William Orton Law Library Improvement and Modernization Act

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2728) to provide financial support for the operation of the law library of the Library of Congress, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this bill is named after William Orton, a Member of the United States House of Representatives from Utah's Third Congressional District from 1991 to 1997. Bill passed away

in April of this year. Bill was a tireless advocate for the Law Library, and this legislation is a fitting way to honor his memory.

The Law Library of Congress maintains a unique and world-renowned collection. This bill will help ensure that the Law Library will have the resources needed to maintain and expand its collections while at the same time modernizing its systems. The act authorizes, number one, $3.5 million for maintaining and administering the operations of the Law Library, including the cataloging of the collections of the Law Library; two, a line item for the Law Library to ensure the autonomy and ability to improve the Law Library; and, three, the creation of the William Orton Program to provide enhanced or special services and programs for the Library and otherwise support the mission of the Law Library.

The Library may carry out the program through agreements and partnerships entered into with other government and private entities, including the American Association of Law Libraries and the American Bar Association. Donations of funds and in-kind contributions in support of the program may be accepted, and it requires an annual report.

Finally, H.R. 2728 was amended by the House Administration Committee; and during markup, we made a change in the name of the Law Library to the National Law Library to increase the role and status of the Law Library. This bill authorizes to be appropriated for the program an amount equal to 40 percent of the amount of the donations accepted by the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board in support of the program. This is a 60/40 private-public split. The Law Library is an invaluable resource both to the Congress and the Nation, and we have an obligation to future generations to provide for its continuation through the establishment of the William Orton Program.

Some of the organizations that are supporting this bill include the American Bar Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the Northern California Association of Law Libraries.

Now, why is this bill important to the point that myself and my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) have actually spent several years working on this? Not only is this collection unique in the United States and important to the rule of law in the United States; this collection is important to the world. And I will give you an example why. When the Taliban was finally expelled from government in Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan looked to reinstitute the rule of law; and the only place where Afghani law could be found was in the Law Library at the Library of Congress in the United States. It was through that collection that we were able to help in that civil way in the reinstitution of the rule of law.

I would just like to say one further word about the late Bill Orton. After he left the Congress, he went back into private practice, but he always volunteered his time. He spent countless hours with the bar association and others, coming and trying to help the Law Library.

He understood that it wasn't flashy, but it was important. Actually, that's just like Bill, a guy who wasn't flashy but who was serious and did important things for his country. I can remember sitting on this floor next to then-Congressman Bill Orton, discussing the issues of the day while he had his young son Will sitting on his lap. Many times during State of the Union speeches, young Will would be there with his dad.

I hope that in addition to doing these good things through passing this bill that Will and the rest of his family can take satisfaction that Bill Orton's name will forever be associated with this Law Library, and we will always be in his debt for what he has done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before yielding back, I would simply thank the gentleman from California for being my partner in this effort. I thank, again, the members of the House Administration Committee for working with us. And remember, once again, our colleague, Bill Orton, who was such a fine person, who did so much in his life. I know that his sons, Will and Wesley, and his wife, Jacquelyn, were very proud of him, and I know that they will take satisfaction that his volunteerism is being recognized through this effort today.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I am pleased to rise in support of the bill that will pave the way for the Law Library at the Library of Congress to more fully serve this community, the legal community, academia and the public. The Law Library has one of the greatest collections of legal documents in the world, unparalleled in its breadth and depth.

The collection is so significant and diverse that following removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, as was suggested by my colleague from California, the Afghani people turned to the Library of Congress' archives to find a copy of the laws and Constitution of their country, Afghanistan.

Not much more than a year ago, in May 2008, a good friend and colleague of ours, the late Representative Bill Orton of Utah, appeared before the House Appropriations Committee and delivered compelling testimony toward the importance of properly funding this Law Library. It is, therefore, fitting that it is in his honor that we move this bill forward today.

Among Bill Orton's arguments for passionate support of the Law Library, perhaps two are most salient: the manner in which the current budgetary scheme forces the Library of Congress to balance the various departments against one another and the pressing need for an avenue to facilitate and dedicate private support for this Law Library. The American Bar Association, in a letter this month to the House of Representatives, echoed Bill Orton's testimony, explaining that the spreading of budgetary shortfalls has led at times to the neglect of particular portions of collections. For example, the ABA highlights the fact that the Law Library's loose leaf subscriptions are months out of date.

At the time of his testimony, Bill Orton appeared as a representative of the American Bar Association, which is dedicated and committed to specifically address the maintenance, accessibility and relevance of the Law Library. When pressed as to whether the legal community would pitch in as a partner in financially supporting the Law Library, his response was emphatically, Yes.

With the passage of this bill, we enable our partners in the legal community to fulfill that commitment, and we give them an avenue through which that can be done.

More personally, this bill serves as a tribute to our late colleague, Bill Orton. During his service in this body, he was a passionate advocate for the law library and its many resources. He recognized the value of the careful stewardship of the law library's institutional mission. And so I hope that with our vote today, we will move that much closer to seeing the goal of Bill Orton realized.

I urge my colleagues, therefore, to join me in supporting the memory of Bill Orton, the mission of the law library, and this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, yesterday and today, I missed 26 votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows.

Rollcall No. 661, on Agreeing to the Murtha Amendment to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 662, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendment to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 663, on Agreeing to the Tierney Amendment to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 664, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendment #1 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 665, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendment #258 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 666, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendment #389 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 667, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendment #432 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 668, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendment #439 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 669, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendment #449 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 670, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendment #553 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 671, on Agreeing to the Flake Amendments En Bloc to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 672, on Agreeing to the Campbell Amendment #1 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 673, on Agreeing to the Campbell Amendment #8 to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 674, on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 675, on Passage of H.R. 3326, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 676, on Agreeing to the Resolution H. Con. Res. 172, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 677, on Agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 691, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 678, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 2728, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 679, on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 2749, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 680, on Passage of H.R. 2749, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 681, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 1752, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 682, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, H.R. 3435, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 683, on Agreeing to the Frank Amendment to H.R. 3435, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 684, on Agreeing to the Garrett Amendment to H.R. 3435, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 685, on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 3435, I would have voted ``No.''

Rollcall No. 686, on Passage of H.R. 3435, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 676, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''