[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2455-S2457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     AUTHORIZING BIENNIAL EXPENDITURES BY COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 73, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 73) authorizing biennial expenditures 
     by committees of the Senate.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there a time agreement on this 
resolution?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour evenly divided.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, on January 25, the Senate Rules Committee reported a 
biennial omnibus committee funding resolution. It is Senate Resolution 
73 and it is reports No. 104-6.
  The Senate has authorized the committee funding on a biennial basis 
since 1989, primarily due to the good work of my great friend from 
Kentucky, who is the former chairman of the committee. We have worked 
together many years now. Senator Ford has insisted on a biennial 
funding resolution.
  The resolution before us today is a biennial funding resolution, and 
it is consistent with the direction of the conference of the majority 
to cut committee budgets by 15 percent. Senate Resolution 73 cuts 15 
percent from the 1994 total recurring budget authority. It will add 2 
percent for a cost-of-living adjustment for the 1995 recurring salaries 
and authorize a 2.4 percent COLA for 1996 for recurring salaries. There 
is also a 2.4-percent COLA for January and February 1997. The 1996 and 
1997 COLA will be subject to the approval of the President pro tempore 
of the Senate.
  This resolution authorizes $49,394,804 for the period from March 1, 
1995, and September 30, 1996, and $50,521,131 between March 1, 1996, 
and February 28, 1997.
  Mr. President, this is a reduction of $7,641,011 from the 1994 
funding level.
  I have a chart here that shows the change in committee budget 
authority since 1980, and the Senate will note there has been a 
considerable shift in budget authority. The real dollar amount is in 
blue and the dollar amount adjusted for inflation is in orange. You can 
see that we have maintained a steady decline in the adjusted-for-
inflation level of expenditures by the Senate.
  We also have a second chart which shows the level of authorized 
committee staff since 1980. Since last year, the level of committee 
staff is reduced by 20 percent. In 1994, there were 1,185 authorized 
committee staff positions, and in 1995 there will be 947.
  Again, I wish to point out that we are continuing the good work of my 
friend, the former chairman, the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Ford, 
because these cuts are in addition to the 10-percent decrease that 
committee budgets took in the last Congress pursuant to his leadership.
  Between 1980 and 1994, the Senate committees will have taken a 16.7 
percent reduction in staff. I might say the House of Representatives 
took about a 5 percent reduction during that same time and that fact 
explains the difference in the amount of reductions currently being 
taken in the House compared to what we are taking in the Senate this 
year. But, I believe this additional cut in committee funding is a 
[[Page S2456]] good faith showing to the American people that we are 
serious about our partnership with them to reduce the size of 
Government.
  Our people sent us a message in the last election that they want less 
Government. This resolution is another step toward a reduction in size 
of Government. This is not a new step, it is an ongoing process. It was 
something we have been working toward. But it is an example of the 
Senate's commitment to provide a more effective and efficient 
Government.
  On a deflated basis, the total authorized dollar value in 1996 for 
Senate committees will be less than in 1980.
  Last year all of the Senate committees combined only accounted for 17 
percent of the total Senate budget.
  Senate Resolution 73 continues the practice of allowing committees to 
carry over funds from the first year to the second year during the same 
Congress. This policy provides the committees with added flexibility to 
meet their anticipated needs and eliminates the incentive to spend or 
lose their money.
  This resolution does not permit committees to carry over unexpended 
funds from the 103d Congress to the 104th Congress.
  Any unexpended balances of the committees after obligations incurred 
during the funding period ending on February 28, 1995, will be 
transferred to a special reserve fund which shall be used to provide 
nonrecurring funds to committees that demonstrate a need for funds to 
meet an unusual workload or unanticipated issue that comes before them. 
I urge committees not to race to spend the moneys that are available 
for them to spend before February 28. That would diminish the special 
reserve and the reserve fund is of great importance to the Senate.
  Last Congress the special reserve fund allowed the Senate to meet 
additional unforeseen needs of committees without requiring the Senate 
to spend new funds.
  For example, after committee budgets were completed, the Armed 
Services Committee was required by law to conduct a major series of 
hearings on the issue of homosexuals in the Armed Forces. Those 
hearings required the Armed Services Committee to hire additional 
professional and support staff due to the substantial amount of work 
involved in the preparation and conduct of those hearings.
  The guidelines of the Conference of the Majority provided for a total 
funding target that is 15 percent below the 1994 level plus COLA with 
directions that the Rules Committee consider a variety of factors and 
apply the cuts fairly. I believe this proposal is fair and balanced.
  This resolution which was worked out by Senator Ford and myself and 
adopted by the committee takes into consideration the size of the 
committees, their workload, the growth that has accompanied the 
committee during the 1980's, as well as other responsibilities of the 
committee.
  Some committee reductions are more than 15 percent. Labor's is 25 
percent. Governmental Affairs, Judiciary and Intelligence are each 
downsized by 16.5 percent.
  The smaller committees--Veterans' Affairs, Small Business, and Aging 
were cut 10 percent.
  There is a big difference between the impact of a 5-percent cut on a 
$1 budget compared to 2 percent on a $4 million budget.
  What I am really saying is the administrative costs of a committee 
are almost the same. A committee that has a smaller amount of total 
funds is going to be excessively impacted in their ability to get their 
substantive work done if we do not recognize the difference between the 
large and small committees and the impact of across-the-board cuts. We 
have attempted to recognize, this problem in this resolution.
  There are certain minimum administrative costs associated with 
running a committee. Every committee must have a receptionist, a clerk, 
a systems administrative person, as well as other positions specific to 
the duties of that committee.
  With that in mind, it was the Rules Committee's determination that 
the smaller committees should not take a full 15-percent cut but should 
take only a 10-percent cut.
  The impact of the 10-percent cut on those smaller committees is just 
as severe if not worse than the impact of the 15- and 16.5-percent cuts 
the larger committees received.
  There is one exception to our policy. Senator McCain, the chairman of 
the Indian Affairs Committee, has informed me he intends to adhere to 
the 15-percent reduction that applies to all committees as originally 
submitted. That was his request to the Rules Committee. I am advised 
Senator McCain was going to make a statement to that effect but that he 
is not available to do so now. It is my understanding that he intends 
not to spend the full amount authorized. We commend him on that 
position. We merely wanted to recognize the impact on small committees 
by our decision.
  A few committees presented cases for including nonrecurring money 
which was not authorized in their baseline. Only authorized recurring 
funds were included in the baseline.
  Senate Resolution 73 also contains a sense of the Senate that space 
assigned to the committees of the Senate covered by this resolution 
shall be reduced commensurate with the reductions in authorized staff.
  The Committee on Rules and Administration is expected to recover 
space for the purpose of equalizing Senators' offices to the extent 
possible, taking into consideration the population of the respective 
States according to the existing procedures and to consolidate the 
space for Senate committees, in order to reduce the cost of moving 
Senate offices and to reduce the cost of support equipment, office 
furniture, and office accessories.
  I believe this recommendation distributes the Senate's limited 
resources between the committees in a fair and equitable fashion.
  I will soon move its adoption.
  Before I yield to my good friend from Kentucky, let me ask for the 
yeas and nays on this resolution.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, as my good friend from Alaska, the chairman 
of the Rules Committee, has stated, before the Senate this afternoon is 
Senate Resolution 73. It is the 2-year budget authorization for Senate 
committees for the years 1995 and 1996. It continues the policy of 
biennial budgets established in the Rules Committee in 1989. We have 2-
year budgets and we cannot get the Federal Government on 2-year 
budgets, which I think would save money. It would not balance the 
budget but it certainly would help us, give us some time for oversight.
  But in the Rules Committee, and the committee chairmen have accepted 
it, where the money would lapse at the end of the first year, it would 
carry over into the second year of the biennium. The committees were 
not anxious then to spend the money, come back to us prove they needed 
it, and then prove they need more. So at the end of this year we had a 
considerable surplus as a result of the 2-year budget. That was 
returned. I think the proof is in the pudding and I am very pleased the 
2-year budget authorization has worked so well.
  The Rules Committee's job in markup was to find the minimum figure--
and I underscore minimum figure--that will permit the committees to 
function effectively and efficiently. The committee conducted a review 
on a committee-by-committee basis. It was not all thrown in a pot and 
stirred up and figures pulled out. But my good friend from Alaska went 
committee by committee, colleague by colleague, and reviewed each 
committee's request with those chairmen and ranking members very 
closely.
  Reaching a satisfactory compromise on the level of Senate committee 
funding is never easy. This year the problem was compounded, as my 
friend has said, by the overall goal of a 15 percent reduction coming 
on top of a 10 percent reduction last Congress. So, in essence, there 
was some shock as it related to the two cuts.
  Senate Resolution 73 does not cover printing, but the report notes 
that the various Senate committees cut the cost of printing during the 
103d Congress. In the last 10 years, expenses for 
[[Page S2457]] printing and binding were reduced almost 40 percent. 
That is a giant step. Expenses for detailed printers were reduced 
almost 35 percent. We saved, in those two reductions, $5 million. The 
Rules Committee reduced committee funding 10 percent in 1993, another 
15 percent under this resolution, and $5 million was saved in printing 
costs.
  These facts indicate to this member of the Rules Committee that it is 
doing an excellent job of controlling costs, and thereby saving 
taxpayers' dollars.
  I believe the 15 percent reduction cuts most committees to the bare 
bone. To cut further would impede, in this Senator's opinion, them from 
fulfilling their responsibilities to the Senate.
  S. Res. 73 does not include extra funds that would permit us to add 
moneys to committees unless funds were reduced from one or more 
committees.
  Mr. President, I have worked with my friend from Alaska now for a 
good many years. I was chairman, he was ranking. Now it is reversed. I 
do not see much change in the committee. Our friendship is the same. 
Our way of working together is the same. The accommodations are the 
same.
 We have, I feel, done an excellent job of working with the members of 
the Rules Committee and then transferring that out to the membership of 
the various committees. Some did not like the cut, told us so, and 
asked for something less. But when all was said and done, the 15-
percent criteria was adhered to, and I believe it is proper.

  But I want to reiterate that, if we cut much more and we have already 
cut to the barebone, the committees are responsible for certain reports 
and certain bills to report to the Senate. They have an obligation to 
their colleagues to do a good job, and I think if we cut more than 15 
percent we would have restricted our committees in their ability to do 
this job as it relate to this institution.
  So I am very pleased where we are. I believe the Rules Committee has 
reached a fair balance in funding Senate committees for 1995 and 1996.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. And my chairman has 
asked for the yeas and nays. It is my understanding, so there will not 
be any misunderstanding, that under the unanimous-consent agreement 
yesterday there will be no votes before 5 o'clock on Monday. And, 
therefore, the vote on this particular resolution will be at some time 
after 5 o'clock on Monday next.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend from Alaska.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend for his comments.
  I want to emphasize what he said. It is not pleasant to turn to the 
colleagues and say that they must cut their staff or expenditures of 
their committees must be reduced. But that was our task. I think we 
have done it as fairly as we can. I think the fact that, to my 
knowledge, no amendments will be offered to this resolution indicates 
that we have either achieved our goal or intimidated our colleagues. 
But let history determine which is correct. We were fair. The Senator 
from Kentucky says we were fair. I think we have been fair. I do 
believe that it is an indication of what is coming in this Congress; 
that is, that we are going to be as frugal as possible in carrying out 
our duties in spending the taxpayers' money.
  I do not have any other requests on this side. I might ask my friend 
if he has any request for time on that side.
  Congratulating the Rules Committee for Reducing the Size of Senate 
                               Committees

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today we are considering the resolution 
that authorizes the funding levels for Senate committees for the next 2 
years. I would like to offer hearty congratulations to the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Rules and Administration for making 
substantial progress in reducing the growth of Senate committees.
  The resolution before us authorizes $7.6 million less for this year 
than the 1994 authorization, and that is a step in the right direction. 
Most of the committee budgets were reduced by 15 percent plus a 2-
percent COLA for salaries. Of particular significance are the cuts in 
the budgets for the three largest committees: The Committees on 
Governmental Affairs, the Judiciary, and Labor and Human Resources. The 
Rules Committee should be commended for reducing the budgets of 
Governmental Affairs and Judiciary by 1.5 percent above the 15-percent 
cut received by other committees. The chairwoman of the Labor Committee 
also deserves enormous praise for submitting a budget that cuts 
expenses by a whopping 25 percent.
  During the 102d and 103d Congresses I offered amendments to reduce 
overstaffing on these three committees.
  In 1991, I proposed capping the number of available committee staff 
positions at 1990 levels. The amendment I proposed in the 103d Congress 
would have used the Finance Committee, with its substantial workload, 
as a benchmark. Each committee's funding level for 1993 would have been 
the lesser of either 95 percent of the 1992 funding level, or 95 
percent of the Finance Committee's funding level--except for the 
Appropriations Committee, which would be funded at 95 percent of its 
1992 level.
  Since the beginning of the committee system as we know it today, we 
have seen a rapid growth in the size of committee staffs. Some of that 
growth is understandable, but some is not. In 1950, there were 300 
committee staff positions. By 1970, that number had more than doubled 
to 635. It had nearly doubled again to 1,212 by 1990. In 1992, there 
were 1,257 committee staff positions.
  In 1993 some progress was made and the number of committee staff 
positions for which funding was made available went down to 1,196. 
Nevertheless, the number of staff positions for the three big 
committees remained at well over 100 for each--Governmental Affairs at 
120, Judiciary at 128, and Labor at 127. This year, there are 947 
authorized staff positions, and only one committee has more than 100 
authorized positions.
  I am very pleased to support this resolution.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alaska that I have 
no requests for statements or amendments. I believe the unanimous-
consent agreement last evening prevented amendments. Therefore, I have 
no one seeking the floor to make a statement today. I am ready and 
prepared to yield the time that has been allotted to me.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the time allotted to me.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield the time allotted to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, As I understand it, we are off this 
resolution, and all time has been yielded on this resolution, and that 
there will be no further action necessary with regard to Senate 
Resolution 73. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is correct.

                          ____________________