Providing for 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.

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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.004

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.)

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.

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. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

If the gentleman will yield, I would be pleased to do so.

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.

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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak in these closing moments.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I found one other reason to love the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis). Her caring for horses as much as I do is a thrill to me. The problem is I have studied this material

and cannot find that this is the best way to use our funding, especially when these horses will have a new home where they might be used more effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. 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.

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?

And I do as well.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is always a gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, since 1999 we have appropriated over $170 million to the Capitol Police specifically for security enhancement. In addition, we have provided $84 million for the Architect for perimeter security. In addition to the $2,345,000 provided in this bill for general expenses, the Capitol Police have $32,653,000 in unobligated balances, for a total of almost $62 million.

This $2 million amendment is interesting, but the police, in this instance, do not need an additional $2 million, and because of that, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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.

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.''

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

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. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, just one point. We did that 3 days after 9/ 11, 3 days.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

If the gentleman will yield, could the gentleman share with us the names of these horses?

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. 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.

I do my work in lots of places besides the office, and I do not

use a computer. I use a pencil. So I would just suggest that I think the amendment is outrageous and misbegotten; but if the gentleman wants to accept it, we can deal with it in conference. We will work it out.

Mr. 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. 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

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.

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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would beg to differ, and the gentleman, I think, is inaccurate historically.

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?

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.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. However, I find it truly unfortunate that these Appropriations were consistently under-funded because of the tight budget due to the massive tax cuts given to the richest Americans. These Bush Administration tax cuts have created gaps in so many programs and these Legislative Branch Appropriations are no different.

The total funding for this legislation is $2.87 billion which is only 2% more than current levels and $270 million (9%) less than requested by the various legislative offices and agencies. This bill appropriates $1.1 billion for operations of the House of Representatives which is only $13 million (1%) more than current funding and $35 million (3%) less than requested. It is unfortunate that these Appropriations are so tight, when the cost of operating the House of Representatives is in fact getting higher. These costs are becoming higher because the needs of our constituencies are becoming greater. With these unfortunate budget cuts in place it will be our constituents who suffer. Regardless of these cuts, Congress will continue to function properly and we will serve our constituents proudly, but these cuts in our funding undermine our efforts.

In addition to insufficient funding to the House of Representatives, the greatest deficiencies can be found in the legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support Congressional operations. This funding is only $32.6 million (2%) more than current levels and a staggering $234.8 million (12%) less than requested. Funding for the Capitol Police, who are entrusted with protecting the Capitol Complex and all those who work and visit here actually received $2 million (1%) less than in FY 2005, and $50.4 million (17%) less than requested in this Appropriation. The Architect of the Capitol who have worked so hard in the last year to make the Capitol Complex more accessible to visitors received only $317.3 million, $16.7 million (6%) more than current funding but a full $123.6 million (28%) less than requested. The Government Printing Office (GPO) which serves the demanding printing needs of hundreds of legislators every year received only $122.6 million which is $2.8 million (2%) more than current funding but $8.5 million (6%) less than requested. Indeed, even the Library of Congress, the resource for Members and staff to conduct research and the institution meant to be our nation's greatest repository of reading materials, even their

funding was cut in this Appropriation. The Library of Congress received $543 million, about equal to the FY 2005 level but $47.8 million (8%) less than requested. It is sad to see these legislative branch agencies, which work so hard and diligently to support the work of Congress, have their funding needs not met. Again, these agencies will continue to support Congress and they will do their jobs well, but these cuts in funding can only lessen their effectiveness.

However, the issue that has me most concerned about this Appropriation is the language of H.R. 841, which would require states to hold special elections within 49 days of the Speaker declaring that more than 100 vacancies exist in the House. First of all, this language has no business being in this Appropriations measure, it clearly legislates on what is supposed to be a spending bill. Truly, the other side of the aisle is trying to sneak in a piece of legislation within this Appropriation in order to force its passage upon the Senate. Furthermore, this language within this bill threatens to weaken the electoral process, to disenfranchise overseas, disabled, and lower- income voters and thereby reduce individual rights. The more expedited the process of replacing the members of the House and the smaller body constituted is, the less legitimacy it will have. Unless the House constitutes members from all 50 States and through a full, fair, and transparent process, this body will lack qualities that make it truly ``representative.''

Despite my objections with certain provisions of this legislation I will vote in favor of this Appropriation because it serves the needs of our Congress. However, I hope that soon our economic and budgeting practices would change so that we are not forced to make so many cuts in vital areas. I also hope that in the future we do not use these Appropriations bills as a way to further our legislative agendas. It is my sincere hope that the institution of Congress, which was made to serve the needs of the people, will continue to be effective no matter the obstacle.

Mr. 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. Chairman, I rise today against Mr. Hefley's amendment to H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006, which would reduce this spending bill by 1 percent. The Hefley amendment is inappropriate at this time when funding needs have already been neglected in this Appropriation. Truly, the Committee had difficult decisions to make, but cutting even 1 percent more from this legislation would be a tremendous mistake.

The total funding for this legislation is $2.87 billion which is only 2 percent more than current levels and $270 million (9 percent) less than requested by the various legislative offices and agencies. This bill appropriates $1.1 billion for operations of the House of Representatives which is only $13 million (1 percent) more than current funding and $35 million (3 percent) less than requested. It is unfortunate that these Appropriations are so tight, when the cost of operating the House of Representatives is in fact getting higher. These costs are becoming higher because the needs of our constituencies are becoming greater. If the Hefley amendment is to pass it will be our constituents who suffer. Regardless of any possible cuts, Congress will continue to function properly and we will serve our constituents proudly, but these cuts in our funding undermine our efforts.

In addition to insufficient funding to the House of Representatives, the greatest reason to reject the Hefley amendment can be found in the legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support Congressional operations. This funding is only $32.6 million (2 percent) more than current levels and a staggering $234.8 million (12 percent) less than requested. Funding for the Capitol Police, who are entrusted with protecting the Capitol Complex and all those who work and visit here actually received $2 million (1 percent) less than in FY 2005, and $50.4 million (17 percent) less than requested in this Appropriation. The Architect of the Capitol who have worked so hard in the last year to make the Capitol Complex more accessible to visitors received only $317.3 million, $16.7 million (6 percent) more than current funding but a full $123.6 million (28 percent) less than requested. The Government Printing Office (GPO) which serves the demanding printing needs of hundreds of legislators every year received only $122.6 million which is $2.8 million (2 percent) more than current funding but $8.5 million (6 percent) less than requested. Indeed, even the Library of Congress, the resource for Members and staff to conduct research and the institution meant to be our nation's greatest repository of reading materials, even their funding was cut in this Appropriation. The Library of Congress received $543 million, about equal to the FY 2005 level but $47.8 million (8 percent) less than requested. It is sad to see

these legislative branch agencies, which work so hard and diligently to support the work of Congress, have their funding needs not met. Again, these agencies will continue to support Congress and they will do their jobs well, but any further cuts in funding can only lessen their effectiveness.

I urge all my colleagues to reject the Hefley amendment as its passage will only make it more difficult for us to meet the needs of the American people. Cutting 1 percent from the Legislative Appropriations will not lead to any dramatic monetary savings, but it will hinder efforts to provide the best Congressional support services possible. It takes a lot to keep the great halls of Congress going and it is our responsibility to ensure that all of it is properly funded.

Mr. 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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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.

If the gentleman will further yield, what is the time frame?

I was going to respond to the gentleman's other questions.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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.