H.Amdt. 341House109th Congress (2005-2007)
An amendment numbered 4 printed in House Report 109-144. decrease the GPO Congressional Printing and Binding funds by $2 million and increases Capitol Police general expenses funds (for security equipment, weapons, etc.) by $2 million. Amendment is intended to address the excess and unsolicited copies of bills, resolutions, and amendments that GPO prints and distributes to each sponsor and original co-sponsor.
Sponsored by 
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC)
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC)Submitted June 22, 2005
Description
Amendment sought to increase funding for the Capitol Police by $2 million.
Text
Offered
This amendment's own text couldn't be picked out of its Congressional Record passage, so the passage is shown in full.
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 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 H4935]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.001
[[Page H4936]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.002
[[Page H4937]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.003
[[Page H4938]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.004
[[Page H4939]]
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.
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
[[Page H4940]]
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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
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 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
[[Page H4941]]
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 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.
[[Page H4942]]
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 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
[[Page H4943]]
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. 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. Blumenauer).
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.
[[Page H4944]]
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 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
[[Page H4945]]
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 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
[[Page H4946]]
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 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,
[[Page H4947]]
$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 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
[[Page H4948]]
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 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.''.
[[Page H4949]]
(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 (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.
[[Page H4950]]
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, 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
[[Page H4951]]
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
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,
[[Page H4952]]
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 marshal law.
I for one did not run for this seat to bequeath marshal 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 marshal 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.
[[Page H4953]]
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.
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
[[Page H4954]]
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.''
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. Jo Ann
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.
[[Page H4955]]
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.
{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
[[Page H4956]]
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.
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
[[Page H4957]]
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.
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. Mc Henry
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.
[[Page H4958]]
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 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
[[Page H4959]]
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.
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)
[[Page H4960]]
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
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
[[Page H4961]]
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
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
[[Page H4962]]
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
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.
____________________Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Floor
Latest Action
House amendment offered
June 22, 2005
View full timeline
Floor
House amendment offered
June 22, 2005
Floor
House amendment not agreed to: On agreeing to the McHenry amendment (A004) Failed by voice vote.
June 22, 2005 • 5:49 PM
Not Used
Amendment failed in Committee of the Whole
June 22, 2005 • 5:49 PM
Not Used
House amendment offered/reported by : Amendment (A004) offered by Mr. McHenry.(consideration: CR H4957-4958; text: CR H4957)
June 22, 2005 • 5:45 PM
Floor
Amendment (A004) offered by Mr. McHenry. (consideration: CR H4957-4958; text: CR H4957)
June 22, 2005 • 5:45 PM
Floor
On agreeing to the McHenry amendment (A004) Failed by voice vote.
June 22, 2005 • 5:49 PM