by the Framers of our Constitution.
  So when this comes up, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the Baird 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Congressional Visitors Center, we 
are not saying there should not be one; all we are saying is that the 
one that is being proposed is screwed up and spectacularly wasteful and 
needs to be changed.
  With respect to the assertion of my friend from Illinois that we do 
not have to worry about not having a Congress for 45 days because there 
will not be anything for Members of Congress to do, all I can tell my 
colleague is, if that is the case, then I wonder why it is that the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bill Young) and I negotiated a $20 
billion supplemental appropriation just a few days after 9/11; and I 
wonder why it is we were sitting in the office of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Speaker Hastert) until 12:30 at night hammering out 
differences with people on the Senate side who did not agree with what 
we had done; and why it is that the President made a commitment of $10 
billion to New York; and why we had to spend a lot of time backing him 
up.
  I would also remind the gentleman we had a debate on the House floor 
when the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure tried to slip 
into that bill an extra $10 billion appropriation for the airlines.
  There was plenty for us to do after 9/11; and thank God, in contrast 
to the proposition being set out today, thank God that then we had a 
Congress around to do it.
  If you want to vote for a situation in which we can have no Congress 
whatsoever for 45 days, then by all means vote for this provision. If 
you do not, if you think we ought to have some kind of balance and 
check on the Presidency during that period by having somebody here to 
do the Nation's business, then my colleagues will reconsider and listen 
to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) have to say.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak in these closing 
moments.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, just one point. We did that 3 days after 9/
11, 3 days.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it 
is important for the public to know that all of us are concerned about 
continuity of government in the event of a tragedy. We certainly would 
not be having this discussion if it had not been for 9/11.
  But, indeed, there are differences in the approach that one might 
take. Some prefer a constitutional amendment; and yet we have tried 
that on more than one occasion. We have had the debate, and very few in 
this House have supported that proposition. So the Speaker has asked us 
to go forward with an idea that will be worked on carefully between now 
and the time we finish our work with the Senate.
  But from that point forward, let me talk a bit about the Capitol 
Visitors Center. My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
and I, early on in this Congress, were not active supporters of a CVC. 
But, indeed, his leadership and my leadership, at a higher pay grade, 
made a different decision; so we are carrying forward their work in 
this process.
  I have looked at the visitors center very carefully. It is rather a 
fabulous addition to the Capitol, the greatest addition that has been 
made in this century, I believe. Indeed, within the mix of that, while 
I might change some things, I prefer not to suggest what the details 
ought to be that the Architect moves forward with. I am critical of the 
Architect; but in the meantime, I am not one. Therefore, we are going 
to add this major change whereby visitors can enter the Capitol, and it 
will have a very significant piece of our future history in the Capitol 
complex. It is going to be a fabulous addition. Indeed, it will be a 
very high-quality addition that we will all be proud of, but I think it 
would be a mistake for me to try to be the architect between now and 
then.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate 
about the work of the people's House. I am

[[Page 13562]]

very happy to participate in this with my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. 
However, I find it truly unfortunate that these Appropriations were 
consistently under-funded because of the tight budget due to the 
massive tax cuts given to the richest Americans. These Bush 
Administration tax cuts have created gaps in so many programs and these 
Legislative Branch Appropriations are no different.
  The total funding for this legislation is $2.87 billion which is only 
2% more than current levels and $270 million (9%) less than requested 
by the various legislative offices and agencies. This bill appropriates 
$1.1 billion for operations of the House of Representatives which is 
only $13 million (1%) more than current funding and $35 million (3%) 
less than requested. It is unfortunate that these Appropriations are so 
tight, when the cost of operating the House of Representatives is in 
fact getting higher. These costs are becoming higher because the needs 
of our constituencies are becoming greater. With these unfortunate 
budget cuts in place it will be our constituents who suffer. Regardless 
of these cuts, Congress will continue to function properly and we will 
serve our constituents proudly, but these cuts in our funding undermine 
our efforts.
  In addition to insufficient funding to the House of Representatives, 
the greatest deficiencies can be found in the legislative branch 
agencies that directly or indirectly support Congressional operations. 
This funding is only $32.6 million (2%) more than current levels and a 
staggering $234.8 million (12%) less than requested. Funding for the 
Capitol Police, who are entrusted with protecting the Capitol Complex 
and all those who work and visit here actually received $2 million (1%) 
less than in FY 2005, and $50.4 million (17%) less than requested in 
this Appropriation. The Architect of the Capitol who have worked so 
hard in the last year to make the Capitol Complex more accessible to 
visitors received only $317.3 million, $16.7 million (6%) more than 
current funding but a full $123.6 million (28%) less than requested. 
The Government Printing Office (GPO) which serves the demanding 
printing needs of hundreds of legislators every year received only 
$122.6 million which is $2.8 million (2%) more than current funding but 
$8.5 million (6%) less than requested. Indeed, even the Library of 
Congress, the resource for Members and staff to conduct research and 
the institution meant to be our nation's greatest repository of reading 
materials, even their funding was cut in this Appropriation. The 
Library of Congress received $543 million, about equal to the FY 2005 
level but $47.8 million (8%) less than requested. It is sad to see 
these legislative branch agencies, which work so hard and diligently to 
support the work of Congress, have their funding needs not met. Again, 
these agencies will continue to support Congress and they will do their 
jobs well, but these cuts in funding can only lessen their 
effectiveness.
  However, the issue that has me most concerned about this 
Appropriation is the language of H.R. 841, which would require states 
to hold special elections within 49 days of the Speaker declaring that 
more than 100 vacancies exist in the House. First of all, this language 
has no business being in this Appropriations measure, it clearly 
legislates on what is supposed to be a spending bill. Truly, the other 
side of the aisle is trying to sneak in a piece of legislation within 
this Appropriation in order to force its passage upon the Senate. 
Furthermore, this language within this bill threatens to weaken the 
electoral process, to disenfranchise overseas, disabled, and lower-
income voters and thereby reduce individual rights. The more expedited 
the process of replacing the members of the House and the smaller body 
constituted is, the less legitimacy it will have. Unless the House 
constitutes members from all 50 States and through a full, fair, and 
transparent process, this body will lack qualities that make it truly 
``representative.''
  Despite my objections with certain provisions of this legislation I 
will vote in favor of this Appropriation because it serves the needs of 
our Congress. However, I hope that soon our economic and budgeting 
practices would change so that we are not forced to make so many cuts 
in vital areas. I also hope that in the future we do not use these 
Appropriations bills as a way to further our legislative agendas. It is 
my sincere hope that the institution of Congress, which was made to 
serve the needs of the people, will continue to be effective no matter 
the obstacle.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, at a time when nearly all Federal agencies 
are facing the need for spending discipline, it is imperative that we 
apply restraint to ourselves as well--to the operations of Congress 
itself. This bill--the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 (H.R. 2985)--does that it holds congressional spending to a 
modest 1.7 percent increase, compared with 2005. I rise in support of 
this bill, which complies with the budget resolution for fiscal year 
2006.
  Most of the funding in this bill goes to non-political agencies, and 
non-elected people, who make it possible to do our work: the people who 
provide vital data and analysis to inform our policy decisions; who 
keep our buildings and grounds functioning; and--of special 
importance--providing security for all of the legislative branch.


                            Spending Totals

  H.R. 2985 provides $2.87 billion in new budget authority and $2.5 
billion in new outlays for programs within the Legislative Branch. This 
funding covers various legislative support agencies such as the 
Architect of the Capitol, Library of Congress, Congressional Research 
Service, Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability 
Office, and the Capitol Police. The funding level represents an 
increase of $42 million in BA and $241 million in outlays over last 
year, a 1.7 percent increase from FY 2005 levels. Consistent with a 
long-standing practice--under which each chamber of Congress determines 
its own housekeeping requirements, and the other concurs without 
change, appropriations for the Senate are not included in the bill 
reported to the House.


                           Budget Compliance

  This measure, in providing $2.865 billion in budget authority for the 
operations of the Legislative Branch excluding Senate functions, is 
well below the overall suballocation of $3.719 billion. However a level 
was set within this $3.719 billion for legislative operations excluding 
Senate functions of $2.831 billion. Hence, though this measure complies 
with the relevant points of order under the Budget Act, it breaches the 
level internally set by the Appropriations Committee. It is expected 
that, when this measure is reported from conference committee, the 
overall level of spending for all legislative operations, including 
House, Senate and support agencies, will be at or below the level set 
pursuant to 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The bill contains a small recession in BA for the Library of Congress 
for the Copyright Reengineering Project and no advance appropriations 
or emergency-designated spending.


                         Programmatic Spending

  The bill provides $311 million to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) 
for various operational and maintenance activities under the 
jurisdiction of the AOC, including, $37 million to complete 
construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. This bill also recommends 
the establishment of a Capitol Visitors Center Governing Board to 
address the issue of daily operations of the visitor center.
  $543 million to the Library of Congress, a decrease of $2 million 
from FY 2005, $122 million to the Government Printing Office, an 
increase of $3 million from FY 2005 and $482 million for Government 
Accountability Office, an increase of $15 million over FY 2005.
  The bill also provides $240 million for the Capitol Police. As we all 
know, ever since 9-11 the demands on these officers have grown 
significantly. Finally, the bill provides $1.092 billion for operations 
of the House of Representatives and a modest increase of $13 million or 
1.2 percent, compared with 2005.


                               Conclusion

  I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that 
funds the operations of this House at levels generally consistent with 
the levels authorized under the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2985 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2985

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for 
     other purposes, namely:

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
     $1,092,407,000, as follows:

                        house leadership offices

       For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 
     $19,844,000, including: Office of the Speaker, $2,788,000, 
     including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker; 
     Office of the

[[Page 13563]]

     Majority Floor Leader, $2,089,000, including $10,000 for 
     official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office of the 
     Minority Floor Leader, $2,928,000, including $10,000 for 
     official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the 
     Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, 
     $1,797,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the 
     Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the 
     Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $1,345,000, including $5,000 for 
     official expenses of the Minority Whip; Speaker's Office for 
     Legislative Floor Activities, $482,000; Republican Steering 
     Committee, $906,000; Republican Conference, $1,548,000; 
     Republican Policy Committee, $307,000; Democratic Steering 
     and Policy Committee, $1,945,000; Democratic Caucus, 
     $816,000; nine minority employees, $1,445,000; training and 
     program development--majority, $290,000; training and program 
     development--minority, $290,000; Cloakroom Personnel--
     majority, $434,000; and Cloakroom Personnel--minority, 
     $434,000.

                  Members' Representational Allowances

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

       For Members' representational allowances, including 
     Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, 
     $538,109,000.

                          Committee Employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special 
     and select, authorized by House resolutions, $117,913,000: 
     Provided, That such amount shall remain available for such 
     salaries and expenses until December 31, 2006.

                      Committee on Appropriations

       For salaries and expenses of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, $25,668,000, including studies and 
     examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal 
     services for such committee, to be expended in accordance 
     with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for 
     services performed: Provided, That such amount shall remain 
     available for such salaries and expenses until December 31, 
     2006.

                    Salaries, Officers and Employees

       For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as 
     authorized by law, $167,749,000, including: for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not more than 
     $13,000, of which not more than $10,000 is for the Family 
     Room, for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $21,911,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of 
     Garages, and including not more than $3,000 for official 
     representation and reception expenses, $6,284,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Administrative Officer, $116,971,000, of which $3,306,000 
     shall remain available until expended; for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Inspector General, $3,991,000; 
     for salaries and expenses of the Office of Emergency 
     Planning, Preparedness and Operations, $5,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended; for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of General Counsel, $962,000; for the Office of the 
     Chaplain, $161,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office 
     of the Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian and 
     $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, $1,767,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Law Revision 
     Counsel of the House, $2,453,000; for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House, 
     $6,963,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     Interparliamentary Affairs, $720,000; for other authorized 
     employees, $161,000; and for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of the Historian, $405,000.

                        Allowances and Expenses

       For allowances and expenses as authorized by House 
     resolution or law, $223,124,000, including: supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, 
     $4,179,000; official mail for committees, leadership offices, 
     and administrative offices of the House, $410,000; Government 
     contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and 
     other applicable employee benefits, $214,422,000; supplies, 
     materials, and other costs relating to the House portion of 
     expenses for the Capitol Visitor Center, $3,410,000, to 
     remain available until expended; and miscellaneous items 
     including purchase, exchange, maintenance, repair and 
     operation of House motor vehicles, interparliamentary 
     receptions, and gratuities to heirs of deceased employees of 
     the House, $703,000.

                           Child Care Center

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives 
     Child Care Center, such amounts as are deposited in the 
     account established by section 312(d)(1) of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1992 (2 U.S.C. 2112), subject to 
     the level specified in the budget of the Center, as submitted 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. (a) Requiring Amounts Remaining in Members' 
     Representational Allowances To Be Used for Deficit Reduction 
     or To Reduce the Federal Debt.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any amounts appropriated under this Act for 
     ``HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members' 
     Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for 
     fiscal year 2006. Any amount remaining after all payments are 
     made under such allowances for fiscal year 2006 shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction (or, 
     if there is no Federal budget deficit after all such payments 
     have been made, for reducing the Federal debt, in such manner 
     as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
       (b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration of 
     the House of Representatives shall have authority to 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``Member 
     of the House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, 
     or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

                              JOINT ITEMS

       For Joint Committees, as follows:

                        Joint Economic Committee

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee, 
     $4,276,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

                      Joint Committee on Taxation

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation, $8,781,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.
       For other joint items, as follows:

                   Office of the Attending Physician

       For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of 
     the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his 
     assistants, including: (1) an allowance of $2,175 per month 
     to the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $725 per 
     month each to four medical officers while on duty in the 
     Office of the Attending Physician; (3) an allowance of $725 
     per month to two assistants and $580 per month each not to 
     exceed 11 assistants on the basis heretofore provided for 
     such assistants; and (4) $1,834,000 for reimbursement to the 
     Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and 
     equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician, 
     which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable 
     appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries, 
     allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be 
     available for all the purposes thereof, $2,545,000, to be 
     disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives.

           Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office

       For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service and 
     Special Services Office, $4,268,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That no part of such 
     amount may be used to employ more than 58 individuals: 
     Provided further, That the Capitol Guide Board is authorized, 
     during emergencies, to employ not more than two additional 
     individuals for not more than 120 days each, and not more 
     than 10 additional individuals for not more than 6 months 
     each, for the Capitol Guide Service.

                      Statements of Appropriations

       For the preparation, under the direction of the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, of the statements for the first session of 
     the 109th Congress, showing appropriations made, indefinite 
     appropriations, and contracts authorized, together with a 
     chronological history of the regular appropriations bills as 
     required by law, $30,000, to be paid to the persons 
     designated by the chairmen of such committees to supervise 
     the work.

                             CAPITOL POLICE


                                Salaries

       For salaries of employees of the Capitol Police, including 
     overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, and Government 
     contributions for health, retirement, social security, 
     professional liability insurance, and other applicable 
     employee benefits, $210,350,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     of the Capitol Police or his designee.


                            General Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Capitol Police, including 
     motor vehicles, communications and other equipment, security 
     equipment and installation, uniforms, weapons, supplies, 
     materials, training, medical services, forensic services, 
     stenographic services, personal and professional services, 
     the employee assistance program, the awards program, postage, 
     communication services, travel advances, relocation of 
     instructor and liaison personnel for the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, and not more than $5,000 to be 
     expended on the certification of the Chief of the Capitol 
     Police in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses, $29,345,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     of the Capitol Police or his designee: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the cost of basic 
     training for the Capitol Police at the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center for fiscal year 2006 shall be 
     paid by the Secretary of Homeland Security from funds 
     available to the Department of Homeland Security.

                       Administrative Provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 1001. Transfer Authority.--Amounts appropriated for 
     fiscal year 2006 for the Capitol Police may be transferred 
     between the

[[Page 13564]]

     headings ``salaries'' and ``general expenses'' upon the 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 1002. (a) The United States Capitol Police may not 
     operate a mounted horse unit during fiscal year 2006 or any 
     succeeding fiscal year.
       (b) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Chief of the Capitol Police shall transfer 
     to the Chief of the United States Park Police the horses, 
     equipment, and supplies of the Capitol Police mounted horse 
     unit which remain in the possession of the Capitol Police as 
     of such date.
       Sec. 1003. (a) Section 103(h)(1)(A)(i)(I) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 103(h)(1)(A)(i)(I)) is 
     amended by inserting ``United States Capitol Police,'' after 
     ``Architect of the Capitol,''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to reports filed under the Ethics in Government Act 
     of 1978 for calendar year 2005 and each succeeding calendar 
     year.
       Sec. 1004. Section 1003 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-83; 117 Stat. 1021), 
     is hereby repealed, and each provision of law amended by such 
     section is hereby restored as if such section had not been 
     enacted into law.
       Sec. 1005. (a) During fiscal year 2006 and each succeeding 
     fiscal year, the United States Capitol Police may not carry 
     out any reprogramming, transfer, or use of funds described in 
     subsection (b) unless--
       (1) the Chief of the Capitol Police submits a request for 
     the reprogramming, transfer, or use of funds to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and Senate on or before August 1 of the respective year, 
     unless both such Committees agree to accept the request at a 
     later date because of extraordinary and emergency 
     circumstances cited by the Chief;
       (2) the request contains clearly stated and detailed 
     documentation presenting justification for the reprogramming, 
     transfer, or use of funds;
       (3) the request contains a declaration that, as of the date 
     of the request, none of the funds included in the request 
     have been obligated, and none will be obligated, until both 
     Committees have approved the request; and
       (4) both Committees approve the request.
       (b) A reprogramming, transfer, or use of funds described in 
     this subsection is any reprogramming or transfer of funds, or 
     use of unobligated balances, under which--
       (1) the amount to be shifted to or from any object class, 
     approved budget, or program involved under the request, or 
     the aggregate amount to be shifted to or from any object 
     class, approved budget, or program involved during the fiscal 
     year taking into account the amount contained in the request, 
     is in excess of $250,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, of 
     the object class, approved budget, or program;
       (2) the reprogramming, transfer, or use of funds would 
     result in a major change to the program or item which is 
     different than that presented to and approved by the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and Senate; or
       (3) the funds involved were earmarked by either of the 
     Committees for a specific activity which is different than 
     the activity proposed under the request, without regard to 
     whether the amount provided in the earmark is less than, 
     equal to, or greater than the amount required to carry out 
     the activity.
       Sec. 1006. (a) Establishment of Office.--There is 
     established in the United States Capitol Police the Office of 
     the Inspector General (hereafter in this section referred to 
     as the ``Office''), headed by the Inspector General of the 
     United States Capitol Police (hereafter in this section 
     referred to as the ``Inspector General'').
       (b) Inspector General.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Inspector General shall be appointed 
     by the Capitol Police Board, in consultation with and subject 
     to the approval of the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, 
     acting jointly, and shall be appointed without regard to 
     political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity 
     and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial 
     analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or 
     investigations.
       (2) Term of service.--The Inspector General shall serve for 
     a term of 5 years, and an individual serving as Inspector 
     General may be reappointed for not more than 2 additional 
     terms.
       (3) Removal.--The Inspector General may be removed from 
     office prior to the expiration of his term only by the 
     unanimous vote of all of the members of the Capitol Police 
     Board, and the Board shall communicate the reasons for any 
     such removal to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and President pro tempore of the Senate.
       (4) Salary.--The Inspector General shall be paid at an 
     annual rate equal to $1,000 less than the annual rate of pay 
     in effect for the Chief of the Capitol Police.
       (5) Deadline.--The Capitol Police Board shall appoint the 
     first Inspector General under this section not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Duties.--
       (1) Applicability of duties of inspector general of 
     executive branch establishment.--The Inspector General shall 
     carry out the same duties and responsibilities with respect 
     to the United States Capitol Police as an Inspector General 
     of an establishment carries out with respect to an 
     establishment under section 4 of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 4), under the same terms and conditions 
     which apply under such section.
       (2) Semiannual reports.--The Inspector General shall 
     prepare and submit semiannual reports summarizing the 
     activities of the Office in the same manner, and in 
     accordance with the same deadlines, terms, and conditions, as 
     an Inspector General of an establishment under section 5 of 
     the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 5). For 
     purposes of applying section 5 of such Act to the Inspector 
     General, the Capitol Police Board shall be considered the 
     head of the establishment, except that the Inspector General 
     shall transmit to the Chief of the Capitol Police a copy of 
     any report submitted to the Board pursuant to this paragraph.
       (3) Investigations of complaints of employees and 
     members.--
       (A) Authority.--The Inspector General may receive and 
     investigate complaints or information from an employee or 
     member of the Capitol Police concerning the possible 
     existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, 
     rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of 
     funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific 
     danger to the public health and safety, including complaints 
     or information the investigation of which is under the 
     jurisdiction of the Internal Affairs Division of the Capitol 
     Police as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Nondisclosure.--The Inspector General shall not, after 
     receipt of a complaint or information from an employee or 
     member, disclose the identity of the employee or member 
     without the consent of the employee or member, unless the 
     Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable 
     during the course of the investigation.
       (C) Prohibiting retaliation.--An employee or member of the 
     Capitol Police who has authority to take, direct others to 
     take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, 
     with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any 
     action against any employee or member as a reprisal for 
     making a complaint or disclosing information to the Inspector 
     General, unless the complaint was made or the information 
     disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with 
     willful disregard for its truth or falsity.
       (4) Independence in carrying out duties.--Neither the 
     Capitol Police Board, the Chief of the Capitol Police, nor 
     any other member or employee of the Capitol Police may 
     prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from carrying out 
     any of the duties or responsibilities assigned to the 
     Inspector General under this section.
       (d) Powers.--
       (1) In general.--The Inspector General may exercise the 
     same authorities with respect to the United States Capitol 
     Police as an Inspector General of an establishment may 
     exercise with respect to an establishment under section 6(a) 
     of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 6(a)), 
     other than paragraphs (7) and (8) of such section.
       (2) Staff.--
       (A) In general.--The Inspector General may appoint and fix 
     the pay of such personnel as the Inspector General considers 
     appropriate. Such personnel may be appointed without regard 
     to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, regarding 
     appointments in the competitive service, and may be paid 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that no personnel of 
     the Office (other than the Inspector General) may be paid at 
     an annual rate greater than $500 less than the annual rate of 
     pay of the Inspector General under subsection (b)(4).
       (B) Experts and consultants.--The Inspector General may 
     procure temporary and intermittent services under section 
     3109 of title 5, United States Code, at rates not to exceed 
     the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay for 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of such 
     title.
       (C) Independence in appointing staff.--No individual may 
     carry out any of the duties or responsibilities of the Office 
     unless the individual is appointed by the Inspector General, 
     or provides services procured by the Inspector General, 
     pursuant to this paragraph. Nothing in this subparagraph may 
     be construed to prohibit the Inspector General from entering 
     into a contract or other arrangement for the provision of 
     services under this section.
       (D) Applicability of capitol police personnel rules.--None 
     of the regulations governing the appointment and pay of 
     employees of the Capitol Police shall apply with respect to 
     the appointment and compensation of the personnel of the 
     Office, except to the extent agreed to by the Inspector 
     General. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to 
     affect subparagraphs (A) through (C).
       (3) Equipment and supplies.--The Chief of the Capitol 
     Police shall provide the Office

[[Page 13565]]

     with appropriate and adequate office space, together with 
     such equipment, supplies, and communications facilities and 
     services as may be necessary for the operation of the Office, 
     and shall provide necessary maintenance services for such 
     office space and the equipment and facilities located 
     therein.
       (e) Transfer of Functions.--
       (1) Transfer.--To the extent that any office or entity in 
     the Capitol Police prior to the appointment of the first 
     Inspector General under this section carried out any of the 
     duties and responsibilities assigned to the Inspector General 
     under this section, the functions of such office or entity 
     shall be transferred to the Office upon the appointment of 
     the first Inspector General under this section.
       (2) No reduction in pay or benefits.--The transfer of the 
     functions of an office or entity to the Office under 
     paragraph (1) may not result in a reduction in the pay or 
     benefits of any employee of the office or entity, except to 
     the extent required under subsection (d)(2)(A).
       Sec. 1007. (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the last day of each semiannual period, the Chief of the 
     Capitol Police shall submit to Congress, with respect to that 
     period, a detailed, itemized report of the disbursements for 
     the operations of the United States Capitol Police.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) the name of each person or entity who receives a 
     payment from the Capitol Police;
       (2) the cost of any item furnished to the Capitol Police;
       (3) a description of any service rendered to the Capitol 
     Police, together with service dates;
       (4) a statement of all amounts appropriated to, or received 
     or expended by, the Capitol Police and any unexpended 
     balances of such amounts for any open fiscal year; and
       (5) such additional information as may be required by 
     regulation of the Committee on House Administration of the 
     House of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate.
       (c) Printing.--Each report under this section shall be 
     printed as a House document.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to the semiannual periods of October 1 through March 31 and 
     April 1 through September 30 of each year, beginning with the 
     semiannual period in which this section is enacted.

                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as 
     authorized by section 305 of the Congressional Accountability 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), $3,112,000, of which $780,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, 
     That the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance may, 
     within the limits of available appropriations, dispose of 
     surplus or obsolete personal property by interagency 
     transfer, donation, or discarding: Provided further, That not 
     more than $500 may be expended on the certification of the 
     Executive Director of the Office of Compliance in connection 
     with official representation and reception expenses.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary for operation of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, including not more than $3,000 
     to be expended on the certification of the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office in connection with official 
     representation and reception expenses, $35,450,000.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 1100. (a) Permitting Waiver of Claims For Overpayment 
     of Pay and Allowances.--Section 5584(g) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting immediately after paragraph (6) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(7) the Congressional Budget Office.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2006 and each 
     succeeding fiscal year.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                         General Administration

       For salaries for the Architect of the Capitol, and other 
     personal services, at rates of pay provided by law; for 
     surveys and studies in connection with activities under the 
     care of the Architect of the Capitol; for all necessary 
     expenses for the general and administrative support of the 
     operations under the Architect of the Capitol including the 
     Botanic Garden; electrical substations of the Capitol, Senate 
     and House office buildings, and other facilities under the 
     jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol; including 
     furnishings and office equipment; including not more than 
     $5,000 for official reception and representation expenses, to 
     be expended as the Architect of the Capitol may approve; for 
     purchase or exchange, maintenance, and operation of a 
     passenger motor vehicle, $77,002,000, of which $350,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2008.

                            Capitol Building

       For all necessary expenses for maintenance, care, and 
     operation of the Capitol, $22,097,000, of which $6,580,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2008.

                            Capitol Grounds

       For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of 
     grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office 
     buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $7,723,000, of which 
     $740,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2008.

                         House Office Buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the House office buildings, $59,616,000, of 
     which $20,922,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2008.

                          Capitol Power Plant

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, 
     power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water 
     and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds 
     about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air 
     conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of 
     such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and 
     Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water 
     for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, the 
     Union Station complex, the Thurgood Marshall Federal 
     Judiciary Building and the Folger Shakespeare Library, 
     expenses for which shall be advanced or reimbursed upon 
     request of the Architect of the Capitol and amounts so 
     received shall be deposited into the Treasury to the credit 
     of this appropriation, $58,585,000, of which $1,592,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That not 
     more than $6,600,000 of the funds credited or to be 
     reimbursed to this appropriation as herein provided shall be 
     available for obligation during fiscal year 2006.

                     Library Buildings and Grounds

       For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and 
     structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library 
     buildings and grounds, $31,318,000, of which $6,325,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2008.

                  Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of buildings and grounds of the United States 
     Capitol Police, $16,830,000, of which $5,500,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2008.

                             Botanic Garden

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings, 
     grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange, 
     maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
     the Library, $7,211,000: Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall not be available for construction of the National 
     Garden: Provided further, That of the amount made available 
     under this heading, the Architect may obligate and expend 
     such sums as may be necessary for the maintenance, care, and 
     operation of the National Garden established under section 
     307E of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 
     U.S.C. 2146), upon vouchers approved by the Architect or a 
     duly authorized designee.

                         Capitol Visitor Center

       For an additional amount for the Capitol Visitor Center 
     project, $36,900,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol may not obligate 
     any of the funds which are made available for the Capitol 
     Visitor Center project without an obligation plan approved by 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 1201. (a) Section 108 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1849), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``8 positions'' and 
     inserting ``10 positions''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``4 positions'' and 
     inserting ``2 positions''.
       (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to pay periods beginning on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 1202. (a) Section 905 of the 2002 Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To 
     Terrorist Attacks on the United States (2 U.S.C. 1819) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) In the case of a building or facility acquired 
     through purchase pursuant to subsection (a), the Architect of 
     the Capitol may enter into or assume a lease with another 
     person for the use of any portion of the building or facility 
     that the Architect of the Capitol determines is not required 
     to be used to carry out the purposes of this section, subject 
     to the approval of the entity which approved the acquisition 
     of such building or facility under subsection (b).''.
       (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to leases entered into on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 1203. (a) There is hereby established the Capitol 
     Visitor Center Governing Board

[[Page 13566]]

     (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Governing 
     Board''), consisting of each of the following individuals:
       (1) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, or the 
     Speaker's designee.
       (2) The minority leader of the House of Representatives, or 
     the minority leader's designee.
       (3) The majority leader of the Senate, or the majority 
     leader's designee.
       (4) The minority leader of the Senate, or the minority 
     leader's designee.
       (5) The chairman of the Committee on House Administration 
     of the House of Representatives, who shall serve as co-
     chairman of the Governing Board.
       (6) The ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration of the House of Representatives.
       (7) The chairman of the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate, who shall serve as co-chairman 
     of the Governing Board.
       (8) The ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules 
     and Administration of the Senate.
       (b) The Governing Board shall be responsible for 
     establishing the policies which govern the operations of the 
     Capitol Visitor Center, consistent with applicable law.
       (c) This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 
     2006 and each succeeding fiscal year.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS


                         Salaries and Expenses

                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not 
     otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance 
     of the Library's catalogs; custody and custodial care of the 
     Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and 
     repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the 
     custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the 
     American Folklife Center in the Library; preparation and 
     distribution of catalog records and other publications of the 
     Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and 
     expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not 
     properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by 
     the Board, $388,144,000, of which not more than $6,000,000 
     shall be derived from collections credited to this 
     appropriation during fiscal year 2006, and shall remain 
     available until expended, under the Act of June 28, 1902 
     (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150) and not more than 
     $350,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal year 
     2006 and shall remain available until expended for the 
     development and maintenance of an international legal 
     information database and activities related thereto: 
     Provided, That the Library of Congress may not obligate or 
     expend any funds derived from collections under the Act of 
     June 28, 1902, in excess of the amount authorized for 
     obligation or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided 
     further, That the total amount available for obligation shall 
     be reduced by the amount by which collections are less than 
     $6,350,000: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $13,972,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for the partial acquisition of books, periodicals, 
     newspapers, and all other materials including subscriptions 
     for bibliographic services for the Library, including $40,000 
     to be available solely for the purchase, when specifically 
     approved by the Librarian, of special and unique materials 
     for additions to the collections: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not more than $12,000 may be 
     expended, on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses for the Overseas Field Offices: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount appropriated, $500,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, and shall be transferred to the 
     Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission for carrying out the 
     purposes of Public Law 106-173, of which $10,000 may be used 
     for official representation and reception expenses of the 
     Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount appropriated, $11,078,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for partial support of the 
     National Audio-Visual Conservation Center: Provided further, 
     That of the amounts made available under this heading in 
     chapter 9 of division A of the Miscellaneous Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-194), 
     $15,500,000 is rescinded.

                            Copyright Office


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, 
     $58,601,000, of which not more than $30,481,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be derived from collections 
     credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 2006 under 
     section 708(d) of title 17, United States Code: Provided, 
     That the Copyright Office may not obligate or expend any 
     funds derived from collections under such section, in excess 
     of the amount authorized for obligation or expenditure in 
     appropriations Acts: Provided further, That not more than 
     $5,465,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal 
     year 2006 under sections 111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), 1005, 
     and 1316 of such title: Provided further, That the total 
     amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the 
     amount by which collections are less than $35,946,000: 
     Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of the amount 
     appropriated is available for the maintenance of an 
     ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright Office 
     of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training 
     nationals of developing countries in intellectual property 
     laws and policies: Provided further, That not more than 
     $4,250 may be expended, on the certification of the Librarian 
     of Congress, in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses for activities of the International 
     Copyright Institute and for copyright delegations, visitors, 
     and seminars: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     provision of chapter 8 of title 17, United States Code, any 
     amounts made available under this heading which are 
     attributable to royalty fees and payments received by the 
     Copyright Office pursuant to sections 111, 119, and chapter 
     10 of such title may be used for the costs incurred in the 
     administration of the Copyright Royalty Judges program.

                     Congressional Research Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated 
     Constitution of the United States of America, $99,952,000: 
     Provided, That no part of such amount may be used to pay any 
     salary or expense in connection with any publication, or 
     preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of Public 
     General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress 
     unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either 
     the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate.

             Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses to carry out the Act of March 3, 
     1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 U.S.C. 135a), 
     $54,049,000, of which $15,831,000 shall remain available 
     until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 1301. Incentive Awards Program.--Of the amounts 
     appropriated to the Library of Congress in this Act, not more 
     than $5,000 may be expended, on the certification of the 
     Librarian of Congress, in connection with official 
     representation and reception expenses for the incentive 
     awards program.
       Sec. 1302. Reimbursable and Revolving Fund Activities. (a) 
     In General.--For fiscal year 2006, the obligational authority 
     of the Library of Congress for the activities described in 
     subsection (b) may not exceed $109,943,000.
       (b) Activities.--The activities referred to in subsection 
     (a) are reimbursable and revolving fund activities that are 
     funded from sources other than appropriations to the Library 
     in appropriations Acts for the legislative branch.
       (c) Transfer of Funds.--During fiscal year 2006, the 
     Librarian of Congress may temporarily transfer funds 
     appropriated in this Act, under the heading ``LIBRARY OF 
     CONGRESS'' under the subheading ``Salaries and Expenses'' to 
     the revolving fund for the FEDLINK Program and the Federal 
     Research Program established under section 103 of the Library 
     of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement Act of 2000 (Public 
     Law 106-481; 2 U.S.C. 182c): Provided, That the total amount 
     of such transfers may not exceed $1,900,000: Provided 
     further, That the appropriate revolving fund account shall 
     reimburse the Library for any amounts transferred to it 
     before the period of availability of the Library 
     appropriation expires.
       Sec. 1303. United States Diplomatic Facilities.--Funds made 
     available for the Library of Congress under this Act are 
     available for transfer to the Department of State as 
     remittance for a fee charged by the Department for fiscal 
     year 2006 for the maintenance, upgrade, or construction of 
     United States diplomatic facilities only to the extent that 
     the amount of the fee so charged is equal to or less than the 
     unreimbursed value of the services provided during fiscal 
     year 2006 to the Library of Congress on State Department 
     diplomatic facilities.
       Sec. 1304. (a) Section 208 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-53; 109 Stat. 532), 
     is hereby repealed.
       (b) The amendment made by this section shall take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act or October 1, 2005, 
     whichever occurs earlier.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of Congressional information in any format; 
     printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol; 
     expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthly and session 
     index to the Congressional Record, as authorized by law 
     (section 902 of title 44, United States Code); printing and 
     binding of Government publications authorized by law to be 
     distributed to Members of Congress; and printing, binding, 
     and distribution of Government publications authorized by law 
     to be distributed without charge to the recipient, 
     $88,090,000: Provided,

[[Page 13567]]

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

                 Office of Superintendent of Documents

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents 
     necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of 
     Government publications and their distribution to the public, 
     Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and 
     designated depository and international exchange libraries as 
     authorized by law, $33,337,000: Provided, That amounts of not 
     more than $2,000,000 from current year appropriations are 
     authorized for producing and disseminating Congressional 
     serial sets and other related publications for fiscal years 
     2004 and 2005 to depository and other designated libraries: 
     Provided further, That any unobligated or unexpended balances 
     in this account or accounts for similar purposes for 
     preceding fiscal years may be transferred to the Government 
     Printing Office revolving fund for carrying out the purposes 
     of this heading, subject to the approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate.

               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       For payment to the Government Printing Office Revolving 
     Fund, $1,200,000 for workforce retraining. The Government 
     Printing Office may make such expenditures, within the limits 
     of funds available and in accord with the law, and to make 
     such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 9104 of title 31, United 
     States Code, as may be necessary in carrying out the programs 
     and purposes set forth in the budget for the current fiscal 
     year for the Government Printing Office revolving fund: 
     Provided, That not more than $5,000 may be expended on the 
     certification of the Public Printer in connection with 
     official representation and reception expenses: Provided 
     further, That the revolving fund shall be available for the 
     hire or purchase of not more than 12 passenger motor 
     vehicles: Provided further, That expenditures in connection 
     with travel expenses of the advisory councils to the Public 
     Printer shall be deemed necessary to carry out the provisions 
     of title 44, United States Code: Provided further, That the 
     revolving fund shall be available for temporary or 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, but at rates for individuals not more 
     than the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such 
     title: Provided further, That the revolving fund and the 
     funds provided under the headings ``Office of Superintendent 
     of Documents'' and ``salaries and expenses'' together may not 
     be available for the full-time equivalent employment of more 
     than 2,621 workyears (or such other number of workyears as 
     the Public Printer may request, subject to the approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate): Provided further, That 
     activities financed through the revolving fund may provide 
     information in any format: Provided further, That not more 
     than $10,000 may be expended from the revolving fund in 
     support of the activities of the Benjamin Franklin 
     Tercentenary Commission established by Public Law 107-202.

                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Government Accountability 
     Office, including not more than $12,500 to be expended on the 
     certification of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for 
     individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual 
     rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor 
     vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries in accordance 
     with section 3324 of title 31, United States Code; benefits 
     comparable to those payable under sections 901(5), (6), and 
     (8) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 
     (6), and (8)); and under regulations prescribed by the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, rental of living 
     quarters in foreign countries, $482,395,000: Provided, That 
     not more than $5,104,000 of payments received under section 
     782 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for 
     use in fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That not more than 
     $2,061,000 of reimbursements received under section 9105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall be available for use in 
     fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That this appropriation 
     and appropriations for administrative expenses of any other 
     department or agency which is a member of the National 
     Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional Intergovernmental 
     Audit Forum shall be available to finance an appropriate 
     share of either Forum's costs as determined by the respective 
     Forum, including necessary travel expenses of non-Federal 
     participants: Provided further, That payments hereunder to 
     the Forum may be credited as reimbursements to any 
     appropriation from which costs involved are initially 
     financed.

         Payment to the Open World Leadership Center Trust Fund

       For a payment to the Open World Leadership Center Trust 
     Fund for financing activities of the Open World Leadership 
     Center under section 313 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 1151), $14,000,000.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Maintenance and Care of Private Vehicles.--No 
     part of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be used for 
     the maintenance or care of private vehicles, except for 
     emergency assistance and cleaning as may be provided under 
     regulations relating to parking facilities for the House of 
     Representatives issued by the Committee on House 
     Administration and for the Senate issued by the Committee on 
     Rules and Administration.
       Sec. 202. Fiscal Year Limitation.--No part of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act shall remain available for 
     obligation beyond fiscal year 2006 unless expressly so 
     provided in this Act.
       Sec. 203. Rates of Compensation and Designation.--Whenever 
     in this Act any office or position not specifically 
     established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 (46 Stat. 32 
     et seq.) is appropriated for or the rate of compensation or 
     designation of any office or position appropriated for is 
     different from that specifically established by such Act, the 
     rate of compensation and the designation in this Act shall be 
     the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided, That the 
     provisions in this Act for the various items of official 
     expenses of Members, officers, and committees of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, and clerk hire for Senators and 
     Members of the House of Representatives shall be the 
     permanent law with respect thereto.
       Sec. 204. Consulting Services.--The expenditure of any 
     appropriation under this Act for any consulting service 
     through procurement contract, under section 3109 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be limited to those contracts where 
     such expenditures are a matter of public record and available 
     for public inspection, except where otherwise provided under 
     existing law, or under existing Executive order issued under 
     existing law.
       Sec. 205. Awards and Settlements.--Such sums as may be 
     necessary are appropriated to the account described in 
     subsection (a) of section 415 of the Congressional 
     Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1415(a)) to pay awards 
     and settlements as authorized under such subsection.
       Sec. 206. Costs of LBFMC.--Amounts available for 
     administrative expenses of any legislative branch entity 
     which participates in the Legislative Branch Financial 
     Managers Council (LBFMC) established by charter on March 26, 
     1996, shall be available to finance an appropriate share of 
     LBFMC costs as determined by the LBFMC, except that the total 
     LBFMC costs to be shared among all participating legislative 
     branch entities (in such allocations among the entities as 
     the entities may determine) may not exceed $2,000.
       Sec. 207. Landscape Maintenance.--The Architect of the 
     Capitol, in consultation with the District of Columbia, is 
     authorized to maintain and improve the landscape features, 
     excluding streets and sidewalks, in the irregular shaped 
     grassy areas bounded by Washington Avenue, SW on the 
     northeast, Second Street SW on the west, Square 582 on the 
     south, and the beginning of the I-395 tunnel on the 
     southeast.
       Sec. 208. Limitation on Transfers.--None of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be transferred to any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, 
     except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority 
     provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
       Sec. 209. Compensation Limitation.--None of the funds 
     contained in this Act or any other Act may be used to pay the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the legislative branch 
     during fiscal year 2006 or any succeeding fiscal year to the 
     extent that the aggregate amount of compensation paid to the

[[Page 13568]]

     employee during the year (including base salary, performance 
     awards and other bonus payments, and incentive payments, but 
     excluding the value of any in-kind benefits and payments) 
     exceeds the annual rate of pay for a Member of the House of 
     Representatives or a Senator.

                TITLE III--CONTINUITY IN REPRESENTATION

       Sec. 301. Section 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (2 U.S.C. 8) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The time'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the time''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Special Rules in Extraordinary Circumstances.--
       ``(1) In general.--In extraordinary circumstances, the 
     executive authority of any State in which a vacancy exists in 
     its representation in the House of Representatives shall 
     issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy by special 
     election.
       ``(2) Timing of special election.--A special election held 
     under this subsection to fill a vacancy shall take place not 
     later than 49 days after the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives announces that the vacancy exists, unless, 
     during the 75-day period which begins on the date of the 
     announcement of the vacancy--
       ``(A) a regularly scheduled general election for the office 
     involved is to be held; or
       ``(B) another special election for the office involved is 
     to be held, pursuant to a writ for a special election issued 
     by the chief executive of the State prior to the date of the 
     announcement of the vacancy.
       ``(3) Nominations by parties.--If a special election is to 
     be held under this subsection, the determination of the 
     candidates who will run in such election shall be made--
       ``(A) by nominations made not later than 10 days after the 
     Speaker announces that the vacancy exists by the political 
     parties of the State that are authorized by State law to 
     nominate candidates for the election; or
       ``(B) by any other method the State considers appropriate, 
     including holding primary elections, that will ensure that 
     the State will hold the special election within the deadline 
     required under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Extraordinary circumstances.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this subsection, `extraordinary 
     circumstances' occur when the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives announces that vacancies in the 
     representation from the States in the House exceed 100.
       ``(B) Judicial review.--If any action is brought for 
     declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge an announcement 
     made under subparagraph (A), the following rules shall apply:
       ``(i) Not later than 2 days after the announcement, the 
     action shall be filed in the United States District Court 
     having jurisdiction in the district of the Member of the 
     House of Representatives whose seat has been announced to be 
     vacant and shall be heard by a 3-judge court convened 
     pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(ii) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly 
     to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
       ``(iii) A final decision in the action shall be made within 
     3 days of the filing of such action and shall not be 
     reviewable.
       ``(iv) The executive authority of the State that contains 
     the district of the Member of the House of Representatives 
     whose seat has been announced to be vacant shall have the 
     right to intervene either in support of or opposition to the 
     position of a party to the case regarding the announcement of 
     such vacancy.
       ``(5) Protecting ability of absent military and overseas 
     voters to participate in special elections.--
       ``(A) Deadline for transmittal of absentee ballots.--In 
     conducting a special election held under this subsection to 
     fill a vacancy in its representation, the State shall ensure 
     to the greatest extent practicable (including through the use 
     of electronic means) that absentee ballots for the election 
     are transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and 
     overseas voters (as such terms are defined in the Uniformed 
     and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) not later than 15 
     days after the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     announces that the vacancy exists.
       ``(B) Period for ballot transit time.--Notwithstanding the 
     deadlines referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3), in the case 
     of an individual who is an absent uniformed services voter or 
     an overseas voter (as such terms are defined in the Uniformed 
     and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act), a State shall 
     accept and process any otherwise valid ballot or other 
     election material from the voter so long as the ballot or 
     other material is received by the appropriate State election 
     official not later than 45 days after the State transmits the 
     ballot or other material to the voter.
       ``(6) Application to district of columbia and 
     territories.--This subsection shall apply--
       ``(A) to a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the 
     Congress in the same manner as it applies to a Member of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       ``(B) to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the United States 
     Virgin Islands in the same manner as it applies to a State, 
     except that a vacancy in the representation from any such 
     jurisdiction in the House shall not be taken into account by 
     the Speaker in determining whether vacancies in the 
     representation from the States in the House exceed 100 for 
     purposes of paragraph (4)(A).
       ``(7) Rule of construction regarding federal election 
     laws.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect 
     the application to special elections under this subsection of 
     any Federal law governing the administration of elections for 
     Federal office (including any law providing for the 
     enforcement of any such law), including, but not limited to, 
     the following:
       ``(A) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et 
     seq.), as amended.
       ``(B) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 
     Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.), as amended.
       ``(C) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.), as amended.
       ``(D) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 
     U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), as amended.
       ``(E) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), as amended.
       ``(F) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et 
     seq.), as amended.
       ``(G) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et 
     seq.), as amended.''.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2006''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 109-144. Each amendment may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 109-144.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Baird

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Baird:
       Page 44, strike line 4 and all that follows through page 
     49, line 25.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 334, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to revisit this issue, and I want to clarify a couple of 
things. The opponents of a real continuity solution have asserted that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I would take away 
the right to election. Nothing could be further from the truth. We 
believe we need real elections, not hasty elections, not elections in 
which the candidates are chosen by the party, but elections in which 
there is time for deliberation, elections in which there is time for 
overseas people to vote, elections in which we can have real 
candidates, real debate, real primaries, et cetera.
  So we all agree that we should have real elections; that is the 
ideal. But the question is, should we have a Congress in the interim?
  I have heard the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary point out 
that in the days post-9/11 it was an elected Congress, not an appointed 
Congress, that made decisions. He is absolutely right, because we had a 
Congress. My colleague from Illinois will recall that, in fact, the 
PATRIOT Act was passed during that 7-week interregnum; and interregnum 
may be the proper word because if we do not have a Congress, we would 
have effectively a monarchy or an appointed administration.

                              {time}  1715

  Let me raise a couple of other points. Article I, Section 8, of the 
Constitution, as we all know, details a host of functions of this 
Congress. I have yet to hear how those functions get carried out during 
this 7-week period, save for the apparent explanations that the 
Congress does not have anything to do, and the Constitution 
Subcommittee chair's explanation that we will have martial law.

[[Page 13569]]

  I for one did not run for this seat to bequeath martial law as our 
legacy if we are eliminated by terrorists. People on the other side of 
this argument have said, oh, if we have anything but a direct election, 
the terrorists have won. I personally consider martial law a 
substantial victory for the terrorists, a substantial victory.
  Far preferable would be some mechanism in which the terrorists and 
the rest of the world could see the Congress of the United States 
reconvening with legitimacy and with distinguished statesmen from both 
sides of the aisle to conduct the people's business until such time as 
we had really elections.
  It has been argued that we need to do this statutory fix because 
constitutional amendments take time. Yes, they do. But the Constitution 
did not say if it is going to take you too long to amend the 
Constitution, do it by House rule.
  At the start of this Congress, the first order of business was to 
pass the House rules. The second order of business was to pass a rule 
that was unconstitutional. Sorry. The first order of business was to 
swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. The second order was to pass 
a rule that was patently unconstitutional. By that I mean we passed a 
rule that essentially says a quorum can be one or two people. The first 
order of business of the first Congress of the United States was to 
adjourn for lack of a quorum.
  Now, the distinguished gentlemen from California (Mr. Dreier) likes 
to quote Madison. So do I. Madison was present in that first Congress. 
He was a Member.
  He supported movements to adjourn because they lacked a quorum. And 
yet this body says, well, gee, you know, it takes too long to amend the 
Constitution, so let us do things unconstitutionally at a time of 
national crisis.
  This is not the way to go about it. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) was right. The gentleman earlier spent some time talking 
about horse manure. I think we need to spend more time on 
constitutional issues than we spend on horse manure, but we have not. 
In this Congress we have spent so much time debating so many things of 
much less importance, and it is fair enough to say that my amendment 
did not pass. I respect that. That is what this process is about.
  But, here is what you have not said, that myself and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) put forward a rules proposal that 
would have allowed multiple solutions to this to be debated. Multiple 
amendments. We could have had a serious and open and extensive debate. 
I have to tell you, when I talk to my colleagues and I ask them these 
questions, how many constituents are you willing to leave, how many 
millions of Americans with no representation at all, no representation, 
during a time of national crisis; how willing are you to have a Cabinet 
member serve as President, with no checks and balances, Secretary of 
Agriculture, Health and Human Services. Most Americans do not even know 
these folks.
  If you are so concerned about elected representation, are you not 
equally concerned about an unelected President with no checks and 
balances? I certainly am.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by yielding 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, with whom I have been very pleased 
to work on this issue really since September 11, 2001.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Baird 
amendment. The gentleman from Washington has been very sincere in 
stating that there ought to be a Constitution amendment to provide for 
temporary appointments to the House of Representatives in case of a 
tragedy.
  The House debated that amendment in the last Congress, and it was 
rejected by the resounding margin of 63 ayes to 353 noes. That should 
have closed the issue of having appointed Members serve, even on a 
temporary basis. Evidently it has not, and that is why we are debating 
this here today.
  Earlier this year, the House passed the continuity of Representation 
Act. It was passed overwhelming, 329 to 68, a nearly 5-to-1 margin. And 
those who voted for that bill in February ought to vote against the 
Baird amendment today.
  The expedited special election procedure will mean that the House 
will be filled up within 49 days. In this 49-day time frame, the 
election center has shown that there can be special elections that will 
have the vigorous debate that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
wants to have in terms of selecting replacement Representatives for 
those of us who are wiped out.
  But I would say that if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has 
his way, we could have a House of 350 appointed Members outvoting the 
85 elected Members that survive the enemy attack.
  That is not democracy. We would have an appointed House and perhaps 
an appointed Senate, and an appointed President of the United States. 
We ought to reject the Baird amendment. We ought to get the Continuity 
of Representation Act passed through the other body and made law 
because it is an important and vital homeland security measure.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a perverse reasoning that suggests that having no 
representation here at all somehow provides you better representation 
than to have someone appointed by the person you last elected.
  You are trying to say that we do not have a Democratic Republic if 
the elected representatives from other States can have a vote equal to 
someone from your State. I believe the best way to have a Republic is 
to have representation from all of the constituents.
  If that means temporary appointments, so be it. Finally, we have 
heard so many times one distinguished scholar quoted, and he is indeed 
a distinguished scholar. But let me point out to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) as he well knows, the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission, which included Newt Gingrich, Tom Foley, Alan Simpson, 
Lloyd Cutler, a host of other scholars, has rejected essentially the 
proposal by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), and has concluded with great reluctance that we do 
indeed need a mechanism to amend the Constitution so that whatever 
mechanism is arrived at is constitutionally valid.
  I would weigh the weight of their testimony and their objectivity and 
their bipartisanship against one single individual that you continually 
quote.

Major Votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, September 11-October 
                                26, 2001

       September 13, 2001. H.R. 2884, Victims of Terrorism Relief 
     Act of 2001. The bill exempted individuals killed in the 9/11 
     terrorist attacks, or who die as a result of injuries 
     suffered in those attacks, from paying federal income tax in 
     the year of their death.
       September 13, 2001. H.R. 2882, Expedite Public Safety 
     Office Benefits. This bill directed the Justice Department to 
     expedite the benefit payment process for the public safety 
     officers (and their families) that were killed or suffered 
     catastrophic injuries sustained in the line of duty in 
     connection with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
       September 14, 2001. H.R. 2888, 2001 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to 
     Terrorist Attacks on the United States. The bill appropriated 
     $40 billion in emergency funds to pay for the costs of 
     recovery from the 9/11 terrorist attacks and to counter, 
     investigate and prosecute terrorist activities.
       September 14, 2001. H.J. RES. 64, Authorization of Force. 
     The resolution authorized the president to use ``all 
     necessary and appropriate force against those nations, 
     organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, 
     committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 
     Sept. 11, 2001.''
       September 21, 2001. H.R. 2904, Military Construction 
     Appropriations for FY 2002. The bill appropriates $10.5 
     billion for military construction programs in FY 2002.
       September 21, 2001. H.R. 2926, Air Transportation Safety 
     and System Stabilization Act. This bill provided $15 billion 
     in assistance to the U.S. airline industry to help stabilize 
     the financial condition of the industry in the wake of the 
     terrorist attacks on Sept. 11--$5 billion in immediate cash 
     assistance and $10 billion in loan guarantees.

[[Page 13570]]

       September 24, 2001. H.J. RES. 65, Continuing Appropriations 
     for FY 2002.
       September 25, 2001. H.R. 2586, Department of Defense 
     Authorization for Fiscal Year 2002.
       September 25, 2001. H.R. 2944, District of Columbia 
     Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002.
       October 5, 2001. H.R. 2646, Farm Security Act.
       October 11, 2001. H.R. 3061, Labor-HHS-Education 
     Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002.
       October 12, 2001. H.R. 2975, PATRIOT Act.
       October 17, 2001. H.R. 3004, Financial Anti-Terrorism Act. 
     The bill gives the Treasury Department new powers to combat 
     money laundering by imposing additional record-keeping 
     requirements and by restricting or banning dealings with 
     suspect foreign financial entities.
       October 17, 2001. H.R. 2904, Military Construction 
     Appropriations for FY 2002.
       October 17, 2001. H.R. 2217, Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations for FY 2002.
       October 23, 2001. H.R. 3160, Bioterrorism Enforcement Act 
     of 2001. The bill established criminal penalties for the 
     unsafe or illegal possession or transfer of certain 
     biological agents and toxins--including anthrax--and it 
     required the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to 
     develop new regulations governing the possession and use of 
     those substances.
       October 24, 2001. H.R. 3090, Tax Incentives for Economic 
     Recovery. The measure provided business and individual tax 
     cuts totaling $99.5 billion in 2002 and $159.4 billion over 
     10 years.
       October 24, 2001. H.R. 3162, USA PATRIOT Act Conference 
     Report.
       October 25, 2001. H.J. RES. 70, Continuing Appropriations 
     for FY 2002.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, James Madison said the problems of democracy are solved 
with more democracy. Now, we regularly talk about the fact that the 
worst, the worst attack on our soil, was what took place on September 
11, 2001.
  And it is very true that that is the case for what has happened in 
modern times. But I would like to remind my colleagues that the Civil 
War was a very tough time for the United States of America. In fact, 
the Battle of Antietam saw Southern troops get within miles of this 
Capitol.
  The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, made a very firm 
decision at that point: Proceed with elections. He felt it very 
important that the American people have an opportunity to participate 
through elections.
  Now, when we think of the unthinkable, a tragic attack which would be 
launched against the United States of America, what is it that the 
people would do? Well, obviously, one would think about feeding and 
clothing their family, ensuring that they have a roof over their head.
  And, Mr. Chairman, a very important part of coming together following 
a tragedy is the important role of choosing one's leaders. Now, I do 
not believe that appointed Members should be making the decision in the 
people's House. Yes, they can do that as Members of the other body. 
Yes, that can even happen for the Chief Executive of the country.
  But in the people's House, no one has ever served here in our more 
than 200-year history without having first been elected. And this 
notion of creating a scenario whereby people could serve in the 
people's House without having first been elected is anathema to the 
entire basis on which the United States of America was founded.
  We would have to deal with a crisis, but we would come up with a 
compromise. Forty-nine days is the amount of time during which people 
could come together and hold elections and have their representative, 
that is why we are called representatives, their representative could 
come here and have the chance to serve.
  It is very clear to me that the House of Representatives has, as has 
been said, spoken. Sixty-three Members of 435 voted in favor of our 
proceeding with a constitutional amendment. Sixty-three Members for a 
constitutional amendment. We know that it takes a two-thirds vote. We 
found that out earlier today. And obviously that is not what the 
people's House wants.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Baird 
amendment, and create an opportunity for us to let the other body act 
on a House provision which is so vitally important to the deliberative 
nature of this great body.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman 
from Washington for his long-time leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to strike legislation which 
has nothing to do with the appropriations process, legislation which 
has been improperly placed in this bill, the text of H.R. 841, the 
``Continuity in Representation Act of 2005.'' That bill has already 
passed the House twice, in slightly different forms, in the spring of 
2004 and most recently on March 3, 2005. The Senate refused to consider 
it the first time, and it is currently pending on the Legislative 
Calendar in the Senate, where it will remain unless objections by 
various senators are dealt with.
  Make no mistake: there are senators who strongly oppose this bill, 
and virtually none who care about it, or strongly support it, or want 
to take up the Senate's time with it. This means that, if the bill is 
to move at all, its supporters need to take the objections seriously, 
be prepared to negotiate, and avoid further antagonizing the opponents.
  As Ranking Member of the committee of actual jurisdiction, the 
Committee on House Administration, I have never been consulted by the 
Majority about beginning negotiations with the Senate to try to resolve 
the objections and get a bill which can clear both chambers. Whether 
such as effort could succeed is unclear, but--nothing ventured, nothing 
gained. Instead, the House Appropriations Committee has, to its obvious 
discomfort, effectively been hijacked by the House majority leadership 
to load the bill onto Legislative Branch Appropriations in the belief 
that the Senate will meekly submit to anything tucked into the House 
title.
  I am not going to reargue the substantive issues here. H.R. 841 was 
and is a bad bill. I oppose it and voted against it. We should not be 
recycling failed legislation. If the bill's supporters ever hope to get 
it passed in some form, they need to make a serious effort to address 
the objections rather than to employ parliamentary games. They should 
not be misled by the margins by which the House has passed the bill. 
Congress consists of two chambers.
  Unfortunately, some of the House sponsors appear to be treating a 
controversial and sensitive subject as if it were a perk of the House, 
as though the House alone somehow had acquired, contrary to the 
Constitution and other Federal laws, the right to control the procedure 
under which its Members are elected. This position has gotten them 
nowhere. I believe it is in fact counter-productive.
  During the Appropriations markup, there were numerous questions about 
the continuity amendment which Chairman Lewis, who offered it, was 
unable to answer. It was obvious that the committee had no idea what it 
was being asked to do and, based on the thunderous chorus of ``nays'' 
on the voice vote, was reluctant to be forced to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 841 is under the jurisdictions of the Committee on 
House Administration. It has nothing to do with the appropriations 
process. It has serious problems. The sponsors need to change their 
tune. Attempting an end run around the regular order on what is, 
despite their spin, a very controversial bill, does nothing to enhance 
credibility in potential negotiations with the Senate.
  If this bill is to be saved, let the Members who care about and 
understand the issues engage seriously with those of differing views. 
That is how legislation becomes law. Not this way.
  I urge adoption of the Baird amendment to strike Title 3.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of my colleague Mr. Baird's amendment to H.R. 2985 the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. The Baird 
amendment would strike the language of H.R. 841, which would require 
states to hold special elections within 49 days of the Speaker 
declaring that more than 100 vacancies exist in the House. First of 
all, this language has no business being in this Appropriations 
measure, it clearly legislates on what is supposed to be a spending 
bill. Truly, the other side of the aisle is trying to sneak in a piece 
of legislation within this Appropriation in order to force its passage 
upon the Senate.
  Furthermore, this language within this bill threatens to weaken the 
electoral process, to disenfranchise overseas, disabled, and lower-
income voters and thereby reduce individual rights. The more expedited 
the process of replacing the members of the House and the smaller the 
body constituted is, the less legitimacy it will have. Unless the House 
constitutes members from all 50 States and through a full, fair, and 
transparent process, this body will lack qualities that make it truly 
``representative.''

[[Page 13571]]

  Forty-nine days is simply not enough time for a state to hold the 
most free and fair elections. Special elections on average, take four 
months. In the event of a catastrophic disaster, elections should be 
held on an expedited time schedule. The pillars of what makes American 
democracy unique, however, should not be toppled in the pursuit to do 
so. True democracy dictates that every eligible woman or man has the 
right to run for office and to vote freely and under fair 
circumstances. Under the guidelines of this language, this would not be 
possible. Many states would have to forgo party primaries and the 
system would lend itself to the wealthiest and most well-known 
candidates' ability to run virtually unopposed. All debate of the 
candidates' platforms or characters would be nearly muted, and in 
effect, Americans would vote ``in the blind.''
  Significant disenfranchisement will likely occur in the unrealistic 
time frame that the language of H.R. 841 offers in this Appropriations 
measure. There would be no way to mail out and receive absentee ballots 
in time. Overseas Americans, including those in the military, would not 
have a realistic chance to vote. Yes, the legislation ostensibly offers 
military and overseas voters an opportunity to be heard, but 15 days 
simply are not enough. There is something unseemly about denying our 
men and women of the military the right to vote in the most 
consequential elections imaginable, when we would be replacing perhaps 
the entire House. Logistically, many states would not have sufficient 
time for voter registration. It would be difficult to even print the 
ballots in the time allotted under this Act. There are only a few 
ballot printing companies in this country and a limited supply of 
ballot-appropriate paper stock. In the case of electronic voting, 
programs must be written, and even under ideal circumstances, not all 
the technical glitches have been sufficiently worked out to assure 
voter privacy or the fidelity of the system.
  The language of H.R. 841 in this bill proposes to make the issue of 
state elections a ``federal question.'' However, just because this 
issue would become federalized does not mean that we should frustrate 
the essential elements of democracy.The processes of establishing the 
eligibility of state candidates, voter registration, voter freedom of 
choice, and equal access to voting under the Civil Rights Act must be 
preserved--even in the face of a catastrophe. Democracy should not be 
abandoned simply because our leadership may have to suddenly change.
  Clearly, this language does not belong in this Appropriations bill, 
nor does it serve the best interest of the American people. I urge all 
my colleagues to support the Baird amendment and remove this improper 
language from the Legislative Appropriations bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
will be postponed.
  Is is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 109-144.


        Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia

  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia:
       Strike section 1002.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 334, the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. JoAnn 
Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It strikes the language 
from the bill that prevents the Capitol Police from continuing the 
horse mounted unit, and it strikes language that requires the current 
horse mounted unit to be transferred to the Park Police.
  This small yet valuable unit is irreplaceable in protecting the 
Capitol grounds against potential threats. The benefits of mounted 
patrols are recognized worldwide by law enforcement communities. 
Transferring the horse mounted unit to the Park Police is inadequate to 
meet the security needs of the Capitol complex.
  In the past, the Park Police's horse mounted unit has been 
unavailable when requested by the Capitol Police. Additionally, with 
the Capitol Police's mounted unit dismantled, in the event the Park 
Police were able to respond, all of that manure that they were talking 
about, there would be no one to clean it, no mechanism in place.
  The mounted unit is an important component of the Capitol Police's 
force to protect the Capitol grounds. I and Chief Gainer believe that 
the mounted unit is an inexpensive and effective resource in guarding 
the Capitol against potential threats, as well as an important part of 
improving community relations.
  It is my understanding that the cost of maintaining this unit for 
fiscal year 2006 is somewhere around $155,000 to $160,000. Currently 
five horses are used by five mounted officers and two sergeants. The 
mounted unit provides greater mobility, increased visibility and an 
ability to view a larger area from a greater distance as compared to 
other officers.
  Additionally the work of one mounted officer is akin to the work of 
10 officers on foot. In these dangerous times with constant and 
changing threats against the United States Capitol Complex, the Capitol 
Police deserve all of the tools that they deem necessary at their 
disposal.
  The mounted unit has proven very successful over the last 6 months. 
It has assisted with three arrests, worked 33 demonstrations, issued 
more than 200 notices of infraction, responded to assists in 9 reports 
of suspicious packages, responded to 16 calls for crowd control 
assistance, and responded to 28 calls for assistance in traffic 
accident incidents.
  Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope the Capitol Police's mounted unit can 
continue, as it provides an invaluable and unmatched service at 
protecting our Capitol grounds.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) control 2\1/2\ minutes of that 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the esteemed leader from 
Wisconsin for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a Trojan horse of a new and growing financial 
obligation that we really need to deal with now and to accept the 
committee's recommendation that it be consolidated with the U.S. Park 
Police mounted unit. That is what makes the most sense.
  In May of 2004 we began with six horses. We were told it would cost 
about $100,000. Now it costs $145,000. They want another $10,000 for a 
replacement horse. But, the salaries and the benefits of the Capitol 
Police officers that are involved in this come to approximately 
$600,000. So it is not $145,000, it is three-quarters of a million 
dollars.
  Where they are housed is 20 miles away. These police officers have to 
travel for at least an hour mile down the whole distance of Route 1 to 
pick them up, another hour back. We are going to move another 18,000 
people down to Fort Belvoir, so it is going to be a lot longer than 
that.
  And now, Mr. Chairman, really, we are now told that they had not 
figured this out, but they are going to need what is basically a giant 
pooper scooper to be able to clean the grassy area after the horses 
have gone by it.
  Now, I would suggest to the Chairman and to this body that there is 
not much grass left to patrol.

[[Page 13572]]



                              {time}  1730

  I was out jogging today. It was one little grassy area left, and they 
were putting up a chest-high fence to keep the public off that grassy 
area. I do not know where these horses are going to be parading. And 
the little spot, what is left now is about the size of somebody's 
backyard, and I guess it makes it easier for the pooper scooper, but 
the problem is that we are paying a substantial amount of money, about 
three-quarters of a million dollars for very limited benefit.
  I just cannot imagine why the Capitol Police need a mounted police 
unit, particularly given all of our other priorities.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield, could the gentleman share with 
us the names of these horses?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I do not know the names.
  Mr. OBEY. My understanding is that their names are Justice, Honor, 
Patriot, Freedom, and Tribute. Great names, but still not much of a 
purpose for their use.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I consider myself to be a horse person. As a matter of 
fact, at one time in my life I thought I might be a veterinarian 
because I loved horses and ducks so much. In the meantime, I watch them 
parade around the Capitol, and I have wondered from time to time about 
their relative value. The GAO has cited that the Capitol Police have 
difficulty quantifying the benefit the unit provides. GAO was not able 
to substantiate the claim of one horse doing the work of 10 people.
  I do not see how the elimination of five horses is going to impact 
the patrol. We have scout cars, motorcycles, and mountain bikes all 
patrolling the same area. The real point is here I was concerned about 
the horses myself, but when the staff came up with the thought that 
perhaps we could transfer them to the Park Service and make sure they 
are well taken care of and used for meaningful activity, I felt very 
comfortable with this change. So, frankly, I think we ought to proceed 
with the language that is in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard my colleague from Virginia say the cost is now 
up to three quarters of a million dollars. I do not think we are 
getting rid of the police officers; I think we are just moving the five 
horses. Their salaries, I think, would be fungible. So I do not think 
you can count that. As far as being something we do not need because 
the Park Police are already out there with their horses, let me state 
that the Capitol grounds are statutorily defined, and because of that 
the Park Police do not have jurisdictions over the Capitol grounds, it 
is my understanding.
  This program has only been in existence and operational since May of 
2004. The GAO study, as the chairman stated, said that it is hard for 
them to quantify the benefits of the horse patrol because the 
performance measures are evolving, he failed to say the rest of it, and 
that data is still being collected on these measures. So we are trying 
to get rid of something that we have not even given a chance to see if 
it works. We are talking about $155,000.
  I am quoting from the GAO results that they gave when they appeared 
before the Committee on Appropriations. The horses right now are 
housed, I heard my colleague from Virginia say earlier, that they were 
housed 20 miles away. That is correct, they are. And he says that they 
have to be under stress whenever they are in traffic. Well, I am a 
horsewoman. I have seven horses of my own. Let me tell you, it does not 
cost me $155,000 for seven horses. We have five horses here, and it 
certainly does not cost three-quarters of a million dollars, and we do 
not have to provide health benefits and retirement and the like to the 
horses.
  I think we are cutting short a program that we have not given a 
chance. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I think it is a 
good cause. I think the horses do a great job. It is great PR for us. I 
see folks going up and talking to our Capitol Police Officers. Yes, the 
police officers do have the bicycles, but I would venture to say the 
guys on the bicycles are not sitting up as high as the guys and gals on 
top of the horses. So if there is a problem, they cannot see over the 
cars; they cannot see through the crowds.
  I am pretty passionate about this whole situation. Yes, I am. I just 
do not think we have given this program the time it needs to really be 
evaluated, and I go back to what the GAO study says, that it is still 
evolving. I will remind Members in the GAO study they do not recommend 
eliminating the mounted horse patrol. That is critical. They do not 
recommend eliminating it. Give it time. Let us let them have their day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I found one other reason to love the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. 
Jo Ann Davis). Her caring for horses as much as I do is a thrill to me. 
The problem is I have studied this material and cannot find that this 
is the best way to use our funding, especially when these horses will 
have a new home where they might be used more effectively.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, number one, when is the best 
time to eliminate a program other than before it gets fully 
established? So I think it is important to follow the committee's 
recommendation.
  The second thing is that we know that the police have asked for 
stables. Once they establish stables, the costs goes up; the program is 
more established. We have got more investment. Now is the time to kill 
it. Consolidate it with the Park Police. I fully agree with the 
committee's recommendation.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, this is the second year that we have 
attempted to do this. That is pretty good time for eliminating a 
program. We had a big debate about this last year. We had a big debate 
about it this year. There is nobody who spends any time around here 
that does not think this place is secure. It is not going to be made 
any more secure by having a few people riding horses around here. Now, 
for the aesthetic part of it, it might be lovely; but for the security 
part of it, it is nonsense. It is a waste of money. They will be better 
used by the Park Service, certainly, than they will be around here. 
Vote down the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, as Ranking Member of the 
Committee on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over the 
United States Capitol Police, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by 
my friend from Virginia (Ms. Jo Ann Davis).
  The USCP mounted unit was not authorized by either the Committee on 
House Administration nor the Senate's Committee on Rules and 
Administration. It reportedly came into existence as the brainchild of 
a Senator from Colorado, now retired, without any formal examination of 
the merits and demerits of using horses in the Capitol Police 
environment. Unlike the U.S. Park Police, which must patrol thousands 
of acres of wooded parkland in northwest Washington, the Capitol Police 
patrols a confined area readily accessible to non-mounted officers, and 
much of which is not even accessible to the public at all.
  Some argue that the mounted unit is especially useful in crowd 
control, and maybe that is so. However, on those occasions where crowds 
needing control may develop on the Capitol grounds--and these occasions 
are usually well anticipated--the Capitol Police can easily ask for 
assistance from their Park Police colleagues, who are well trained in 
the use of horses and can also be trained about the Capitol and working 
here.

[[Page 13573]]

  Finally, some offer the intangible value of public relations as a 
justification for spending the hundreds of thousands to maintain the 
horses and train their handlers. Maybe there is value in that, when 
elsewhere on and around the grounds, other Capitol Police officers are 
routinely brandishing automatic weapons. But what about the public 
relations cost of the horse manure deposited across the grounds, and 
the tens of thousands it costs to clean it up?
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann 
Davis) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 109-144.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 35, line 22, insert ``(reduced by $5,400,000)'' after 
     ``$88,090,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 334, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Beside me I have a stack of Congressional Records. It used to be that 
the Government Printing Office would print thousands and thousands and 
thousands of these because we did not use computers much. We did not 
have a searchable data base. These were very important and they still 
are, but by and large when these come around to congressional offices, 
they go straight to the waste basket.
  We did an informal survey in our office of the Congressional Record. 
When the printed copy comes, we called about 20 offices or so, what do 
you do with them? Overwhelmingly, nearly all of them said it goes 
straight to the wastepaper basket because we have it online now, a 
searchable data base. You can search anything back to 1989 immediately 
the following day.
  So our legislation would simply do this: it would save $5.4 million 
annually by instructing the Government Printing Office to print 1,000 
per day rather than the 6,000 per day that they are doing now. We 
simply need to move into the 21st century. It used to be that we needed 
a lot more of them than we need today. We simply do not need to do 
that. This would also save about 57 tons of paper that are discarded 
every year, and all of the environmental damage that goes along with 
that.
  This is a good amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. We simply 
are moving away from buggy whips and other things. We need to recognize 
that we simply do not have the need any more for printed record. To the 
extent that we need them, we will still present them. One thousand a 
day is pretty generous, and we need to save money where we can. And we 
need to have credibility when we tell Federal agencies to cut their 
budgets to live within their means. For us to go on printing 6,000 of 
these a day when we simply do not need them is not right.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 2\1/2\ minutes of that 
time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for purposes of 
control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations has been held at 
the fiscal year 2005 level. This is a decrease of $2.5 million below 
the 2004 level.
  The Record is distributed in accordance with title 44, chapter 9 of 
the U.S. Code; and within that there are 3,000 copies that go to 
Members, of the House and Senate, 153 copies to the Library of 
Congress, et cetera. I can provide the balance of this in the Record.
  3,018 copies to Members, House 1,479 copies, Senate 1,539 copies; 153 
copies to the Library of Congress; 754 copies to public agencies and 
institutions designated by Senators; 698 copies to Federal agencies 
that pay for the copies; 521 copies to subsribers who pay for the 
copies; 692 copies to Federal Depository libraries nationwide.
  I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), that it is my 
feeling that an amendment like this where people are kind of reacting 
to the Congressional Record, et cetera, will likely pass 
overwhelmingly. And if I am correct in that, I would be inclined for us 
to stand back in this discussion, if the gentleman agrees with me, and 
perhaps discuss this further as we go to conference.
  What would be the gentleman's reaction to that?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that passing this 
amendment will not eliminate the distribution of the Record. It will 
simply create a financial shortfall which will have to be dealt with in 
the future. I personally prefer to use the printed Record than I do the 
online Record.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. And I do as well.
  Mr. OBEY. I do my work in lots of places besides the office, and I do 
not use a computer. I use a pencil. So I would just suggest that I 
think the amendment is outrageous and misbegotten; but if the gentleman 
wants to accept it, we can deal with it in conference. We will work it 
out.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is always 
a gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the gentleman in 
co-authoring this amendment. And I hope that our distinguished chair 
and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations will be able to, 
in fact, deal with this in conference in a serious manner because it is 
not just a matter here of saving over $5 million a year just in 
printing costs, and it is not a matter of saving some 57 tons of paper.
  What this is about is being able to, with all due deference to the 
ranking member, not impose on this Congress a regimen of printing 6,000 
copies of a relic of the past that is not necessary for everybody. 
There are 521 subscribers in America to the printed version of the 
Congressional Record. They will be, under this amendment, available to 
any Member of Congress who wants them; but it is important for us to 
have your help as members of the committee to be able to nudge us along 
to get into the 21st century.
  This is an opportunity for us to be able to take advantage of 
paperless activities, having paper where people need it, having a 
certified smart person who works for us print off what we need and save 
us the time not to thumb through to try and find it.

                              {time}  1745

  I think it is important for us to approve this. This is not a 
minuscule item. This is symbolic of what we can do in the vast Federal 
bureaucracy to break the stranglehold of past action and move to take 
advantage of this technology that we have invested, not hundreds of 
millions, but billions of dollars every year.
  This is a small important step to move us in the right direction.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
time.

[[Page 13574]]

  The only point I would like to make is that since 1995, this 
appropriation has only grown by 4 percent. So in more than 10 years we 
have only had a 4 percent growth, much less than inflation.
  We have worked hard to reduce the number of copies. We have 
eliminated the bound copies of the Congressional Record. I do not know 
if people have noticed, but we eliminated that which used to be a 
tradition, and since 1995 we have reduced the number of copies from 
18,000 per day to 6,000. I mean, that is substantial progress. The 
largest cost of the Record is preparing the data for printing and on-
line dissemination, and that cost is going to be occurred regardless.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Member of the 
Joint Committee on Printing, I oppose the amendment offered by my 
friends from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  According to the GPO, the congressional printing and binding 
appropriation supports the distribution of 3,994 copies of the 
Congressional Record, of which 2,293 copies, or more than 57 percent, 
go to the Senate. If there are too many copies of the Record being 
charged to the Congress, the problem lies in the other chamber.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has addressed this problem in recent years. 
Not long ago, there were 18,000 copies of the Record produced each day. 
Now there are fewer than 4,000. The law provides for Members to receive 
three copies, and Members who don't need three copies can reduce 
printing costs by informing the Clerk of that fact. This is a 
reasonable approach, since the Record is available on-line, and perhaps 
for some Members the on-line version will suffice. But the printed 
Record remains an important resource for many Members of both Houses, 
and I don't believe the proper approach to this question is to reduce 
funds for the Record by 83 percent, as this amendment would do.
  I believe the Appropriations Committee has looked at this very 
carefully over the past several years. Speaking for the minority side 
of the Joint Committee on Printing, I am certainly willing to examine 
this question further.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Lewis) time has 
expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is willing to stop talking, 
I am willing to stop talking. I will vote for whichever side stops 
talking first.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to save time and money, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 109-144.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McHenry

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. McHenry:
       Page 9, line 23, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)'' after 
     ``$29,345,000''.
       Page 35, line 22, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' after 
     ``$88,090,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 334, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment for the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my good friend and fellow freshman Republican 
colleague, who unfortunately could not be here this afternoon to offer 
this amendment. One of his predecessors in the 10th District of Texas 
died tragically just a few days ago, Congressman Pickle, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) did attend his funeral and could not 
be here today to vote nor could he be here today to offer this 
amendment. So I offer it in his stead.
  As a good conservative and someone who minds the fiscal house of the 
United States Government, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) offered 
this amendment that would simply rein in the cost of printing, just 
much like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) offered a few moments 
ago.
  This would simply take $2 million out of the printing budget for our 
legislative branch and give that $2 million to security. It would take 
care of security equipment and weapons for Capitol Hill Police.
  So at this time, I would simply like to recommend the House do accept 
this amendment that would rein in excessive spending. It is not that I 
am against printing or paper, or it is not that I am against ink 
either, but certainly I think we should restrain spending where it has 
gotten out of hand, and our printing budget is clearly out of hand. I 
think we and each individual Congressman's office can actually rein in 
that spending ourselves and actually print out the bills that we need.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) control 2\1/2\ minutes of that 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1999 we have appropriated over $170 million to 
the Capitol Police specifically for security enhancement. In addition, 
we have provided $84 million for the Architect for perimeter security. 
In addition to the $2,345,000 provided in this bill for general 
expenses, the Capitol Police have $32,653,000 in unobligated balances, 
for a total of almost $62 million.
  This $2 million amendment is interesting, but the police, in this 
instance, do not need an additional $2 million, and because of that, I 
strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As someone considerably more famous once said, The world will little 
note nor long remember what we either say or do here today on this 
matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for the eloquence and the simplicity of his 
statement, and as a new Member here, I certainly respect my senior 
Member's opinions on this matter, and I do concur.
  With that, I would certainly appreciate the kindness of the House in 
voting for this amendment that would somewhat restrain our spending in 
the matter of printing here in Congress. And we are not going to 
eliminate jobs in this instance. I just think we need to fund security 
rather than paper and printing, and with that, I would urge the 
adoption of this amendment.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McHenry].
  As the Ranking Member of the Joint Committee on Printing, I can 
appreciate the gentleman's interest in reducing excessive printing and 
diverting the funds to more useful purposes. However, rather than 
shifting spending from GPO to the Capitol Police, the amendment has the 
potential merely to increase spending.
  This is because the congressional printing and binding appropriation 
is not a traditional appropriation to support a predetermined amount of 
work by the GPO. It is a pre-payment for the work Congress orders from 
GPO. The GPO will perform whatever work Congress orders, and Congress 
will pay for it in a subsequent appropriation, if necessary. Merely 
reducing the printing and binding appropriation will not reduce the 
amount of printing.
  By contrast, the amendment would shift the GPO funds to the Capitol 
Police, which could and presumably would spend the money for

[[Page 13575]]

its general expenses. The Appropriations Committee has recommended the 
sum of $29.3 million for the Capitol Police's general expenses. As 
Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over the Capitol Police, I believe we should accept the 
Appropriations Committee's recommendation. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is in now order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 109-144.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Add at the end of title II the following new section:
       Sec. 210. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 1 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 334, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to cut 1 percent of the level of 
funding in this appropriation bill. This amounts to roughly $28 billion 
for the legislative branch appropriations bill, and it is no reflection 
on the chairman or the ranking member. They have done some very good 
things in here, particularly in that hole of waste we have in the East 
Front of our Capitol which goes on and on and on. They have done a 
great job in trying to rein that in.
  I simply think that with all of these appropriation bills, with most 
of them, we can find 1 percent to cut, and that will move us in a tiny 
way towards a balanced budget. So I offer the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate very much my colleague's comments. Mr. Chairman, during 
the markup of this bill, we pared down the total requests considerably 
from roughly $3 billion to $2.8 billion, a 9 percent reduction from the 
requested amount.
  The bill is currently only 1.7 percent over fiscal year 2005. This 
increase barely sustains services. It provides for cost-of-living 
increases, some inflationary items, and a minimal number of projects to 
keep our buildings and grounds in reasonably good order.
  A further reduction of 1 percent will adversely impact the operation 
of the legislative branch during the fiscal year ahead.
  The amendment would reduce the total bill to a level that is less 
than 1 percent over current services.
  The reduction will severely impair the ability of the House and 
legislative branch agencies to provide the full cost-of-living 
increases for all of our employees.
  This is a good bill that has received balanced consideration. It is 
nice to say we will cut 1 percent across the board, but frankly, that 
is really not the way to legislate, and because of that, I strongly 
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my colleague.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that while I am opposed to 
this bill because I think it wastes too much money on the visitors 
center, I agree that an across-the-board cut is not a responsible way 
to approach budgeting. If all of this cut came out of the visitors 
center, I would vote for it in a flash.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today against Mr. 
Hefley's amendment to H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
for fiscal year 2006, which would reduce this spending bill by 1 
percent. The Hefley amendment is inappropriate at this time when 
funding needs have already been neglected in this Appropriation. Truly, 
the Committee had difficult decisions to make, but cutting even 1 
percent more from this legislation would be a tremendous mistake.
  The total funding for this legislation is $2.87 billion which is only 
2 percent more than current levels and $270 million (9 percent) less 
than requested by the various legislative offices and agencies. This 
bill appropriates $1.1 billion for operations of the House of 
Representatives which is only $13 million (1 percent) more than current 
funding and $35 million (3 percent) less than requested. It is 
unfortunate that these Appropriations are so tight, when the cost of 
operating the House of Representatives is in fact getting higher. These 
costs are becoming higher because the needs of our constituencies are 
becoming greater. If the Hefley amendment is to pass it will be our 
constituents who suffer. Regardless of any possible cuts, Congress will 
continue to function properly and we will serve our constituents 
proudly, but these cuts in our funding undermine our efforts.
  In addition to insufficient funding to the House of Representatives, 
the greatest reason to reject the Hefley amendment can be found in the 
legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support 
Congressional operations. This funding is only $32.6 million (2 
percent) more than current levels and a staggering $234.8 million (12 
percent) less than requested. Funding for the Capitol Police, who are 
entrusted with protecting the Capitol Complex and all those who work 
and visit here actually received $2 million (1 percent) less than in FY 
2005, and $50.4 million (17 percent) less than requested in this 
Appropriation. The Architect of the Capitol who have worked so hard in 
the last year to make the Capitol Complex more accessible to visitors 
received only $317.3 million, $16.7 million (6 percent) more than 
current funding but a full $123.6 million (28 percent) less than 
requested. The Government Printing Office (GPO) which serves the 
demanding printing needs of hundreds of legislators every year received 
only $122.6 million which is $2.8 million (2 percent) more than current 
funding but $8.5 million (6 percent) less than requested. Indeed, even 
the Library of Congress, the resource for Members and staff to conduct 
research and the institution meant to be our nation's greatest 
repository of reading materials, even their funding was cut in this 
Appropriation. The Library of Congress received $543 million, about 
equal to the FY 2005 level but $47.8 million (8 percent) less than 
requested. It is sad to see these legislative branch agencies, which 
work so hard and diligently to support the work of Congress, have their 
funding needs not met. Again, these agencies will continue to support 
Congress and they will do their jobs well, but any further cuts in 
funding can only lessen their effectiveness.
  I urge all my colleagues to reject the Hefley amendment as its 
passage will only make it more difficult for us to meet the needs of 
the American people. Cutting 1 percent from the Legislative 
Appropriations will not lead to any dramatic monetary savings, but it 
will hinder efforts to provide the best Congressional support services 
possible. It takes a lot to keep the great halls of Congress going and 
it is our responsibility to ensure that all of it is properly funded.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Baird of Washington.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia.

[[Page 13576]]

  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Hefley of Colorado.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. 
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Baird

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, 
noes 268, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 299]

                               AYES--143

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--268

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Carter
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Davis (TN)
     Doggett
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas
     Tiberi
     Watson

                              {time}  1819

  Mr. FORD and Mr. HOLDEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SANDERS, AL GREEN of Texas and McDERMOTT and Ms. KAPTUR 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


        Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann 
Davis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 226, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 300]

                               AYES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bishop (UT)
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Drake
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Simmons

[[Page 13577]]


     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Castle
     Chocola
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Carter
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Davis (TN)
     Doggett
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas
     Tiberi


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1831

  Mr. FORD and Ms. CARSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SPRATT, PICKERING, FRANKS of Arizona and GORDON changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 294, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                               AYES--114

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Cardoza
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--294

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton

[[Page 13578]]


     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Buyer
     Carter
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Davis (TN)
     Doggett
     Farr
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas
     Tiberi


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1838

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McHugh) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2985) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 334, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2985, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
recommit be debatable for 4 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will only take 1 minute.
  This is a straight motion to recommit so that we can fix the out-of-
control visitors center, which is as out of control as the Federal 
deficit. It is also the last chance we will be able to have to remove 
the assault on constitutional government by removing the nongermane 
continuity provision, and it also is the last chance to establish a 
Truman-like committee to investigate waste and fraud in Iraq.
  I urge an aye vote. And I will ask for a roll call vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, by way of suggesting that the 
leadership on both sides of the aisle made the decision about building 
our visitors center and that process has gone forward, and many a fit 
and start, but nonetheless it is going to be the largest expansion of 
the Capitol in modern time. It is going to be a fabulous visitors 
center when it is all completed.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have been on the other 
side of that issue in the past; but, nonetheless, like the visitors 
center, the Speaker has suggested we include the continuity of 
government item in this package. That too is at a pay grade that is 
above mine, and I feel very strongly we should have some mechanism to 
make certain that in times of a real tragedy the House can get its work 
done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote on 
the question of the passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 232, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                               AYES--180

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--232

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry

[[Page 13579]]


     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Carter
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Doggett
     Gordon
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas
     Tiberi


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1859

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 330, 
nays 82, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 303]

                               YEAS--330

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--82

     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Berry
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Cardoza
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLauro
     Duncan
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Goode
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Ross
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Carter
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Doggett
     Gordon
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas
     Tiberi


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1906

  Mr. PALLONE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. FOSSELLA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________