[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 78 (Monday, June 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
SENATE RESOLUTION 230--RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF PERMANENT SENATE 
                                OFFICES

  Mr. BYRD (for Mr. Wofford) submitted the following resolution; which 
was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

                              S. Res. 230

       Resolved, That (a) effective on January 3, 1995, the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration shall begin to 
     designate two permanent offices for each State.
       (b) The designation of permanent offices shall be 
     accomplished--
       (1) in a manner consistent with the current rules and 
     practices of the Senate; and
       (2) in the most efficient and cost-effective manner 
     practicable.
       (c) Not later than June 30, 1995, each State shall be 
     designated two permanent offices for the Senators from such 
     State.
       (d) Each Senator upon taking office shall be assigned a 
     permanent office designated to the State that the Senator 
     represents.
       (e) Effective December 31, 1995, no funds appropriated to 
     the Senate shall be used for the purpose of moving a Senator 
     from the office to which the Senator has been assigned.
       (f) All funds saved by the implementation of this 
     resolution shall be dedicated to deficit reduction.

  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to change 
the manner in which offices are assigned to Senators. As I have stated 
several times before, I believe we should put a stop to the unnecessary 
and wasteful practice of moving Senators after each election. The 
resolution I am introducing today would do just that by requiring that 
each State be assigned two permanent offices--the type of arrangement 
that California already has.
  Since coming to Washington I have been seeking ways to make Congress 
work better and to save the taxpayers money. I have worked to eliminate 
free health care for Senators, to cut cost-of-living raises in our 
salaries for this year, and to enact other useful congressional 
reforms.
  But, as in well-run businesses, the search to eliminate unnecessary 
costs and to find new and better ways to operate must be ongoing. 
Ending Senate office moves is another area in which we can 
simultaneously improve the operation of the Congress and save the 
taxpayers money.
  As we all know, the custom of the Senate is that after each general 
election there is a series of office moves. Under the current Senate 
practice, incumbent Senators often seek to obtain the offices left by 
departing senior Senators. Obviously, when they vacate their own 
offices for better office space--a ripple effect is created. More moves 
are required.
  For instance, after the 1992 election, there were 26 Senate office 
moves. Only 13 were new Senators. The other 13 moves were by sitting 
Senators who moved to better offices. Previous years have seen 
unnecessary moves as well. After the 1990 election, there were five new 
Senators but a total of 14 office moves. After the 1988 election, there 
were 11 new Senators, but a total of 18 office moves.
  For what? A more prestigious building, a bigger office, a better 
view, a shorter walk to the Capitol. No public purpose is served by 
these moves.
  There is obvious expense associated with moving furniture and files, 
reconfiguring office space, changing telephone and computer 
connections, reprinting all stationery and business cards, and other 
unavoidable costs of moving.
  And it isn't just the dollars, it is the waste of time--staffers are 
busy moving, all of the furniture is out in the halls, and your 
constituents come to look for you but they don't know where you are. 
The inconvenience and cost of these office moves seems to me to be 
unnecessary, wasteful and counterproductive.
  Last week, I considered introducing this resolution as an amendment 
to the legislative branch appropriations bill to put an end to the 
practice of Senate office moves. However, in discussions with the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, we reached an agreement 
that the Rules Committee would hold hearings so that the entire 
question of office moves can receive a full airing before the Senate 
acts on this matter.
  Mr. President, I think the time has come to stop the practice of 
Senate office moves. Under my resolution, the Rules Committee will 
designate two permanent offices for each State after the next election. 
Thereafter, no money would be spent to move Senators from one office to 
another. The benefits of this approach are obvious--it would save the 
taxpayers money, avoid the disruption of Senate business, and minimize 
constituent confusion because each State would be assigned permanent 
offices for its Senators. I look forward to the Rules Committee hearing 
on this matter, and to moving forward later this year to end the 
practice of Senate office moves.

                          ____________________