[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10340-S10367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am advised that this request has been 
cleared by the Democratic leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration 
of H.R. 1854, the legislative branch appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

        A bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for the 
     legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill 
which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations, with 
amendments, as follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)
                               H.R. 1854

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for 
     other purposes, namely:
                   TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
                                 SENATE

                           Expense Allowances

       For expense allowances of the Vice President, $10,000; the 
     President Pro Tempore of the Senate, $10,000; Majority Leader 
     of the Senate, $10,000; Minority Leader of the Senate, 
     $10,000; Majority Whip of the Senate, $5,000; Minority Whip 
     of the Senate, $5,000; and Chairmen of the Majority and 
     Minority Conference Committees, $3,000 for each Chairman; in 
     all, $56,000.

    Representation Allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders

       For representation allowances of the Majority and Minority 
     Leaders of the Senate, $15,000 for each such Leader; in all, 
     $30,000.

                    Salaries, Officers and Employees

       For compensation of officers, employees, and others as 
     authorized by law, including agency contributions, 
     $69,727,000, which shall be paid from this appropriation 
     without regard to the below limitations, as follows:

                      office of the vice president

       For the Office of the Vice President, $1,513,000.

                  office of the president pro tempore

       For the Office of the President Pro Tempore, $325,000.

              offices of the majority and minority leaders

       For Offices of the Majority and Minority Leaders, 
     $2,195,000.

               offices of the majority and minority whips

       For Offices of the Majority and Minority Whips, $656,000.

                         conference committees

       For the Conference of the Majority and the Conference of 
     the Minority, at rates of compensation to be fixed by the 
     Chairman of each such committee, $996,000 for each such 
     committee; in all, $1,992,000.

 offices of the secretaries of the conference of the majority and the 
                       conference of the minority

       For Offices of the Secretaries of the Conference of the 
     Majority and the Conference of the Minority, $360,000.
                           policy committees

       For salaries of the Majority Policy Committee and the 
     Minority Policy Committee, $965,000 for each such committee, 
     in all, $1,930,000.

                         office of the chaplain

       For Office of the Chaplain, $192,000.

                        office of the secretary

       For Office of the Secretary, $12,128,000.

             office of the sergeant at arms and doorkeeper

       For Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, 
     $31,889,000.

        offices of the secretaries for the majority and minority

       For Offices of the Secretary for the Majority and the 
     Secretary for the Minority, $1,047,000.

               agency contributions and related expenses

       For agency contributions for employee benefits, as 
     authorized by law, and related expenses, $15,500,000.

            Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Legislative 
     Counsel of the Senate, $3,381,000.

                     Office of Senate Legal Counsel

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Senate Legal 
     Counsel, $936,000.

Expense Allowances of the Secretary of the Senate, Sergeant at Arms and 
Doorkeeper of the Senate, and Secretaries for the Majority and Minority 
                             of the Senate

       For expense allowances of the Secretary of the Senate, 
     $3,000; Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, 
     $3,000; Secretary for the Majority of the Senate, $3,000; 
     Secretary for the Minority of the Senate, $3,000; in all, 
     $12,000.

                   Contingent Expenses of the Senate

                      inquiries and investigations

       For expenses of inquiries and investigations ordered by the 
     Senate, or conducted pursuant to section 134(a) of Public Law 
     601, Seventy-ninth Congress, as amended, section 112 of 
     Public Law 96-304 and Senate Resolution 281, agreed to March 
     11, 1980, $66,395,000.
expenses of the united states senate caucus on international narcotics 
                                control

       For expenses of the United States Senate Caucus on 
     International Narcotics Control, $305,000.
                        secretary of the senate

       For expenses of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, 
     $1,266,000.

             sergeant at arms and doorkeeper of the senate

       For expenses of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and 
     Doorkeeper of the Senate, $61,347,000.

                          miscellaneous items

       For miscellaneous items, $6,644,000.

        senators' official personnel and office expense account

       For Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense 
     Account, $204,029,000.

               Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Senate Fair 
     Employment Practices, $778,000.

                     Settlements and Awards Reserve

       For expenses for settlements and awards, $1,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                      stationery (revolving fund)

       For stationery for the President of the Senate, $4,500, for 
     officers of the Senate and the Conference of the Majority and 
     Conference of the Minority of the Senate, $8,500; in all, 
     $13,000.

                          official mail costs

       For expenses necessary for official mail costs of the 
     Senate, $11,000,000.


                               rescission

       Of the funds previously appropriated under the heading 
     ``SENATE'', $63,544,724.12 are rescinded.

                       administrative provisions

       Section 1. (a) On and after October 1, 1995, no Senator 
     shall receive mileage under section 17 of the Act of July 28, 
     1866 (2 U.S.C. 43).
       (b) On and after October 1, 1995, the President of the 
     Senate shall not receive mileage under the first section of 
     the Act of July 8, 1935 (2 U.S.C. 43a).
       Sec. 2. (a) There is established in the Treasury of the 
     United States within the contingent fund of the Senate a 
     revolving fund, to be known as the ``Office of the Chaplain 
     Expense Revolving Fund'' (hereafter referred to as the 
     ``fund''). The fund shall consist of all moneys collected or 
     received with respect to the Office of the Chaplain of the 
     Senate.
       (b) The fund shall be available without fiscal year 
     limitation for disbursement by the Secretary of the Senate, 
     not to exceed $10,000 in any fiscal year, for the payment of 
     official expenses incurred by the Chaplain of the Senate. In 
     addition, moneys in the fund may be used to purchase food or 
     food related items. The fund shall not be available for the 
     payment of salaries.
       (c) All moneys (including donated moneys) received or 
     collected with respect to the Office of the Chaplain of the 
     Senate shall be deposited in the fund and shall be available 
     for purposes of this section.
       (d) Disbursements from the fund shall be made on vouchers 
     approved by the Chaplain of the Senate.
       Sec. 3. Funds appropriated under the heading, ``Settlements 
     and Awards Reserve'' in Public Law 103-283 shall remain 
     available until expended.
       Sec. 4. Section 902 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1983 (2 U.S.C. 88b-6) is amended by striking the second 
     sentence and inserting the following: ``The amounts so 
     withheld shall be deposited in the revolving fund, within the 
     contingent fund of the Senate, for the Daniel Webster Senate 
     Page Residence, as established by section 4 of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1995 (2 U.S.C. 88b-
     7).''.
       Sec. 5. (a) Any payment for local and long distance 
     telecommunications service provided to any user by the 
     Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate shall cover the 
     total invoiced amount, including any amount relating to 
     separately identified toll calls, and shall be charged to the 
     appropriation for the fiscal year in which the underlying 
     base service period covered by the invoice ends.
       (b) As used in subsection (a), the term ``user'' means any 
     Senator, Officer of the Senate, Committee, office, or entity 
     provided telephone equipment and services by the Sergeant at 
     Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.
       Sec. 6. Section 4(b) of Public Law 103-283 is amended by 
     inserting before ``collected'' the following: ``(including 
     donated moneys)''.
       Sec. 7. Section 1 of Public Law 101-520 (2 U.S.C. 61g-6a) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``Section 1. (a)(1) The Chairman of the Majority or 
     Minority Policy Committee of the Senate may, during any 
     fiscal year, at his or her 

[[Page S10341]]
     election transfer funds from the appropriation account for salaries for 
     the Majority and Minority Policy Committees of the Senate, to 
     the account, within the contingent fund of the Senate, from 
     which expenses are payable for such committees.
       ``(2) The Chairman of the Majority or Minority Policy 
     Committee of the Senate may, during any fiscal year, at his 
     or her election transfer funds from the appropriation account 
     for expenses, within the contingent fund of the Senate, for 
     the Majority and Minority Policy Committees of the Senate, to 
     the account from which salaries are payable for such 
     committees.
       ``(b)(1) The Chairman of the Majority or Minority 
     Conference Committee of the Senate may, during any fiscal 
     year, at his or her election transfer funds from the 
     appropriation account for salaries for the Majority and 
     Minority Conference Committees of the Senate, to the account, 
     within the contingent fund of the Senate, from which expenses 
     are payable for such committees.
       ``(2) The Chairman of the Majority or Minority Conference 
     Committee of the Senate may, during any fiscal year, at his 
     or her election transfer funds from the appropriation account 
     for expenses, within the contingent fund of the Senate, for 
     the Majority and Minority Conference Committees of the 
     Senate, to the account from which salaries are payable for 
     such committees.
       ``(c) Any funds transferred under this section shall be--
       ``(1) available for expenditure by such committee in like 
     manner and for the same purposes as are other moneys which 
     are available for expenditure by such committee from the 
     account to which the funds were transferred; and
       ``(2) made at such time or times as the Chairman shall 
     specify in writing to the Senate Disbursing Office.
       ``(d) The Chairman of a committee transferring funds under 
     this section shall notify the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate of the transfer.''.
       (b) The amendment made by this section shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1995, and shall be effective with respect to 
     fiscal years beginning on or after that date.
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
     $671,561,000,  as follows:
                        house leadership offices

       For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 
     $11,271,000, including: Office of the Speaker, $1,478,000, 
     including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker; 
     Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $1,470,000, including 
     $10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office 
     of the Minority Floor Leader, $1,480,000, including $10,000 
     for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the 
     Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, 
     $928,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the 
     Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the 
     Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $918,000, including $5,000 for 
     official expenses of the Minority Whip; Speaker's Office for 
     Legislative Floor Activities, $376,000; Republican Steering 
     Committee, $664,000; Republican Conference, $1,083,000; 
     Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, $1,181,000; 
     Democratic Caucus, $566,000; and nine minority employees, 
     $1,127,000.
                  MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES

   Including Members' Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and 
                             Official Mail

       For Members' representational allowances, including 
     Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, 
     $360,503,000: Provided, That no such funds shall be used for 
     the purposes of sending unsolicited mass mailings within 90 
     days before an election in which the Member is a candidate.
                          committee employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special 
     and select, authorized by House resolutions, $78,629,000.

                      Committee on Appropriations

       For salaries and expenses of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, $16,945,000, including studies and 
     examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal 
     services for such committee, to be expended in accordance 
     with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for 
     services performed.

                    salaries, officers and employees

       For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as 
     authorized by law, $83,733,000, including: for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not to exceed 
     $1,000 for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $13,807,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of 
     Garages, and including not to exceed $750 for official 
     representation and reception expenses, $3,410,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Administrative Officer, $53,556,000, including salaries, 
     expenses and temporary personal services of House Information 
     Systems, $27,500,000, of which $16,000,000 is provided 
     herein: Provided, That House Information Systems is 
     authorized to receive reimbursement from Members of the House 
     of Representatives and other governmental entities for 
     services provided and such reimbursement shall be deposited 
     in the Treasury for credit to this account; for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Inspector General, $3,954,000; 
     for salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, 
     $858,000; Office of the Chaplain, $126,000; for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Parliamentarian, including the 
     Parliamentarian and $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, 
     $1,180,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Law Revision Counsel of the House, $1,700,000; for salaries 
     and expenses of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the 
     House, $4,524,000; and other authorized employees, $618,000.
                        allowances and expenses

       For allowances and expenses as authorized by House 
     resolution or law, $120,480,000, including: supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, 
     $1,213,000; official mail for committees, leadership offices, 
     and administrative offices of the House, $1,000,000; 
     reemployed annuitants reimbursements, $68,000; Government 
     contributions to employees' life insurance fund, retirement 
     funds, Social Security fund, Medicare fund, health benefits 
     fund, and worker's and unemployment compensation, 
     $117,541,000; and miscellaneous items including purchase, 
     exchange, maintenance, repair and operation of House motor 
     vehicles, interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to 
     heirs of deceased employees of the House, $658,000.
                           child care center

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives 
     Child Care Center, such amounts as are deposited in the 
     account established by section 312(d)(1) of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1992 (40 U.S.C. 184g(d)(1)), 
     subject to the level specified in the budget of the Center, 
     as submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives.
                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. Effective with respect to fiscal years beginning 
     with fiscal year 1995, in the case of mail from outside 
     sources presented to the Chief Administrative Officer of the 
     House of Representatives (other than mail through the Postal 
     Service and mail with postage otherwise paid) for internal 
     delivery in the House of Representatives, the Chief 
     Administrative Officer is authorized to collect fees equal to 
     the applicable postage. Amounts received by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer as fees under the preceding sentence 
     shall be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       Sec. 102. Effective with respect to fiscal years beginning 
     with fiscal year 1995, amounts received by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives from 
     the Administrator of General Services for rebates under the 
     Government Travel Charge Card Program shall be deposited in 
     the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       Sec. 103. The provisions of section 223(b) of House 
     Resolution 6, One Hundred Fourth Congress, agreed to January 
     5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995, establishing the 
     Speaker's Office for Legislative Floor Activities; House 
     Resolution 7, One Hundred Fourth Congress, agreed to January 
     5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995, providing for the 
     designation of certain minority employees; House Resolution 
     9, One Hundred Fourth Congress, agreed to January 5 
     (legislative day, January 4), 1995, providing amounts for the 
     Republican Steering Committee and the Democratic Policy 
     Committee; House Resolution 10, One Hundred Fourth Congress, 
     agreed to January 5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995, 
     providing for the transfer of two employee positions; and 
     House Resolution 113, One Hundred Fourth Congress, agreed to 
     March 10, 1995, providing for the transfer of certain 
     employee positions shall each be the permanent law with 
     respect thereto.
       Sec. 104. (a) The five statutory positions specified in 
     subsection (b), subsection (c), and subsection (d) are 
     transferred from the House Republican Conference to the 
     Republican Steering Committee.
       (b) The first two of the five positions referred to in 
     subsection (a) are--
       (1) the position established for the chief deputy majority 
     whip by subsection (a) of the first section of House 
     Resolution 393, Ninety-fifth Congress, agreed to March 31, 
     1977, as enacted into permanent law by section 115 of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1978 (2 U.S.C. 74a-3); 
     and
       (2) the position established for the chief deputy majority 
     whip by section 102(a)(4) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1990;
     both of which positions were transferred to the majority 
     leader by House Resolution 10, One Hundred Fourth Congress, 
     agreed to January 5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995, as 
     enacted into permanent law by section 103 of this Act, and 
     both of which positions were further transferred to the House 
     Republican Conference by House Resolution 113, One Hundred 
     Fourth Congress, agreed to March 10, 1995, as enacted into 
     permanent law by section 103 of this Act.
       (c) The second two of the five positions referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the two positions established by section 
     103(a)(2) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1986.
       (d) The fifth of the five positions referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the position for the House Republican 
     Conference established by House Resolution 625, Eighty-ninth 
     Congress, agreed to October 22, 1965, as enacted into 
     permanent law by section 103 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriation Act, 1967.
       (e) The transfers under this section shall take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 105. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     or any rule, regulation, or other authority, travel for 
     studies and examinations under section 202(b) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 72a(b)) 
     shall be governed by applicable laws 

[[Page S10342]]
     or regulations of the House of Representatives or as promulgated from 
     time to time by the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply to travel performed on 
     or after that date.
       Sec. 106. (a) Notwithstanding the paragraph under the 
     heading ``general provision'' in chapter XI of the Third 
     Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 102a) or any 
     other provision of law, effective on the date of the 
     enactment of this section, unexpended balances in accounts 
     described in subsection (b) are withdrawn, with unpaid 
     obligations to be liquidated in the manner provided in the 
     second sentence of that paragraph.
       (b) The accounts referred to in subsection (a) are the 
     House of Representatives legislative service organization 
     revolving accounts under section 311 of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 (2 U.S.C. 96a).
       Sec. 107. (a) Each fund and account specified in subsection 
     (b) shall be available only to the extent provided in 
     appropriation Acts.
       (b) The funds and accounts referred to in subsection (a) 
     are--
       (1) the revolving fund for the House Barber Shops, 
     established by the paragraph under the heading ``House Barber 
     Shops Revolving Fund'' in the matter relating to the House of 
     Representatives in chapter III of title I of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1975 (Public Law 93-554; 88 Stat. 1776);
       (2) the revolving fund for the House Beauty Shop, 
     established by the matter under the heading ``house beauty 
     shop'' in the matter relating to administrative provisions 
     for the House of Representatives in the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriation Act, 1970 (Public Law 91-145; 83 Stat. 347);
       (3) the special deposit account established for the House 
     of Representatives Restaurant by section 208 of the First 
     Supplemental Civil Functions Appropriation Act, 1941 (40 
     U.S.C. 174k note); and
       (4) the revolving fund established for the House Recording 
     Studio by section 105(g) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 123b(g)).
       (c) This section shall take effect on October 1, 1995, and 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal years beginning on or 
     after that date.
       Sec. 107A. For fiscal year 1996, subject to the direction 
     of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives, of the total amount deposited in the account 
     referred to in section 107(b)(3) of this Act from vending 
     operations of the House of Representatives Restaurant System, 
     the cost of goods sold shall be available to pay the cost of 
     inventory for such operations.
       Sec. 108. The House Employees Position Classification Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 291, et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 3(1), by striking out ``Doorkeeper, and the 
     Postmaster,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Chief 
     Administrative Officer, and the Inspector General'';
       (2) in the first sentence of section 4(b), by striking out 
     ``Doorkeeper, and the Postmaster,'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Chief Administrative Officer, and the Inspector 
     General'';
       (3) in section 5(b)(1), by striking out ``Doorkeeper, and 
     the Postmaster'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Chief 
     Administrative Officer, and the Inspector General''; and
       (4) in the first sentence of section 5(c), by striking out 
     ``Doorkeeper, and the Postmaster,'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Chief Administrative Officer, and the Inspector 
     General''.
       Sec. 109. (a) Upon the approval of the appropriate 
     employing authority, an employee of the House of 
     Representatives who is separated from employment, may be paid 
     a lump sum for the accrued annual leave of the employee. The 
     lump sum--
       (1) shall be paid in an amount not more than the lesser 
     of--
       (A) the amount of the monthly pay of the employee, as 
     determined by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House 
     of Representatives; or
       (B) the amount equal to the monthly pay of the employee, as 
     determined by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House 
     of Representatives, divided by 30, and multiplied by the 
     number of days of the accrued annual leave of the employee;
       (2) shall be paid--
       (A) for clerk hire employees, from the clerk hire allowance 
     of the Member;
       (B) for committee employees, from amounts appropriated for 
     committees; and
       (C) for other employees, from amounts appropriated to the 
     employing authority; and
       (3) shall be based on the rate of pay in effect with 
     respect to the employee on the last day of employment of the 
     employee.
       (b) The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority 
     to prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (c) As used in this section, the term ``employee of the 
     House of Representatives'' means an employee whose pay is 
     disbursed by the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the 
     Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, 
     as applicable, except that such term does not include a 
     uniformed or civilian support employee under the Capitol 
     Police Board.
       (d) Payments under this section may be made with respect to 
     separations from employment taking place after June 30, 1995.
       Sec. 110. (a)(1) Effective on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the allowances for office personnel and equipment 
     for certain Members of the House of Representatives, as 
     adjusted through the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, are further adjusted as specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) The further adjustments referred to in paragraph (1) 
     are as follows:
       (A) The allowance for the majority leader is increased by 
     $167,532.
       (B) The allowance for the majority whip is decreased by 
     $167,532.
       (b)(1) Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the House of Representatives allowances referred to in 
     paragraph (2), as adjusted through the day before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, are further adjusted, or are 
     established, as the case may be, as specified in paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) The further adjustments and the establishment referred 
     to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
       (A) The allowance for the Republican Conference is 
     increased by $134,491.
       (B) The allowance for the Republican Steering Committee is 
     established at $66,995.
       (C) The allowance for the Democratic Steering and Policy 
     Committee is increased by $201,430.
       (D) The allowance for the Democratic Caucus is increased by 
     $56.
                              JOINT ITEMS

       For Joint Committees, as follows:


                        joint economic committee

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee, 
     $3,000,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

                      joint committee on printing
                          [(transfer of funds)

       [For duties formerly carried out by the Joint Committee on 
     Printing, $750,000, to be divided into equal amounts and 
     transferred to the Committee on House Oversight of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate. For the purpose of carrying out 
     the functions of the Joint Committee on Printing for the 
     remainder of the One Hundred Fourth Congress only, the rules 
     and structure of the committee will apply.]
       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Printing, $1,164,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the 
     Senate.
                      joint committee on taxation

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation, [$6,019,000] $5,116,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Clerk of the House.
       For other joint items, as follows:

                   Office of the Attending Physician

       For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of 
     the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his 
     assistants, including (1) an allowance of $1,500 per month to 
     the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $500 per month 
     each to two medical officers while on duty in the Attending 
     Physician's office; (3) an allowance of $500 per month to one 
     assistant and $400 per month each to not to exceed nine 
     assistants on the basis heretofore provided for such 
     assistance; and (4) $852,000 for reimbursement to the 
     Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and 
     equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician, 
     which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable 
     appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries, 
     allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be 
     available for all the purposes thereof, $1,260,000, to be 
     disbursed by the Clerk of the House.
                          Capitol Police Board

                             Capitol Police

                                salaries

       For the Capitol Police Board for salaries, including 
     overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, clothing allowance 
     of not more than $600 each for members required to wear 
     civilian attire, and Government contributions to employees' 
     benefits funds, as authorized by law, of officers, members, 
     and employees of the Capitol Police, [$70,132,000] 
     $69,825,000, of which [$34,213,000] $33,906,000 is provided 
     to the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, to 
     be disbursed by the Clerk of the House, and $35,919,000 is 
     provided to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the 
     Senate, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate: 
     Provided, That, of the amounts appropriated under this 
     heading, such amounts as may be necessary may be transferred 
     between the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives 
     and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, upon 
     approval of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.

                            general expenses

       For the Capitol Police Board for necessary expenses of the 
     Capitol Police, including motor vehicles, communications and 
     other equipment, uniforms, weapons, supplies, materials, 
     training, medical services, forensic services, stenographic 
     services, the employee assistance program, not more than 
     $2,000 for the awards program, postage, telephone service, 
     travel advances, relocation of instructor and liaison 
     personnel for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 
     and $85 per month for extra services performed for the 
     Capitol Police Board by an employee of the Sergeant at Arms 
     of the Senate or the House of Representatives designated by 
     the Chairman of the Board, [$2,560,000] $2,190,000, to be 
     disbursed by the Clerk of the House of Representatives: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the cost of basic training for the Capitol Police at the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

[[Page S10343]]
     for fiscal year 1996 shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     from funds available to the Department of the Treasury.


                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 111. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the 
     Capitol Police Board under the heading ``Capitol Police'' may 
     be transferred between the headings ``salaries'' and 
     ``general expenses'', upon approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.
           Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office

       For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service and 
     Special Services Office, $1,991,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That none of these funds 
     shall be used to employ more than forty individuals: Provided 
     further, That the Capitol Guide Board is authorized, during 
     emergencies, to employ not more than two additional 
     individuals for not more than one hundred twenty days each, 
     and not more than ten additional individuals for not more 
     than six months each, for the Capitol Guide Service.
                        administrative provision

        Sec. 112. (a) Section 441 of the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1970 (40 U.S.C. 851) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) In addition to any other function under this section, 
     the Capitol Guide Service shall provide special services to 
     Members of Congress, and to officers, employees, and guests 
     of Congress.''.
       (b) Section 310 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
     Act, 1990 (2 U.S.C. 130e) is repealed.
       (c) The amendment made by subsection (a) and the repeal 
     made by subsection (b) shall take effect on October 1, 1995.
                      Statements of Appropriations

       For the preparation, under the direction of the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, of the statements for the first session of 
     the One Hundred Fourth Congress, showing appropriations made, 
     indefinite appropriations, and contracts authorized, together 
     with a chronological history of the regular appropriations 
     bills as required by law, $30,000, to be paid to the persons 
     designated by the chairmen of such committees to supervise 
     the work.
                       [Administrative Provision

       [Sec. 112. (a) Section 441 of the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1970 (40 U.S.C. 851) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       [``(k) In addition to any other function under this 
     section, the Capitol Guide Service shall provide special 
     services to Members of Congress, and to officers, employees, 
     and guests of Congress.''.
       [(b) Section 310 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
     Act, 1990 (2 U.S.C. 130e) is repealed.
       [(c) The amendment made by subsection (a) and the repeal 
     made by subsection (b) shall take effect on October 1, 1995.]
                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as 
     authorized by section 305 of Public Law 104-1, the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), 
     $2,500,000.
                    OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     orderly closure of the Office of Technology Assessment, 
     $3,615,000, of which $150,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1997. Upon enactment of this Act, $2,500,000 of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 103-
     283 shall remain available until September 30, 1996: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be available for salaries or expenses of any employee 
     of the Office of Technology Assessment in excess of 17 
     employees except for severance pay purposes.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 113. Upon enactment of this Act all employees of the 
     Office of Technology Assessment for 183 days preceding 
     termination of employment who are terminated as a result of 
     the elimination of the Office and who are not otherwise 
     gainfully employed may continue to be paid by the Office of 
     Technology Assessment at their respective salaries for a 
     period not to exceed 60 calendar days following the 
     employee's date of termination or until the employee becomes 
     otherwise gainfully employed whichever is earlier. A 
     statement in writing to the Director of the Office of 
     Technology Assessment or his designee by any such employee 
     that he was not gainfully employed during such period or the 
     portion thereof for which payment is claimed shall be 
     accepted as prima facie evidence that he was not so employed.
       Sec. 114. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, 
     or any other provision of law, upon the abolition of the 
     Office of Technology Assessment, all records and property of 
     that agency (including Unix system, all computer hardware and 
     software, all library collections and research materials, and 
     all photocopying equipment), with the exception of realty and 
     furniture, are hereby transferred to the jurisdiction and 
     control of the Library of Congress, Congressional Research 
     Service, to be used and employed in connection with its 
     functions.
                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public 
     Law 93-344), including not to exceed $2,500 to be expended on 
     the certification of the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses, [$23,188,000] $25,788,000: Provided, That 
     none of these funds shall be available for the purchase or 
     hire of a passenger motor vehicle: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available for salaries 
     or expenses of any employee of the Congressional Budget 
     Office in excess of [219] 244 full-time equivalent positions: 
     Provided further, That any sale or lease of property, 
     supplies, or services to the Congressional Budget Office 
     shall be deemed to be a sale or lease of such property, 
     supplies, or services to the Congress subject to section 903 
     of Public Law 98-63: Provided further, That the Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office shall have the authority, 
     within the limits of available appropriations, to dispose of 
     surplus or obsolete personal property by inter-agency 
     transfer, donation, or discarding.
       [In addition, for salaries and expenses of the 
     Congressional Budget Office necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of title I of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
     1995 (Public Law 104-4), as authorized by section 109 of such 
     Act, $1,100,000.]
                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. [113] 115. Section 8402(c) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office may 
     exclude from the operation of this chapter an employee under 
     the Congressional Budget Office whose employment is temporary 
     or intermittent.''.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                 Office of the Architect of the Capitol

                                salaries

       For the Architect of the Capitol, the Assistant Architect 
     of the Capitol, and other personal services, at rates of pay 
     provided by law, [$8,569,000] $8,876,000.

                                 travel

       Appropriations under the control of the Architect of the 
     Capitol shall be available for expenses of travel on official 
     business not to exceed in the aggregate under all funds the 
     sum of $20,000.

                          Contingent Expenses

       To enable the Architect of the Capitol to make surveys and 
     studies, and to meet unforeseen expenses in connection with 
     activities under his care, $100,000.

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds

                           capitol buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol and electrical substations of the 
     Senate and House office buildings, under the jurisdiction of 
     the Architect of the Capitol, including furnishings and 
     office equipment; including not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, to be expended as the 
     Architect of the Capitol may approve; purchase or exchange, 
     maintenance and operation of a passenger motor vehicle; and 
     attendance, when specifically authorized by the Architect of 
     the Capitol, at meetings or conventions in connection with 
     subjects related to work under the Architect of the Capitol, 
     [$22,832,000] $23,132,000, of which [$3,000,000] $2,950,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     hereafter expenses, based on full cost recovery, for flying 
     American flags and providing certification services therefor 
     shall be advanced or reimbursed upon request of the Architect 
     of the Capitol, and amounts so received shall be deposited 
     into the Treasury to the credit of this appropriation.

                            capitol grounds

       For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of 
     grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office 
     buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $5,143,000, of which 
     $25,000 shall remain available until expended.
                        senate office buildings

       For all necessary expenses for maintenance, care and 
     operation of Senate Office Buildings; and furniture and 
     furnishings to be expended under the control and supervision 
     of the Architect of the Capitol, $41,757,000, of which 
     $4,850,000 shall remain available until expended.
                         house office buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the House office buildings, $33,001,000, of 
     which $5,261,000 shall remain available until expended.

                          capitol power plant

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, 
     power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water 
     and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds 
     about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air 
     conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of 
     such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and 
     Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water 
     for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, Union 
     Station complex, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building 
     and the Folger Shakespeare Library, expenses for which shall 
     be advanced or reimbursed upon request of the Architect of 
     the Capitol and amounts so received shall 

[[Page S10344]]
     be deposited into the Treasury to the credit of this appropriation, 
     [$32,578,000] $31,518,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $4,000,000 of the funds credited or to be reimbursed to this 
     appropriation as herein provided shall be available for 
     obligation during fiscal year 1996.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                     Congressional Research Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated 
     Constitution of the United States of America, [$75,083,000] 
     $60,084,000: Provided, That no part of this appropriation may 
     be used to pay any salary or expense in connection with any 
     publication, or preparation of material therefor (except the 
     Digest of Public General Bills), to be issued by the Library 
     of Congress unless such publication has obtained prior 
     approval of either the Committee on House Oversight of the 
     House of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the compensation 
     of the Director of the Congressional Research Service, 
     Library of Congress, shall be at an annual rate which is 
     equal to the annual rate of basic pay for positions at level 
     IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding

       For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of Congressional information in any format; 
     printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol; 
     expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthly and session 
     index to the Congressional Record, as authorized by law (44 
     U.S.C. 902); printing and binding of Government publications 
     authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress; 
     and printing, binding, and distribution of Government 
     publications authorized by law to be distributed without 
     charge to the recipient, [$88,281,000] $85,500,000: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall not be available for paper 
     copies of the permanent edition of the Congressional Record 
     for individual [Senators,] Representatives, Resident 
     Commissioners or Delegates authorized under 44 U.S.C. 906: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred under the 
     appropriations for similar purposes for preceding fiscal 
     years.
       This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Operations 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.
                        TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES

                             BOTANIC GARDEN

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings, 
     grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange, 
     maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
     the Library, $3,053,000.
                        [Conservatory Renovation

       [For renovation of the Conservatory of the Botanic Garden, 
     $7,000,000, to be available to the Architect of the Capitol 
     without fiscal year limitation: Provided, That the total 
     amount appropriated for such renovation for this fiscal year 
     and later fiscal years may not exceed $21,000,000.]
                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 201. (a) Section 201 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (40 U.S.C. 216c note) is amended by 
     striking out ``$6,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$10,000,000''.
       (b) Section 307E(a)(1) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1989 (40 U.S.C. 216c(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking out ``plans'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``plants''.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress, not 
     otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance 
     of the Union Catalogs; custody and custodial care of the 
     Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and 
     repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the 
     custody of the Library; preparation and distribution of 
     catalog cards and other publications of the Library; hire or 
     purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and expenses of the 
     Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not properly chargeable 
     to the income of any trust fund held by the Board, 
     [$195,076,000 (less $1,165,000)] $213,164,000, of which not 
     more than $7,869,000 shall be derived from collections 
     credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 1996 under 
     the Act of June 28, 1902 (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 
     U.S.C. 150): Provided, That the total amount available for 
     obligation shall be reduced by the amount by which 
     collections are less than the $7,869,000: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount appropriated, $8,458,000 is to 
     remain available until expended for acquisition of books, 
     periodicals, and newspapers, and all other materials 
     including subscriptions for bibliographic services for the 
     Library, including $40,000 to be available solely for the 
     purchase, when specifically approved by the Librarian, of 
     special and unique materials for additions to the 
     collections.

                            Copyright Office

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, including 
     publication of the decisions of the United States courts 
     involving copyrights, $30,818,000, of which not more than 
     $16,840,000 shall be derived from collections credited to 
     this appropriation during fiscal year 1996 under 17 U.S.C. 
     708(c), and not more than $2,990,000 shall be derived from 
     collections during fiscal year 1996 under 17 U.S.C. 
     111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), and 1005: Provided, That the 
     total amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the 
     amount by which collections are less than $19,830,000: 
     Provided further, That up to $100,000 of the amount 
     appropriated is available for the maintenance of an 
     ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright Office 
     of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training 
     nationals of developing countries in intellectual property 
     laws and policies: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,250 may be expended on the certification of the Librarian 
     of Congress or his designee, in connection with official 
     representation and reception expenses for activities of the 
     International Copyright Institute.
             Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Act of March 3, 1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 
     U.S.C. 135a), $44,951,000, of which $11,694,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.
                       Furniture and Furnishings

       For necessary expenses for the purchase and repair of 
     furniture, furnishings, office and library equipment, 
     $4,882,000, of which $943,000 shall be available until 
     expended only for the purchase and supply of furniture, 
     shelving, furnishings, and related costs necessary for the 
     renovation and restoration of the Thomas Jefferson and John 
     Adams Library buildings.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 202. Appropriations in this Act available to the 
     Library of Congress shall be available, in an amount not to 
     exceed $194,290, of which $58,100 is for the Congressional 
     Research Service, when specifically authorized by the 
     Librarian, for attendance at meetings concerned with the 
     function or activity for which the appropriation is made.
       Sec. 203. (a) No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by the Library of Congress to administer any 
     flexible or compressed work schedule which--
         (1) applies to any manager or supervisor in a position 
     the grade or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15; 
     and
         (2) grants such manager or supervisor the right to not be 
     at work for all or a portion of a workday because of time 
     worked by the manager or supervisor on another workday.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``manager or 
     supervisor'' means any management official or supervisor, as 
     such terms are defined in section 7103(a) (10) and (11) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 204. Appropriated funds received by the Library of 
     Congress from other Federal agencies to cover general and 
     administrative overhead costs generated by performing 
     reimbursable work for other agencies under the authority of 
     31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536 shall not be used to employ more than 
     65 employees and may be expended or obligated--
         (1) in the case of a reimbursement, only to such extent 
     or in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; or
         (2) in the case of an advance payment, only--
         (A) to pay for such general or administrative overhead 
     costs as are attributable to the work performed for such 
     agency; or
         (B) to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in 
     appropriations Acts, with respect to any purpose not 
     allowable under subparagraph (A).
       Sec. 205. Not to exceed $5,000 of any funds appropriated to 
     the Library of Congress may be expended, on the certification 
     of the Librarian of Congress, in connection with official 
     representation and reception expenses for the Library of 
     Congress incentive awards program.
       Sec. 206. Not to exceed $12,000 of funds appropriated to 
     the Library of Congress may be expended, on the certification 
     of the Librarian of Congress or his designee, in connection 
     with official representation and reception expenses for the 
     Overseas Field Offices.
       Sec. 207. Under the heading ``Library of Congress'' 
     obligational authority shall be available, in an amount not 
     to exceed [$86,912,000] $99,412,000 for reimbursable and 
     revolving fund activities, and [$5,667,000] $7,295,000 for 
     non-expenditure transfer activities in support of 
     parliamentary development during the current fiscal year.
       Sec. 208. Notwithstanding this or any other Act, 
     obligational authority under the heading ``Library of 
     Congress'' for activities funded by the Agency for 
     International Development in support of parliamentary 
     development is prohibited, except for Russia, Ukraine, 
     Albania, Slovakia, [and Romania,] Romania, and Egypt for 
     other than incidental purposes.
       [Sec. 209. (a) Section 206 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (2 U.S.C. 132a-1) is amended by 
     striking out ``Effective'' and all that follows through 
     ``provided'', and inserting in lieu thereof ``Obligations for 
     reimbursable activities and revolving fund activities 
     performed by the Library of Congress and obligations 
     exceeding $100,000 for a fiscal year for any single gift 

[[Page S10345]]
     fund activity or trust fund activity performed by the Library of 
     Congress are limited to the amounts provided for such 
     purposes''.
       [(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     on October 1, 1996, and shall apply with respect to fiscal 
     years beginning on or after that date.]
       Sec. 209. The Library of Congress may for such employees as 
     it deems appropriate authorize a payment to employees who 
     voluntarily retire during fiscal 1996 which payment shall be 
     paid in accordance with the provisions of section 5597(d) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 210. (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to 
     reduce the cost of information support for the Congress by 
     eliminating duplication among systems which provide 
     electronic access by Congress to legislative information.
       (b) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the term 
     ``legislative information'' means information about 
     legislation prepared by, or on behalf of, the entire 
     Congress, or by the committees, subcommittees, or offices of 
     the Congress, to include, but not limited to, the text of 
     bills and amendments to bills; the Congressional Record; 
     legislative activity recorded for the Record and/or the 
     current Senate or House bill status systems; committee 
     hearings, reports, and prints.
       (c) Consistent with the provisions of any other law, the 
     Library of Congress shall develop and maintain, in 
     coordination with other appropriate Legislative Branch 
     entities, a single legislative information retrieval system 
     to serve the entire Congress.
       (d) The Library shall develop a plan for creation of this 
     system, taking into consideration the findings and 
     recommendations of the study directed by House Report No. 
     103-517 to identify and eliminate redundancies in 
     congressional information systems. This plan must be approved 
     by the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and the 
     House Oversight Committee. The Library shall provide these 
     committees, as well as the Senate and House Appropriations 
     Committees, with regular status reports on the implementation 
     of the plan.
       (e) In formulating its plan, the Library shall examine 
     issues regarding efficient ways to make this information 
     available to the public. This analysis shall be submitted to 
     the Senate and House Appropriations Committees as well as the 
     Senate Rules and Administration Committee and the House 
     Oversight Committee for their consideration and possible 
     action.
                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Library Buildings and Grounds

                     structural and mechanical care

       For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and 
     structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library 
     buildings and grounds, $12,428,000, of which $3,710,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                 Office of Superintendent of Documents

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents 
     necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of 
     Government publications and their distribution to the public, 
     Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and 
     designated depository and international exchange libraries as 
     authorized by law, [$16,312,000] $30,307,000: Provided, That 
     travel expenses, including travel expenses of the Depository 
     Library Council to the Public Printer, shall not exceed 
     $130,000: Provided further, That funds, not to exceed 
     $2,000,000, from current year appropriations are authorized 
     for producing and disseminating Congressional Serial Sets and 
     other related Congressional/non-Congressional publications 
     for 1994 and 1995 to depository and other designated 
     libraries.
                       [administrative provision

       [Sec. 210. The last paragraph of section 1903 of title 44, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking out the last 
     sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``The 
     cost of production and distribution for publications 
     distributed to depository libraries--
       [``(1) in paper or microfiche formats, whether or not such 
     publications are requisitioned from or through the Government 
     Printing Office, shall be borne by the components of the 
     Government responsible for their issuance; and
       [``(2) in other than paper or microfiche formats--
       [``(A) if such publications are requisitioned from or 
     through the Government Printing Office, shall be charged to 
     appropriations provided to the Superintendent of Documents 
     for that purpose; and]
       [``(B) if such publications are obtained elsewhere than 
     from the Government Printing Office, shall be borne by the 
     components of the Government responsible for their 
     issuance.''.]
               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make 
     such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and 
     in accord with the law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs and 
     purposes set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year 
     for the Government Printing Office revolving fund: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $2,500 may be expended on the 
     certification of the Public Printer in connection with 
     official representation and reception expenses: Provided 
     further, That the revolving fund shall be available for the 
     hire or purchase of passenger motor vehicles, not to exceed a 
     fleet of twelve: Provided further, That expenditures in 
     connection with travel expenses of the advisory councils to 
     the Public Printer shall be deemed necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of title 44, United States Code: Provided further, 
     That the revolving fund shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for level 
     V of the Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5316): Provided 
     further, That the revolving fund and the funds provided under 
     the headings ``Office of Superintendent of Documents'' and 
     ``salaries and expenses'' together may not be available for 
     the full-time equivalent employment of more than [3,550 
     workyears] 3,900 workyears by the end of fiscal year 1996: 
     Provided further, That activities financed through the 
     revolving fund may provide information in any format: 
     Provided further, That the revolving fund shall not be used 
     to administer any flexible or compressed work schedule which 
     applies to any manager or supervisor in a position the grade 
     or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15: Provided 
     further, That expenses for attendance at meetings shall not 
     exceed $75,000.
                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office, 
     including not to exceed $7,000 to be expended on the 
     certification of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for level IV of the Executive Sched- 
     ule (5 U.S.C. 5315); hire of one passenger motor vehicle; 
     advance payments in foreign countries in accordance with 31 
     U.S.C. 3324; benefits comparable to those payable under 
     sections 901(5), 901(6) and 901(8) of the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 4081(6) and 4081(8)); and under 
     regulations prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 
     United States, rental of living quarters in foreign countries 
     and travel benefits comparable with those which are now or 
     hereafter may be granted single employees of the Agency for 
     International Development, including single Foreign Service 
     personnel assigned to AID projects, by the Administrator of 
     the Agency for International Development--or his designee--
     under the authority of section 636(b) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2396(b)); [$392,864,000] 
     $374,406,000: Provided, That not more than $400,000 of 
     reimbursements received incident to the operation of the 
     General Accounting Office Building shall be available for use 
     in fiscal year 1996: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     31 U.S.C. 9105 hereafter amounts reimbursed to the 
     Comptroller General pursuant to that section shall be 
     deposited to the appropriation of the General Accounting 
     Office then available and remain available until expended, 
     and not more than $8,000,000 of such funds shall be available 
     for use in fiscal year 1996 and, in addition, the following 
     sums are appropriated, to be available for the fiscal year 
     beginning October 1, 1996 and ending September 30, 1997, for 
     the necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office, in 
     accordance with the authority, and on such terms and 
     conditions, as provided for in fiscal year 1996, including 
     $7,000 for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $338,425,400: Provided further, That not more than $100,000 
     of reimbursements received incident to the operation of the 
     General Accounting Office Building shall be available for use 
     in 1997: Provided further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     9105 hereafter amounts reimbursed to the Comptroller General 
     pursuant to that section shall be deposited to the 
     appropriation of the General Accounting Office then available 
     and remain available until expended, and not more than 
     $6,000,000 of such funds shall be available in fiscal year 
     1997: Provided further, That this appropriation and 
     appropriations for administrative expenses of any other 
     department or agency which is a member of the Joint Financial 
     Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) shall be available to 
     finance an appropriate share of JFMIP costs as determined by 
     the JFMIP, including the salary of the Executive Director and 
     secretarial support: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation and appropriations for administrative expenses 
     of any other department or agency which is a member of the 
     National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional 
     Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of Forum costs as determined by the 
     Forum, including necessary travel expenses of non-Federal 
     participants. Payments hereunder to either the Forum or the 
     JFMIP may be credited as reimbursements to any appropriation 
     from which costs involved are initially financed: Provided 
     further, That to the extent that funds are otherwise 
     available for obligation, agreements or contracts for the 
     removal of asbestos, and renovation of the building and 
     building systems (including the heating, ventilation and air 
     conditioning system, electrical system and other major 
     building systems) of the General Accounting Office Building 
     may be made for periods not exceeding five years: Provided 
     further, That this appropriation and appropriations for 
     administrative expenses of any other department or agency 
     which is a member of the American Consortium on International 
     Public Administration (ACIPA) shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of ACIPA costs as determined by the 
     ACIPA, including any expenses 

[[Page S10346]]
     attributable to membership of ACIPA in the International Institute of 
     Administrative Sciences.
                       [Administrative Provision]
                       Administrative Provisions
       [Sec. 211. (a) Effective June 30, 1996, the functions of 
     the Comptroller General identified in subsection (b) are 
     transferred to the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, contingent upon the additional transfer to the Office 
     of Management and Budget of such personnel, budget authority, 
     records, and property of the General Accounting Office 
     relating to such functions as the Comptroller General and the 
     Director jointly determine to be necessary. The Director may 
     delegate any such function, in whole or in part, to any other 
     agency or agencies if the Director determines that such 
     delegation would be cost-effective or otherwise in the public 
     interest, and may transfer to such agency or agencies any 
     personnel, budget authority, records, and property received 
     by the Director pursuant to the preceding sentence that 
     relate to the delegated functions. Personnel transferred 
     pursuant to this provision shall not be separated or reduced 
     in classification or compensation for one year after any such 
     transfer, except for cause.
       [(b) The following provisions of the United States Code 
     contain the functions to be transferred pursuant to 
     subsection (a): sections 5564 and 5583 of title 5; sections 
     2312, 2575, 2733, 2734, 2771, 4712, and 9712 of title 10; 
     sections 1626 and 4195 of title 22; section 420 of title 24; 
     sections 2414 and 2517 of title 28; sections 1304, 3702, 
     3726, and 3728 of title 31; sections 714 and 715 of title 32; 
     section 554 of title 37; section 5122 of title 38; and 
     section 256a of title 41.]
       Sec. 211. (a) Section 732 of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding a new subsection (h) as follows:
       ``(h) Notwithstanding the provisions of subchapter I of 
     chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, the Comptroller 
     General shall prescribe regulations for the release of 
     officers and employees of the General Accounting Office in a 
     reduction in force which give due effect to tenure of 
     employment, military preference, performance and/or 
     contributions to the agency's goals and objectives, and 
     length of service. The regulations shall, to the extent 
     deemed feasible by the Comptroller General, be designed to 
     minimize disruption to the Office and to assist in promoting 
     the efficiency of the Office.''.
       Sec. 212. Section 753 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as (c), 
     (d), and (e), respectively.
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) a new subsection (b) 
     as follows:
       ``(b) The Board has no authority to issue a stay of any 
     reduction in force action.''; and
       (3) in the second sentence of subsection (c), as 
     redesignated, by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(d)''.
       Sec. 213. The General Accounting Office may for such 
     officers and employees as it deems appropriate authorize a 
     payment to officers and employees who voluntarily separate on 
     or before September 30, 1995, whether by retirement or 
     resignation, which payment shall be paid in accordance with 
     the provisions of section 5597(d) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used for the maintenance or care of private 
     vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may 
     be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities 
     for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on 
     House Oversight and for the Senate issued by the Committee on 
     Rules and Administration.
       Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 303. Whenever any office or position not specifically 
     established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 is 
     appropriated for herein or whenever the rate of compensation 
     or designation of any position appropriated for herein is 
     different from that specifically established for such 
     position by such Act, the rate of compensation and the 
     designation of the position, or either, appropriated for or 
     provided herein, shall be the permanent law with respect 
     thereto: Provided, That the provisions herein for the various 
     items of official expenses of Members, officers, and 
     committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and 
     clerk hire for Senators and Members of the House of 
     Representatives shall be the permanent law with respect 
     thereto.
       Sec. 304. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 305. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 306. (a) Upon approval of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and in 
     accordance with conditions determined by the Committee on 
     House Oversight, positions in connection with House parking 
     activities and related funding shall be transferred from the 
     appropriation ``Architect of the Capitol, Capitol buildings 
     and grounds, House office buildings'' to the appropriation 
     ``House of Representatives, salaries, officers and employees, 
     Office of the Sergeant at Arms'': Provided, That the position 
     of Superintendent of Garages shall be subject to 
     authorization in annual appropriation Acts.
       (b) For purposes of section 8339(m) of title 5, United 
     States Code, the days of unused sick leave to the credit of 
     any such employee as of the date such employee is transferred 
     under subsection (a) shall be included in the total service 
     of such employee in connection with the computation of any 
     annuity under subsections (a) through (e) and (o) of such 
     section.
       (c) In the case of days of annual leave to the credit of 
     any such employee as of the date such employee is transferred 
     under subsection (a) the Architect of the Capitol is 
     authorized to make a lump sum payment to each such employee 
     for that annual leave. No such payment shall be considered a 
     payment or compensation within the meaning of any law 
     relating to dual compensation.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the relocation of the office of any Member of the 
     House of Representatives within the House office buildings.
       [Sec. 308. (a)(1) Effective October 1, 1995, the unexpended 
     balances of appropriations specified in paragraph (2) are 
     transferred to the appropriation for general expenses of the 
     Capitol Police, to be used for design and installation of 
     security systems for the Capitol buildings and grounds.
       [(2) The unexpended balances referred to in paragraph (1) 
     are--
       [(A) the unexpended balance of appropriations for security 
     installations, as referred to in the paragraph under the 
     heading ``capitol buildings'', under the general headings 
     ``JOINT ITEMS'', ``ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL'', and ``Capitol 
     Buildings and Grounds'' in title I of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (108 Stat. 1434), including any 
     unexpended balance from a prior fiscal year and any 
     unexpended balance under such headings in this Act; and]
       [(B) the unexpended balance of the appropriation for an 
     improved security plan, as transferred to the Architect of 
     the Capitol by section 102 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1989 (102 Stat. 2165).
       [(b) Effective October 1, 1995, the responsibility for 
     design and installation of security systems for the Capitol 
     buildings and grounds is transferred from the Architect of 
     the Capitol to the Capitol Police Board. Such design and 
     installation shall be carried out under the direction of the 
     Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, 
     and without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of 
     the United States (41 U.S.C. 5). On and after October 1, 
     1995, any alteration to a structural, mechanical, or 
     architectural feature of the Capitol buildings and grounds 
     that is required for a security system under the preceding 
     sentence may be carried out only with the approval of the 
     Architect of the Capitol.
       [(c)(1) Effective October 1, 1995, all positions specified 
     in paragraph (2) and each individual holding any such 
     position (on a permanent basis) immediately before that date, 
     as identified by the Architect of the Capitol, shall be 
     transferred to the Capitol Police.]
       [(2) The positions referred to in paragraph (1) are those 
     positions which, immediately before October 1, 1995, are--
       [(A) under the Architect of the Capitol;
       [(B) within the Electronics Engineering Division of the 
     Office of the Architect of the Capitol; and
       [(C) related to the design or installation of security 
     systems for the Capitol buildings and grounds.
       [(3) All annual leave and sick leave standing to the credit 
     of an individual immediately before such individual is 
     transferred under paragraph (1) shall be credited to such 
     individual, without adjustment, in the new position of the 
     individual.]
       Sec. [309] 308. (a) Section 230(a) of the Congressional 
     Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1371(a)) is amended by 
     striking out ``Administrative Conference of the United 
     States'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Board''.
       (b) Section 230(d)(1) of the Congressional Accountability 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1371(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``Administrative Conference of the 
     United States'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Board''; and
       (2) by striking out ``and shall submit the study and 
     recommendations to the Board''.
       Sec. [310] 309. Section 122(d) of the Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-110; 2 U.S.C. 141 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``The Provost Marshal (U.S. Army Military Police), 
     Fort George G. Meade, is authorized to police the real 
     property, including improvements thereon, transferred under 
     subsection (a), and to make arrests on the said real property 
     and within any improvements situated thereon for any 
     violation of any law of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, or any State, or of any regulation promulgated 
     pursuant thereto, and such authority shall be construed as 
     authorizing the Provost Marshal, with the consent or upon the 
     request of the Librarian 

[[Page S10347]]
     of Congress or his assistants, to enter any improvements situated on 
     the said real property that are under the jurisdiction of the 
     Library of Congress to make arrests or to patrol such 
     structures.''.
       [Sec. 311. (a)(1) Effective as prescribed by paragraph (2), 
     the administrative jurisdiction over the property described 
     in subsection (b), known as the Botanic Garden, is 
     transferred, without reimbursement, to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture. After such transfer, the Botanic Garden shall 
     continue as a scientific display garden to inform and educate 
     visitors and the public as to the value of plants to the 
     well-being of humankind and the natural environment.
       [(2) The transfer referred to in paragraph (1) shall take 
     effect--
       [(A) on October 1, 1996, with respect to the property 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A); and
       [(B) on the later of October 31, 1996, or the date of the 
     conveyance described in subsection (b)(1)(B), with respect to 
     the property described in that subsection.
       [(b)(1) The property referred to in subsection (a)(1) is 
     the property consisting of--
       [(A) Square 576 in the District of Columbia (bounded by 
     Maryland Avenue on the north, First Street on the east, 
     Independence Avenue on the south, and Third Street on the 
     west) and Square 578 in the District of Columbia (bounded by 
     Independence Avenue on the north, First Street on the east, 
     and Washington Avenue on the southwest), other than the 
     property included in the Capitol Grounds by paragraph (20) of 
     the first section of Public Law 96-432 (40 U.S.C. 193a note);
       [(B) the site known as the Botanic Garden Nursery at D.C. 
     Village, consisting of 25 acres located at 4701 Shepherd 
     Parkway, S.W., Washington, D.C. (formerly part of a tract of 
     land known as Parcel 253/26), which site is to be conveyed by 
     the District of Columbia to the Architect of the Capitol 
     pursuant to Public Law 98-340 (40 U.S.C. 215 note);
       [(C) all buildings, structures, and other improvements 
     located on the property described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), respectively; and
       [(D) all equipment and other personal property that, 
     immediately before the transfer under this section, is 
     located on the property described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), respectively, and is under the control of the Architect 
     of the Capitol, acting under the direction of the Joint 
     Committee on the Library.
       [(c) Not later than the date of the conveyance to the 
     Architect of the Capitol of the property described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B), the Architect of the Capitol and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into an agreement to 
     permit the retention by the Architect of the Capitol of a 
     portion of that property for legislative branch storage and 
     support facilities and expansion of such facilities, and 
     facilities to be developed for use by the Capitol Police.
       [(d)(1) Effective October 1, 1996, all employee positions 
     specified in paragraph (2) and each individual holding any 
     such position (on a permanent basis) immediately before the 
     transfer, as identified by the Architect of the Capitol, 
     shall be transferred to the Department of Agriculture.
       [(2) The employee positions referred to in paragraph (1) 
     are those positions which, immediately before October 1, 
     1996, are under the Architect of the Capitol and are 
     primarily related to the functions of the Botanic Garden.
       [(3) All annual leave and sick leave standing to the credit 
     of an individual immediately before such individual is 
     transferred under paragraph (1) shall be credited to such 
     individual, without adjustment, in the new position of the 
     individual.
       [(e)(1) Notwithstanding the transfer under this section, 
     and without regard to the laws specified in paragraph (2), 
     the Architect of the Capitol shall retain full authority for 
     completing, under plans approved by the Architect, the 
     National Garden authorized by section 307E of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (40 U.S.C. 216c), including 
     the renovation of the Conservatory of the Botanic Garden 
     under section 209(b) of Public Law 102-229 (40 U.S.C. 216c 
     note). In carrying out the preceding sentence, the 
     Architect--
       [(A) shall have full responsibility for design, 
     construction management and supervision, and acceptance of 
     gifts;
       [(B) shall inform the Secretary of Agriculture from time to 
     time of the progress of the work involved; and
       [(C) shall notify the Secretary of Agriculture when, as 
     determined by the Architect, the National Garden, including 
     the renovation of the Conservatory of the Botanic Garden, is 
     complete.
       [(2) The laws referred to in paragraph (1) are section 2 of 
     the Act entitled ``An Act providing for a comprehensive 
     development of the park and playground system of the National 
     Capital.'', approved June 6, 1924 (40 U.S.C. 71a), and the 
     first section of the Act entitled ``An Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts.'', approved May 17, 1910 (40 U.S.C. 
     104).
       [(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), effective 
     October 1, 1996, the unexpended balances of appropriations 
     for the Botanic Garden are transferred to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       [(2) Any unexpended balances of appropriations for 
     completion of the National Garden, including the Conservatory 
     of the Botanic Garden, under subsection (e) shall remain 
     under the Architect of the Capitol.
       [(g) After the transfer under this section--
       [(1) under such terms and conditions as the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may impose, including a requirement for payment 
     of fees for the benefit of the Botanic Garden, the National 
     Garden and the Conservatory of the Botanic Garden shall be 
     available for receptions sponsored by Members of Congress; 
     and
       [(2) the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Botanic 
     Garden, shall continue, with reimbursement, to propagate and 
     provide such plant materials as the Architect may require for 
     the United States Capitol Grounds, and such indoor plant 
     materials and cut flowers as are authorized by policies of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate.]
       Sec. [312] 310. Any amount appropriated in this Act for 
     ``HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members' 
     Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for 
     fiscal year 1996. Any amount remaining after all payments are 
     made under such allowances for such fiscal year shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury, to be used for deficit reduction.
       Sec. 311. Section 316 of Public Law 101-302 is amended in 
     the first sentence of subsection (a) by striking ``1995'' and 
     inserting ``1996''.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be considered, en bloc, agreed to, en bloc, and 
considered original text for the purpose of further amendment, and that 
no points of order be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that we are happy to have 
the managers here this morning on the first appropriations bill. We 
hope to dispose of six appropriations bills before the August recess. 
This is certainly an indication that we are on target. We had these 
bills scheduled for tomorrow. We will do them today. Maybe we can do 
something else tomorrow. I wish the managers success, and I hope we can 
do it quickly.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida 
[Mr. Mack].
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 1996 
legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 1854, to the Senate. 
Simply put, with this bill the Congress leads the way in fulfilling our 
commitment to reduce the size, scope, and cost of the Federal 
Government.
  But, of equal importance to keeping our promise to the American 
people in reducing the size and cost of Congress is making these 
reductions in a thoughtful and responsible manner. The bill we present 
today does not compromise the legislative and oversight 
responsibilities of Congress.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to describe the approach 
the committee took in arriving at these funding levels. This past 
January, I sent a letter to each of the Senate officers and legislative 
branch support agencies asking them to undergo a serious programmatic 
review of each of their activities and services they provide to 
Congress.
  In doing so, they were asked to take a long and hard look at their 
core missions and statutory responsibilities. They were asked to 
explore ways of using technologies to make their operations more 
efficient and productive. They were asked to explore opportunities for 
consolidation and restructuring of their functions and services. 
Following their top to bottom review, the results were incorporated 
into new budget justifications which were presented in hearings before 
the subcommittee.
  I am deeply appreciative to each of the Senate officers and agency 
heads. I want to thank in particular the former Secretary of the 
Senate, Ms. Sheila Burke and her successor, Mr. Kelly Johnston, and the 
Senate Sergeant at Arms, Howard O. Greene, for their cooperation. These 
offices met, and even exceeded their goals of reducing their budgets by 
12.5 percent. Without their commitment and the dedication of their 
respective staffs the committee would not have been able to produce the 
legislation that the Senate considers today.
  Mr. President, as any member of the committee will tell you, these 
decisions were not easy. But, we have, in great measure, accomplished 
what we set out to do, respond to the clear and unmistakable message 
sent by the American people last November--change the way we do 
business here in Washington, reduce spending, and bring runaway 
spending in control and balance the Federal budget. 

[[Page S10348]]

  I would like to summarize the highlights of the bill:
  The total funding for the legislative branch appropriation is 
$2,190,380,000, a reduction of just over $200 million or 8.45 percent 
below the fiscal year 1995 level.
  For the funding of the operations of the Senate the committee's 
recommendation is $426.9 million a $33.7 million reduction. In 
addition, the committee rescinds $63.5 million of unobligated funds 
from previous years.
  Within the Senate accounts the funding for committees reflects a 15-
percent reduction. As I have already mentioned, the funding for the 
offices of the Secretary of the Senate and Sergeant at Arms are reduced 
by 12.5 percent.
  Again, I want to reiterate or make the point that these reductions 
are from this year's level. This is not some reduction from some 
arbitrary, inflated baseline. These are reductions from this year's 
expenditures.
  Mr. President, in last years bill the Senate passed into law a ban on 
unsolicited mass mailing which has resulted in tens of millions of 
dollars in savings to the taxpayer. Again, this year the committee 
freezes official mail cost at $11 million.
  The statutory allowances for Senator's offices are not reduced. The 
recommended funding for Members' office salaries and expenses should be 
sufficient to cover fiscal year 1996 expenditures.
  Mr. President, S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, which was 
passed into law early this year, mandates that Congress comply with the 
very same employment and labor laws that private businesses must comply 
with. And, just like businesses all around the country, there is a cost 
to compliance. This bill includes $2.5 million appropriation for the 
establishment of the new Office of Compliance. This is a new joint item 
with the House. Each Member should be aware that the costs associated 
with the Congressional Accountability Act will require future increases 
in expenditures. The committee has included report language that 
directs the offices of the Senate to make regular reports to the 
committee regarding issues of compliance and associated costs.
  As to the major support agencies of Congress: the Library of Congress 
has level funding compared to fiscal year 1995, with the exception of 
$3 million increase for the National Digital Library Program. I want to 
commend the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, for his 
efforts in strengthening the Library and the services it provides to 
the Nation. The digital library effort is one of several forward 
thinking programs initiated by the Library of Congress which will 
insure the Library's position as one of our leading institutions.
  We have included a $2.6 million increase for the Congressional Budget 
Office so that it may perform studies mandated by the Unfunded Mandate 
Reform Act.
  The GAO is reduced 15 percent from fiscal year 1995 levels and we 
have included an advance appropriation for fiscal year 1997 which will 
result in a two year reduction of 25 percent.
  The Office of Technology Assessment is eliminated in the bill. The 
committee has included termination costs in fiscal year 1996 which 
total $3.6 million.
  Mr. President, each Member of the Senate should know that this bill 
complies with the specifics of the Senate budget resolution which 
provides a dramatic and necessary outline for balancing the Federal 
budget by the year 2002. The budget resolution specifies the reductions 
to the General Accounting Office and the elimination of the Office of 
Technology Assessment.
  In regards to the two year 25 percent reduction in the funding for 
the General Accounting Office, I want to thank Senator Roth, chairman 
of the Government Affairs Committee, and his staff for their 
cooperation in identifying and recommending needed changes at GAO. With 
their assistance, I am confident that the GAO will be able to perform 
its core statutory mission.
  Also, I want to thank the Comptroller General, Charles Bowsher, for 
his help. He will tell you that the funding levels will be difficult 
and will force structural changes, but he is committed to making the 
General Accounting Office the model for the rest of the Federal 
Government in productivity and efficiency as we continue to restructure 
and downsize the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, I expect an amendment to be offered that restores 
funding for the Office of Technology Assessment. I know that there are 
Members who feel strongly about this issue and we will debate the 
merits should it be offered. I must point out to the Members of the 
Senate that the Senate budget resolution specifies the elimination of 
OTA, and quite frankly, the services and information that OTA provides 
can be obtained from a great variety of sources that do not require a 
$21 million dollars expenditure.
  Mr. President, while this bill accomplishes our stated goal of 
reducing Congressional spending by $200 million, much more needs to be 
done in the coming year. While the office of the Architect of the 
Capitol is reduced by 10 percent in title I of this bill, the Congress 
will undertake a much more thorough review of its structure and 
organization by way of a Joint House-Senate Leadership Taskforce. The 
taskforce will, with the assistance of the Architect of the Capitol, 
identify services and operations that could be more cost efficiently 
performed by outside contractors.
  The committee report also directs the Government Printing Office to 
initiate a study to analyze the structure and services of the 
Superintendent of Documents and the Federal Depository Library Program; 
the program which assures the American people ready and dependable 
access to government information.
  While the committee would have preferred to make more substantial 
changes to the structure and funding of the Architect of the Capitol 
and the Government Printing Office, we clearly need more information 
before making these decision. Finally, I want to thank our ranking 
member, Senator Murray, as well as the other members of the 
subcommittee, for their hard work and cooperation in crafting this 
measure. Additionally, this year's bill builds upon the years of hard 
work and dedication of Senator Reid, our former chairman. Senator Reid 
extended a great deal of time and cooperation to me as ranking member, 
and I thank him for that.
  Mr. President, I would yield the floor to our ranking member and 
floor manager, Senator Murray, for any statement she would wish to 
make.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the H.R. 1854, the fiscal year 
1996 Legislative branch appropriation bill. I note that this is not the 
first year in which the committee has made the effort to constrain the 
spending of the legislative branch. As Senator Mack stated last year in 
his opening floor remarks on the fiscal year 1995 legislative branch 
appropriation bill, ``This is the fourth year in a row now that we have 
held funding at or below the previous year's levels in real dollars.'' 
Mr. President, that means that this is the fifth year in a row that the 
Senate Appropriations Committee has reported a bill in which we have 
held funding at or below the previous year's levels--in fact, this year 
the committee-reported bill is over $200 million below the level 
enacted for fiscal year 1995.
  The chairman has provided in his remarks a detailed explanation of 
all of the recommendations contained in the committee-reported bill. 
Without repeating those details, I would simply direct all members to a 
summary table on pages 65 and 66 of the committee report for the two 
titles of the bill. For title I, congressional operations, the 
committee recommends a total of a little over $1.5 billion. That is a 
reduction of $126 million below the fiscal year 1995 appropriated level 
and $275 million below the total budget estimates for fiscal year 1996 
for congressional operations. Title II of the bill, as shown on page 66 
of the report, provides funding for other agencies for which the 
committee recommends a total of $686 million. In total, as is depicted 
in the summary table, the bill as reported by the full committee 
provides $2.1 billion, a reduction of just over $200 million below the 
fiscal year 1995 enacted bill and a reduction of $427 million below the 
budget estimates for fiscal year 1996.
  There are a number of differences between the House-passed bill and 
the committee's recommendations, several 

[[Page S10349]]
of which I would now like to address. First, for the Architect of the 
Capitol, the House bill did not fund the operations of the Flag Office. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee chose, instead, to continue that 
office but with the cost of this operation fully covered by the prices 
charged to the public for the flags themselves.
  For certain security functions of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
House bill recommended the transfer of staff from the Architect of the 
Capitol to the Capitol Police. The Senate committee-reported bill 
disagrees with that recommendation and has left that security function 
within the Office of the Architect.
  The committee-reported bill does not agree with the House 
recommendation that the Botanic Garden be transferred to the Department 
of Agriculture. In addition, the House provided $7 million for the 
renovation of the Conservatory and capped the total project at $21 
million. The Senate committee-reported bill has deleted all funding for 
that purpose.
  Finally, Mr. President, for the Office of Technology Assessment 
(OTA), the House-passed bill included a floor amendment which provided 
for the continuation of the functions of the OTA within the 
Congressional Research Service at a level of $15 million. H.R. 1854, as 
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, includes a total of 
just over $6 million for the OTA. This amount will allow for the 
orderly completion and distribution of approximately 30 reports which 
the OTA is currently undertaking and a maximum of 17 employees is 
provided for closing the Office. In addition, from within the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1996, $150,000 is recommended to remain 
available until September 30, 1997, to provide for unemployment claims 
that may arise.
  I would note, however, that during the committee markup of the bill, 
an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, 
Senator Hollings, which I supported, would have provided $15 million 
for the OTA--the cost of which was offset by a 1.08-percent reduction 
of the salaries and expenses of certain of the congressional support 
agencies. That amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 11-13.
  I believe that the OTA provides a valuable service for the Congress 
on a bipartisan basis and I will have more to say during this debate 
about the OTA in support of an amendment which I anticipate may be 
offered to overturn the committee's recommendation.
  In conclusion, I again compliment the very able chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Mack. I have learned a lot during my first year 
as ranking member of this subcommittee, and I am pleased that we have 
been able to do our share in carefully examining the expenditures of 
the legislative branch to ensure that they are cost-effective and, 
where possible, we have recommended reductions in keeping with our 
overall efforts to reduce Federal spending.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, are there committee amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from West 
Virginia that they have been adopted en bloc.
  Mr. BYRD. The bill, as amended, is open to amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment.
  Mr. President on previous occasions, I have come to the Senate floor 
to speak on the matter of honoraria and outside income earned by the 
media. While no overall disclosure policy exists within the 
communications industry, there does seem to be more scrutiny being paid 
to the practice of the press in accepting speaking fees.
  It is an issue of increasing concern to me, and one that I believe 
deserves closer attention. I suspect that most journalists would agree 
that they have a unique and often unequaled influence on the American 
public. There is no match--none--no match for the leverage the media 
have over the public dissemination of information.
 In order to stay attuned with current events, we all must rely on the 
press' interpretation of each day's occurrences.

  Some members of the press take the position that, as private 
citizens, they have no obligation--none--to disclose information to the 
public regarding the acceptance of outside income. Although I can 
appreciate that line of thinking, it represents a defensive position 
that has little basis in reality. From my point of view, the members of 
the media need to adopt a position regarding such income, a position 
that reflects some common sense. Of course, in a perfect world, all of 
us who affect public policy, either through the elective process or 
through the interpretation of that process, want to be thought of as 
being above reproach. We all want our work to be seen as benefiting the 
common good and, as a result, we do not expect our motives to be 
challenged. Unfortunately, human nature has to be factored into the 
equation. There is no doubt that the American people have a negative 
opinion of elected officials and a negative opinion of the press. Some 
of that attitude is well founded. Let us be honest, there are members 
of both of these professions who have behaved unethically in the past 
and thus have tainted all of us. There is no avoiding this fact, and to 
pretend otherwise is not only unrealistic but it is also disingenuous.
  In response to the public's criticism, Members of Congress adopted 
disclosure rules that prohibit their acceptance of honoraria. I led the 
fight. This action was seen by some politicians at the time as an 
overreaction to criticism and an unnecessary effort, but the prevailing 
attitude was to let the sunshine in and take away the appearance of 
unethical behavior. In point of fact, the Congress has gone even 
further, as I say, by adopting legislation that I sponsored to increase 
the salaries of Members of Congress, but also to prohibit the 
acceptance of honoraria, prohibit it entirely. That was my amendment.
  Many members of the press, however, have adopted the position that, 
as private citizens, they should not be subject to this type of 
scrutiny. Though they are not elected officials, nevertheless, in 
reality they do retain a great deal of influence, massive influence 
within the political process. It is singularly the media's decision as 
to which topics of information are noteworthy and, as such, which 
topics should be reported on. As purveyors of the news, the press have 
enormous power, enormous power to persuade--far greater, in fact, than 
does any single politician, or group of politicians.
  Edmund Burke recognized this when he referred to the fourth estate as 
having more power than any of the other estates.
  It is this very power, unchecked and freewheeling, that journalists 
can no longer ignore and brush aside. There is as much need for the 
press to be made accountable to the public as there is for elected 
officials to be made accountable to the public. To resist public 
disclosure--that is all I am asking, just disclose outside earned 
income--to resist public disclosure as a matter of principle is unwise. 
Principle, however, is on the other side of the issue.
  We all know that nothing gives a greater feeling of credibility than 
the willingness to show that there is nothing to hide. Lay it out. I 
have urged the members of the press to recognize their extraordinary 
position in our system of Government, and to face the inherent 
responsibility that comes with that position. I believe it is time for 
the communications industry as a whole to take the bull by the horns 
and develop its own standards. That is what I would like to see happen; 
the communications industry should develop its own standards with 
respect to disclosure of outside earned income. Journalists should 
forgo the narrow defense of their individual freedoms and face up to 
the broader obligation of trust which they bear in our political 
process.
  I am offering an amendment, Mr. President, and it is a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment--today--regarding the disclosure of outside income 
earned by accredited members of the Senate press corps. I am not 
talking about salaries. This does not infringe on anybody's 
constitutional rights. It does not infringe upon the freedom of the 
press, as set forth in the American Bill of Rights. There is nothing in 
that Bill of Rights that says you should not have an accounting to the 
public of some things. 

[[Page S10350]]

  This amendment is intended to provide a ``truth in reporting 
requirement'' for the media that cover this institution, this Senate. I 
repeat that I have grown increasingly concerned with the communication 
industry's inability or unwillingness to adopt ethical standards that 
properly reflect their role in our system of Government. In this day of 
instant access, the media's leverage over the dissemination of 
information is unequaled. Their power of persuasion goes well beyond 
the newspaper headlines or the nightly news report or the radio talk 
show. The members of the media, as the purveyors of our daily news, 
singularly decide which items are newsworthy and, as such, which items 
deserve the attention of the public.
  Today's press, as I have said already, have enormous power, enormous 
power. There is nothing like it anywhere in the world. And it is time 
that they acknowledge the responsibility that comes with that power. 
Coupled with that fact is the American people's increasing cynicism of 
Washington. At a time when the public's distrust of Members of Congress 
and the public's distrust of journalists is at an all-time high, I 
believe it is important to take the necessary steps to instill 
confidence in the process of Government. Over the years, the press have 
been exceedingly critical--and rightly so--of particular elected 
officials who have abused their positions.
  In 1991, in an effort to address the appearance of impropriety, the 
Congress passed legislation installing disclosure requirements that 
prohibit any Member from accepting compensation from outside groups. 
That was a positive step. Though there was resistance to this 
prohibition, the prevailing attitude was, as I said earlier, to let a 
little sunshine work its way into the Chamber
 and to take away the appearance of unethical behavior.

  Recently, there have been reports of journalists receiving thousands 
of dollars in speaking fees, thousands of dollars in speaking fees from 
the very groups that they are covering. Despite this apparent conflict, 
some members--not all, but some members--of the press take the position 
that, as a private citizen they have no obligation--no obligation--to 
disclose information regarding their acceptance of outside earned 
income. They say, ``That is nobody else's business. I am a private 
citizen. The public has no business in knowing what I take in speaking 
fees.''
  The impetus for my amendment is neither an attempt to hamper the 
media's ability to do their job nor is it an effort to infringe in any 
way upon their first amendment rights. Instead, the goal of the 
amendment is simply to apply a level of credibility to the press that 
reflects the importance of their profession.
  It is my hope that there can be consensus in the Senate in requiring 
the media to disclose their earned outside income. And I intend to 
offer a separate Senate resolution that would, hopefully, lead to the 
establishment of disclosure rules starting with the 104th Congress and 
set into place rules for a yearly filing by reporters who seek 
credentialing with the Senate Press Gallery.
  I am not attempting to have any impact upon the House and its rules 
or regulations. But I would anticipate that the Rules Committee in the 
Senate would then hold hearings to ensure a complete airing of all 
views on the subject. Come one, come all. Let us hear what you have to 
say. Let us work together.
  This is not an attempt to sandbag the press or to prevent their input 
or to influence their input. The point of this amendment is to show 
that it is time for the media to be accountable. I would prefer that 
they would voluntarily take the steps to make themselves accountable. I 
hope they will do that. But right now--today--their sphere of influence 
is unfettered and unequal.
  For the press to simply resist public disclosure on a matter of 
principle is unwise, and it is unacceptable. I believe that the entire 
industry must realize its full responsibility--its full 
responsibility--to its viewers, to its readers, and to its listeners.
  In light of that, this amendment is a beginning in the effort to 
address at the very least the perception of a media double standard. 
The media were right in saying that we elected officials ought to be 
accountable to the public, that we ought to disclose how much this 
group pays us for an appearance, or how much this group pays us for 
having a cup of coffee downtown at some club. We ought to disclose how 
much this or that group pays us for a 10-minute speech or for a 30-
minute speech. Lay it out.
  My amendment went further. At first we disclose it. And then my 
amendment said we will eliminate entirely the acceptance of honoraria 
for ourselves and on the part of our staffs. I am not saying the same 
with respect to the press. I am not saying they should eliminate it. I 
am simply saying they should disclose it. Let the sunshine in. Let 
their colleagues, let their coworkers know. Let everybody know. Let the 
public know.
  It is time for journalists to forgo, as I say, the narrow defense of 
their individual freedoms to face up to the broader obligations of 
trust in our political process.
   Mr. President, this is what the amendment says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate should 
     consider a resolution in the 104th Congress, 1st Session, 
     that requires an accredited member of any of the Senate press 
     galleries to file an annual public report with the Secretary 
     of the Senate disclosing the identity of the primary employer 
     of the member and of any additional sources of earned outside 
     income received by the member, together with the amounts 
     received from each such source.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``Senate press 
     galleries'' means--
       (1) the Senate Press Gallery;
       (2) the Senate Radio and Television Correspondents Gallery;
       (3) the Senate Periodical Press Gallery; and
       (4) the Senate Press Photographers Gallery.
                           Amendment No. 1802

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Senate should 
 consider a resolution requiring each accredited member of the Senate 
Press Gallery to file an annual public report with the Secretary of the 
  Senate disclosing the member's primary employer and any additional 
             sources and amounts of earned outside income)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1802.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate 
     should consider a resolution in the 104th Congress, 1st 
     Session, that requires an accredited member of any of the 
     Senate press galleries to file an annual public report with 
     the Secretary of the Senate disclosing the identity of the 
     primary employer of the member and of any additional sources 
     of earned outside income received by the member, together 
     with the amounts received from each such source.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``Senate press 
     galleries'' means--
       (1) the Senate Press Gallery;
       (2) the Senate Radio and Television Correspondents Gallery;
       (3) the Senate Periodical Press Gallery; and
       (4) the Senate Press Photographers Gallery.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record certain published articles pertinent to my remarks.
  The first is entitled ``Fee Speech,'' by Ken Auletta, from the 
September 12, 1994, New Yorker; the second, ``Take the Money and 
Talk,'' by Alicia C. Shepard, which appeared in American Journalism 
Review; and ``Where the Sun Doesn't Shine,'' by Jamie Stiehm, which 
appeared in the May/June 1995 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the New Yorker magazine, Sept. 12, 1994]

                               Fee Speech

                            (By Ken Auletta)

       The initial hint of anger from twenty-five or so members of 
     the House Democratic leadership came on an hour-and-a-
     quarter-long bus ride from Washington to Airlie House, in 
     rural Virginia, one morning last January. They had been asked 
     by the Majority Leader, Richard A. Gephardt, of Missouri, to 
     attend 

[[Page S10351]]
     a two-day retreat for the Democratic Message Group, and as the bus 
     rolled southwest the convivial smiles faded. The members of 
     the group began to complain that their message was getting 
     strangled, and they blamed the media. By that afternoon, when 
     the Democrats gathered for the first of five panels composed 
     of both partisans and what were advertised as ``guest 
     analysts, not partisan advisers,'' the complaints were 
     growing louder. The most prominent Democrats in the House--
     Gephardt; the Majority Whip, David E. Bonior, of Michigan; 
     the current Appropriations Committee chairman, David R. Obey, 
     of Wisconsin; the Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman, 
     Vic Fazio, of California; Rosa L. DeLauro, of Connecticut, 
     who is a friend of President Clinton's; and about twenty 
     others--expressed a common grievance: public figures are 
     victims of a powerful and cynical press corps. A few 
     complained of what they saw as the ethical obtuseness of Sam 
     Donaldson, of ABC, angrily noting that, just four days 
     earlier, ``Prime Time Live,'' the program that Donaldson co-
     anchors, had attacked the Independent Insurance Agents of 
     America for treating congressional staff people to a Key West 
     junket. Yet several months earlier the same insurance group 
     had paid Donaldson a thirty-thousand-dollar lecture fee.
       By four-thirty, when the third panel, ostensibly devoted to 
     the changing role of the media, was set to begin, the 
     Democrats could no longer contain their rage, lumping the 
     press into a single, stereotypical category--you--the same 
     way they complained that the press lumped together all 
     members of Congress.
       They kept returning to Donaldson's lecture fees and his 
     public defense that it was ethically acceptable for him to 
     receive fees because he was a private citizen, not an elected 
     official. The Airlie House meeting was off the record, but in 
     a later interview Representative Obey recalled having said of 
     journalists. ``What I find most offensive lately is that we 
     get the sanctimonious-Sam defense: `We're different because 
     we don't write the laws.' Well, they have a hell of a lot 
     more power than I do to affect the laws written.''
       Representative Robert G. Torricelli, of New Jersey, 
     recalled have said, ``What startles many people is to hear 
     television commentators make paid speeches to interest groups 
     and then see them on television commenting on those issues. 
     It's kind of a direct conflict of interest. If it happened in 
     government, it would not be permitted.'' Torricelli, who has 
     been criticized for realizing a sixty-nine-thousand-dollar 
     profit on a New Jersey savings-and-loan after its chairman 
     advised him to make a timely investment in its stock, says he 
     doesn't understand why journalists don't receive the same 
     scrutiny that people in Congress do. Torricelli brought up an 
     idea that had been discussed at the retreat and that he 
     wanted to explore: federal regulations requiring members of 
     the press to disclose outside income--and most particularly 
     television journalists whose stations are licensed by the 
     government. He said that he would like to see congressional 
     hearings on the matter, and added. ``You'd get the votes if 
     you did the hearings. I predict that in the next couple of 
     Congresses you'll get the hearings.''
       Gephardt is dubious about the legality of compelling press 
     disclosure of outside income, but one thing he is sure about 
     is the anger against the media which is rising within 
     Congress. ``Most of us work for more than money,'' he told 
     me. ``We work for self-image. And Congress's self-image has 
     suffered, because, members think, journalistic ethics and 
     standards are not as good as they used to be.''
       The press panel went on for nearly three hours, long past 
     the designated cocktail hour of six. The congressmen directed 
     their anger at both Brian Lamb, the C-SPAN chairman, and me--
     we were the two press representatives on the panel--and cited 
     a number of instances of what they considered reportorial 
     abuse. The question that recurred most often was this: Why 
     won't journalists disclose the income they receive from those 
     with special interests?
       It is a fair question to ask journalists, who often act as 
     judges of others' character. Over the summer, I asked it of 
     more than fifty prominent media people, or perhaps a fifth of 
     what can fairly be called the media elite--those journalists 
     who, largely on account of television appearances, have a 
     kind of fame similar to that of actors. Not surprisingly, 
     most responded to the question at least as defensively as any 
     politician would. Some of them had raised an eyebrow when 
     President Clinton said he couldn't recall ten- or fifteen-
     year-old details about Whitewater. Yet many of those I spoke 
     to could not remember where they had given a speech just 
     months ago. And many of them, while they were unequivocal in 
     their commentary on public figures and public issues, seemed 
     eager to dwell on the complexities and nuances of their own 
     outside speaking.
       Sam Donaldson, whose annual earnings at ABC are about two 
     million dollars, was forthcoming about his paid speeches: in 
     June, he said that he had given three paid speeches so far 
     this year and had two more scheduled. He would not confirm a 
     report that he gets a lecture fee of as much as thirty 
     thousand dollars. On being asked to identify the three groups 
     he had spoken to, Donaldson--who on the March 27th edition of 
     the Sunday-morning show ``This Week with David Brinkley'' had 
     ridiculed President Clinton for not remembering that he had 
     once lent twenty thousand dollars to his mother--said he 
     couldn't remember. Then he took a minute to call up the 
     information from his computer. He said that he had spoken at 
     an I.B.M. convention in Palm Springs, to a group of public-
     information officers, and to the National Association of 
     Retail Druggists. ``If I hadn't consulted my computerized 
     date book, I couldn't have told you that I spoke to the 
     National Association of Retail Druggists,'' he said. ``I 
     don't remember these things.''
       What would Donaldson say to members of Congress who suggest 
     that, like them, he is not strictly a private individual and 
     should make full disclosure of his income from groups that 
     seek to influence legislation?
       ``First, I don't make laws that govern an industry,'' he 
     said. ``Second, people hire me because they think of me as a 
     celebrity; they believe their members or the people in the 
     audience will be impressed.'' He went on, ``Can you say the 
     same thing about a member of Congress who doesn't even 
     speak--who is hired, in a sense, to go down and play tennis? 
     What is the motive of the group that pays for that?'' He 
     paused and then answered his own question: ``Their motive, 
     whether they are subtle about it or not, is to make friends 
     with you because they hope that you will be a friend of 
     theirs when it comes time to decide about millions of 
     dollars. Their motive in inviting me is not to make friends 
     with me.''
       Would he concede that there might be at least an appearance 
     of conflict when he takes money from groups with a stake in, 
     say, health issues?
       Donaldson said, ``At some point, the issue is: What is the 
     evidence? I believe it's not the appearance of impropriety 
     that's the problem. It's impropriety.'' Still, Donaldson did 
     concede that he was rethinking his position; and he was aware 
     that his bosses at ABC News were reconsidering their relaxed 
     policy.
       Indeed, one of Donaldson's bosses--Paul Friedman, the 
     executive vice-president for news--told me he agreed with the 
     notion that on-air correspondents are not private citizens. 
     ``People like Sam have influence that far exceeds that of 
     individual congressmen,'' Friedman said, echoing 
     Representative Obey's point. ``We always worry that lobbyists 
     get special `access' to members of government. We should also 
     worry that the public might get the idea that special-
     interest groups are paying for special `access' to 
     correspondents who talk to millions of Americans.''
       Unlike Donaldson, who does not duck questions, some 
     commentators chose to say nothing about their lecturing. The 
     syndicated columnist George Will, who appears weekly as a 
     commentator on the Brinkley show, said through an assistant, 
     ``We are just in the middle of book production here. Mr. Will 
     is not talking much to anyone.'' Will is paid twelve thousand 
     five hundred dollars a speech, Alicia C. Shepard reports in a 
     superb article in the May issue of the American Journalism 
     Review.
       ABC's Cokie Roberts, who, according to an ABC official, 
     earns between five and six hundred thousand dollars annually 
     as a Washington correspondent and is a regular commentator on 
     the Brinkley show in addition to her duties on National 
     Public Radio, also seems to have a third job, as a paid 
     speaker. Among ABC correspondents who regularly moonlight as 
     speakers, Roberts ranks No. 1. A person who is in a position 
     to know estimates that she earned more than three hundred 
     thousand dollars for speaking appearances in 1993. Last 
     winter, a couple of weeks after the Donaldson-``Prime Time'' 
     incident, she asked the Group Health Association of America, 
     before whom she was to speak in mid-February, to donate her 
     reported twenty-thousand-dollar fee to charity. Roberts did 
     not return three phone calls--which suggests that she expects 
     an openness from the Clinton Administration that she rejects 
     for herself. On that March 27th Brinkley show, she described 
     the Administration's behavior concerning Whitewater this way: 
     ``All of this now starts to look like they are covering 
     something up.''
       Brit Hume, the senior ABC White House correspondent, earns 
     about what Roberts does, and is said to trail only Roberts 
     and Donaldson at ABC in lecture earnings. This could not be 
     confirmed by Hume, for he did not return calls.
       At CNN, the principal anchor, Bernard Shaw, also declined 
     to be interviewed, and so did three of the loudest critics of 
     Congress and the Clinton Administration; the conservative 
     commentator John McLaughlin, who now takes his ``McLaughlin 
     Group'' on the road to do a rump version of the show live, 
     often before business groups; and the alternating 
     conservative co-hosts of ``Crossfire,'' Pat Buchanan and John 
     Sununu.
       David Brinkley did respond to questions, but not about his 
     speaking income. Like Donaldson and others, he rejected the 
     notion that he was a public figure. Asked what he would say 
     to the question posed by members of Congress at the retreat, 
     Brinkley replied, ``It's a specious argument. We are private 
     citizens. We work in the private marketplace. They do not.''
       And if a member of Congress asked about his speaking fee, 
     which is reported to be eighteen thousand dollars?
       ``I would tell him it's none of his business,'' Brinkley 
     said. ``I don't feel that I have the right to ask him 
     everything he does in his private life.''

[[Page S10352]]

       The syndicated columnist and television regular Robert 
     Novak, who speaks more frequently than Brinkley, also 
     considers himself a private citizen when it comes to the 
     matter of income disclosure. ``I'm not going to tell you how 
     many speeches I do and what my fee is,'' he said politely. 
     Novak, who has been writing a syndicated column for thirty-
     one years, is highly visible each weekend on CNN as the co-
     host of the ``Evans & Novak'' interview program and as a 
     regular on ``The Capital Gang.''
       What would Novak say to a member of Congress who maintained 
     that he was a quasi-public figure and should be willing to 
     disclose his income from speeches?
       ``I'm a totally private person,'' he said. ``Anyone who 
     doesn't like me doesn't have to read me. These people, in 
     exchange for power--I have none--they have sacrificed 
     privacy.''
       In fact, Novak does seem to view his privacy as less than 
     total; he won't accept fees from partisan political groups, 
     and, as a frequent critic of the Israeli government, he will 
     not take fees from Arab-American groups, for fear of creating 
     an appearance of a conflict of interest. Unlike most private 
     citizens, Novak, and most other journalists, will not sign 
     petitions, or donate money to political candidates, or join 
     protest marches.
       Colleagues have criticized Novak and Rowland Evans for 
     organizing twice-a-year forums--as they have since 1971--to 
     which they invite between seventy five and a hundred and 
     twenty-five subscribers to their newsletter, many of whom are 
     business and financial analysts. Those attending pay hundreds 
     of dollars--Novak refuses to say how much--for the privilege 
     of listening to public officials speak and answer questions 
     off the record. ``You talk about conflicts of interest!'' 
     exclaimed Jack Nelson, the Los Angeles Times Washington 
     bureau chief. ``It is wrong to have government officials come 
     to speak to businesses and you make money off of it.''
       Mark Shields, who writes a syndicated column and is the 
     moderator of ``The Capital Gang'' and a regular commentator 
     on ``The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,'' is a busy paid lecturer. 
     Asked how much he earned from speeches last year, he said, 
     ``I haven't even totalled it up.'' Shields said he probably 
     gives one paid speech a week, adding, ``I don't want, for 
     personal reasons, to get into specifics.''
       Michael Kinsley, who is the liberal co-host of 
     ``Crossfire,'' an essayist for The New Republic and Time, and 
     a contributor to The New Yorker, is also reluctant to be 
     specific. ``I'm in the worst of all possible positions,'' he 
     said. ``I do only a little of it. But I can't claim to be a 
     virgin.'' Kinsley said he appeared about once every two 
     months, but he wouldn't say what groups he spoke to or how 
     much he was paid. ``I'm going to do a bit more,'' he said. 
     ``I do staged debates--mini `Crossfire's'--before business 
     groups. If everyone disclosed, I would.''
       The New Republic's White House correspondent, Fred Barnes, 
     who is a regular on ``The McLaughlin Group'' and appears on 
     ``CBS This Morning'' as a political commentator, speaks more 
     often than Kinsley, giving thirty or forty paid speeches a 
     year, he said, including the ``McLaughlin'' road show. How 
     would Barnes respond to the question posed by members of 
     Congress?
       ``They're elected officials,'' he said. ``I'm not an 
     elected official. I'm not in government. I don't deal with 
     taxpayers' money.''
       Barnes's ``McLaughlin'' colleague Morton M. Kondracke is 
     the executive editor of Roll Call, which covers Congress. 
     Kondracke said that he gave about thirty-six paid speeches 
     annually, but he would not identify the sponsors or disclose 
     his fee. He believes that columnists have fewer constraints 
     on their speechmaking than so-called objective reporters, 
     since columnists freely expose their opinions.
       Gloria Borger, a U.S. News & World Report columnist and 
     frequent ``Washington Week in Review'' panelist, discloses 
     her income from speeches, but only to her employer. Borger 
     said she gave one or two paid speeches a month, but she 
     wouldn't reveal her fee. ``I'm not an elected official,'' she 
     said.
       Like Borger, Wolf Blitzer, CNN's senior White House 
     correspondent, said that he told his news organization about 
     any speeches he made. How many speeches did he make in the 
     last year?
       ``I would guess four or five,'' he said, and repeated that 
     each one was cleared through his bureau chief.
       What would Blitzer say to a member of Congress who asked 
     how much he made speaking and from which groups?
       ``I would tell him `None of your business,''' Blitzer said.
       Two other network chief White House correspondents NBC's 
     Andrea Mitchell and CBS's Rira Braver--also do little 
     speaking. ``I make few speeches,'' Mitchell said. ``Maybe ten 
     a year. Maybe six or seven a year. I'm very careful about not 
     speaking to groups that involve issues I cover.'' She 
     declined to say how much she earned. For Braver, the issue 
     was moot. I don't think I did any,'' she said, referring to 
     paid speeches in the past year.
       ABC's ``Prime Time Live'' correspondent Chris Wallace, who 
     has done several investigative pieces on corporate-sponsored 
     congressional junkets, said he made four or five paid 
     speeches last year. ``I don't know exactly,'' he said. Could 
     he remember his fee?
       ``I wouldn't say,'' he replied.
       Did he speak to business groups?
       ``I'm trying to remember the specific groups,'' he said, 
     and then went on. ``One was the Business Council of Canada. 
     Yes, I do speak to business groups.''
       So what is the difference between Chris Wallace and members 
     of Congress who accept paid junkets?
       ``I'm a private citizen,'' he said, ``I have no control 
     over public funds, I don't make public policy.''
       Why did Wallace think that he was invited to speak before 
     business groups?
       ``They book me because they feel somehow that it adds a 
     little excitement or luster to their event,'' he said. He has 
     been giving speeches since 1980, he said, and ``never once 
     has any group called me afterward and asked me any favor in 
     coverage.''
       But isn't that what public officials usually say when 
     Wallace corners them about a junket?
       Those who underwrite congressional junkets are seeking 
     ``access'' and ``influence,'' he said, but the people who 
     hire him to make a speech are seeking ``entertainment.'' When 
     I mentioned Wallace's remarks to Norman Pearlstine, the 
     former executive editor of the Wall Street Journal, he said, 
     ``By that argument, we ought not to distinguish between news 
     and entertainment, and we ought to merge news into 
     entertainment.''
       ABC's political and media analyst Jeff Greenfield makes a 
     ``rough guess'' that he gives fifteen paid speeches a year, 
     many in the form of panels he moderates before various media 
     groups--cable conventions, newspaper or magazine groups, 
     broadcasting and marketing associations--that are concerned 
     with subjects he regularly covers. ``It's like `Nightline,' 
     but it's not on the air,'' he said. He would not divulge his 
     fee, or how much he earned in the past twelve months from 
     speeches.
       Greenfield argued that nearly everything he did could be 
     deemed a potential conflict. ``I cover cable, but I cover it 
     for ABC, which is sometimes in conflict with that industry,'' 
     he said. Could he accept money to write a magazine piece or a 
     book when he might one day report on the magazine publisher 
     or the book industry? He is uneasy with the distinction that 
     newspapers like the Wall Street Journal or the Washington 
     Post make, which is to prohibit daily reporters from giving 
     paid speeches to corporations or trade associations that 
     lobby Congress and have agendas, yet allow paid college 
     speeches. (Even universities have legislative agendas, 
     Greenfield noted.) In trying to escape this ethical maze, 
     Greenfield concluded, ``I finally decided that I can't figure 
     out everything that constitutes a conflict.''
       Eleanor Clift, of Newsweek, who is cast as the beleaguered 
     liberal on ``The McLaughlin Group,'' said that she made 
     between six and eight appearances a year with the group. Her 
     fee for a speech on the West Coast was five thousand dollars, 
     she said, but she would accept less to appear in Washington. 
     She would not disclose her outside speaking income, and said 
     that if a member of Congress were to ask she would say, ``I 
     do disclose. I disclose to the people I work for. I don't 
     work for the taxpayers.''
       Christopher Matthews, a nationally syndicated columnist and 
     Washington bureau chief of the San Francisco Examiner, who is 
     a political commentator for ``Good Morning America'' and co-
     host of a nightly program on America's Talking, a new, NBC-
     owned cable network, told me last June that he gave between 
     forty and fifty speeches a year. He netted between five and 
     six thousand dollars a speech, he said, or between two and 
     three hundred thousand dollars a year. Like many others, he 
     is represented by the Washington Speakers Bureau, and he said 
     that he placed no limitations on corporate or other groups he 
     would appear before. ``To be honest, I don't spend a lot of 
     time thinking about it,'' he said. ``I give the same 
     speech.''
       David S. Broder, of the Washington Post, who has a contract 
     to appear regularly on CNN and on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' 
     said that he averaged between twelve and twenty-four paid 
     speeches a year, mostly to colleges, and that the speeches 
     are cleared with his editors at the Post. He did not discuss 
     his fee, but Howard Kurtz, the Post's media reporter, said in 
     his recent book ``Media Circus'' that Broder makes up to 
     seventy-five hundred dollars a speech. Broder said he would 
     support an idea advanced by Albert R. Hunt,the Wall Street 
     Journal's Washington editor, to require disclosure as a 
     condition of receiving a congressional press card. To receive 
     a press card now, David Holmes, the superintendent of the 
     House Press Gallery, told me, journalists are called upon to 
     disclose only if they receive more than five per cent of 
     their income from a single lobbying organization. Hunt said 
     he would like to see the four committees that oversee the 
     issuing of congressional press cards--made up of five to 
     seven journalists each--require full disclosure of any income 
     from groups that lobby Congress. He said he was aware of the 
     bitter battle that was waged in 1988, when one committee 
     issued new application forms for press passes which included 
     space for detailed disclosure of outside income. Irate 
     reporters demanded that the application form be rescinded, 
     and it was. Today, the Journal, along with the Washington 
     Post, is among the publications with the strictest 
     prohibitions on paid speeches. Most journalistic 
     organizations forbid reporters to accept money or invest in 
     the stocks of the industries they cover. But the Journal and 
     the Post have rules against reporters' accepting fees from 
     any groups that lobby Congress or from any for-profit groups.
 
[[Page S10353]]

       Hunt, who has television contracts with ``The Capital 
     Gang'' and ``Meet the Press,'' said that he averaged three or 
     four speeches a year, mostly to colleges and civic groups, 
     and never to corporations or groups that directly petition 
     Congress, and that he received five thousand dollars for most 
     speeches.
       William Safire, the Times columnist, who is a regular on 
     ``Meet the Press,'' was willing to disclose his lecture 
     income. ``I do about fifteen speeches a year for twenty 
     thousand dollars a crack,'' he said. ``A little more for 
     overseas and Hawaii.'' Where Safire parts company with Hunt 
     is that he sees nothing wrong with accepting fees from 
     corporations. He said that in recent months he had spoken to 
     A.T. & T., the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of 
     America, and Jewish organizations. Safire said that because 
     he is a columnist his opinions are advertised, not hidden. 
     ``I believe firmly in Samuel Johnson's dictum `No man but a 
     blockhead ever wrote except for money,''' he went on. ``I 
     charge for my lectures. I charge for my books. I charge when 
     I go on television. I feel no compunction about it. It fits 
     nicely into my conservative, capitalist--with a capital `C'--
     philosophy.''
       Tim Russert, the host of ``Meet the Press,'' said that he 
     had given ``a handful'' of paid speeches in the past year, 
     including some to for-profit groups. He said that he had no 
     set fee, and that he was wary of arbitrary distinctions that 
     say lecturing is bad but income from stock dividends is fine. 
     Russert also raised the question of journalists' appearing on 
     shows like ``Meet the Press,'' which, of course, have 
     sponsors. ``Is that a conflict? You can drive yourself crazy 
     on this.''
       Few journalists drive themselves crazy over whether to 
     accept speaking fees from the government they cover. They 
     simply don't. But enticements do come from unusual places. 
     One reporter, who asked to remain anonymous, said that he had 
     recently turned down a ten-thousand dollar speaking fee from 
     the Central Intelligence Agency. A spokesman for the C.I.A., 
     David Christian, explained to me, ``We have an Office of 
     Training and Education, and from time to time we invite 
     knowledgeable non-government experts to talk to our people as 
     part of our training program.'' Does the agency pay for these 
     speeches? ``Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't,'' he 
     said. Asked for the names of journalists who accepted such 
     fees, Christian said the he was sorry but ``the records are 
     scattered.''
       Time's Washington columnist, Margaret Carlson, who is a 
     regular on ``The Capital Gang,'' laughed when I asked about 
     her income from speeches and said, ``My view is that I just 
     got on the gravy train, so I don't want it to end.'' Carlson 
     said she gave six speeches last year, at an average of five 
     thousand dollars a speech, including a panel appearance in 
     San Francisco before the American Medical Association (with 
     Michael Kinsley, among others). She made a fair distinction 
     between what she did for a fee and what Treasury Secretary 
     Lloyd Bentsen tried to do in 1987, when, as Senate Finance 
     Committee chairman, he charged lobbyists ten thousand dollars 
     a head for the opportunity to join him for breakfast once a 
     month. ``We are like monkeys who get up onstage,'' Carlson 
     said, echoing Chris Wallace. ``It's mud wrestling for an hour 
     or an hour and a half, and it's over.''
       There are journalistic luminaries who make speeches but, 
     for the sake of appearances, do not accept fees. They include 
     the three network-news anchors--NBC's Tom Brokaw, ABC's Peter 
     Jennings and CBS' Dan Rather--all of whom say that they don't 
     charge to speak or they donate their fees to charity. ``We 
     don't need the money,'' Brokaw said. ``And we thought it 
     created an appearance of conflict.'' Others who do not accept 
     fees for speaking are Ted Koppel, of ABC's ``Nightline''; Jim 
     Lehrer, of ``The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour''; Bob Schieffer, 
     CBS' chief Washington correspondent and the host of ``Face 
     the Nation''; and C-SPAN's Brian Lamb.
       ABC's senior Washington correspondent, James Wooten, 
     explained how, in the mid-eighties, he decided to change his 
     ways after a last lucrative weekend: ``I had a good agent and 
     I got a day off on Friday and flew out Thursday after the 
     news and did Northwestern University Thursday night for six 
     thousand dollars. Then I got a rental car and drove to 
     Milwaukee, and in midmorning I did Marquette for five or six 
     thousand dollars. In the afternoon, I went to the University 
     of Chicago, to a small symposium, for which I got twenty-five 
     hundred to three thousand dollars. Then I got on a plane 
     Friday night and came home. I had made
      fifteen thousand dollars, paid the agent three thousand, and 
     had maybe two thousand in expenses. So I made about ten 
     thousand dollars for thirty-six hours. I didn't have a set 
     speech, I just talked off the top of my head.'' But his 
     conscience told him it was wrong. ``It's easy money,'' 
     Wooten said.
       As for me, The New Yorker paid my travel expenses to and 
     from the congressional retreat. In the past twelve months, 
     I've given two paid speeches; the first, at New York's 
     Harmonic Club, was to make an opening presentation and to 
     moderate a panel on the battle for control of Paramount 
     Communications, for which I was paid twelve hundred dollars; 
     the second was a speech on the future of the information 
     superhighway at a Manhattan luncheon sponsored by the 
     Baltimore-based investment firm of Alex, Brown & Sons, for 
     which my fee was seventy-five hundred dollars. I don't accept 
     lecture fees from communications organizations.
       Like the public figures we cover, journalists would benefit 
     from a system of checks and balances. Journalistic 
     institutions, including The New Yorker, too seldom have 
     rigorous rules requiring journalists to check with an editor 
     or an executive before agreeing to make a paid speech; the 
     rules at various institutions for columnists are often even 
     more permissive. Full disclosure provides a disinfectant--the 
     power of shame. A few journalistic institutions, recently 
     shamed, have been taking a second look at their policies. In 
     mid-June, ABC News issued new rules, which specifically 
     prohibit paid speeches to trade associations or to any ``for-
     profit business.'' ABC's ban--the same one that is in place 
     at the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post--prompted 
     Roberts, Donaldson, Brinkley, Wallace, and several other ABC 
     correspondents to protest, and they met in early August with 
     senior news executives. They sought a lifting of the ban, 
     which would allow them to get permission on a case-by-case 
     basis. But a ranking ABC official says. ``We can agree to 
     discuss exceptions but not give any. Their basic argument is 
     greed, for Christ's sake!'' Andrew Lack, the president of NBC 
     News, said that he plans to convene a meeting of his 
     executives to shape an entirely new speaking policy.
      ``My position is that the more we can discourage our people 
     from speaking for a fee, the better,'' he said. And CBS 
     News now stipulates that all speaking requests must be 
     cleared with the president or the vice-president of news. 
     Al Vecchione, the president of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, 
     admitted in June to having been embarrassed by the 
     American Journalism Review piece. ``We had a loose 
     policy,'' he said. ``I just finished rewriting our company 
     policy.'' Henceforth, those associated with the program 
     will no longer accept fees to speak to corporate groups or 
     trade associations that directly lobby the government. The 
     New Yorker, according to its executive editor, Hendrik 
     Hertzberg, is in the process of reviewing its policies.
       Those who frequently lecture make a solid point when they 
     say that lecture fees don't buy favorable coverage. But 
     corruption can take subtler forms than the quid pro quo, and 
     the fact that journalists see themselves as selling 
     entertainment rather than influence does not wipe the moral 
     slate clean. The real corruption of ``fee speech,'' perhaps, 
     is not that journalists will do favors for the associations 
     and businesses that pay them speaking fees but that the nexus 
     of television and speaking fees creates what Representative 
     Obey called ``an incentive to be even more flamboyant'' on 
     TV--and, to a lesser extent, on the printed page. The 
     television talk shows value vividness, pithiness, and 
     predictability. They prefer their panelists reliably pro or 
     con, ``liberal'' or ``conservative,'' Too much quirkiness can 
     make a show unbalanced; too much complexity can make it dull. 
     Time's Margaret Carlson told me, not entirely in jest, ``I 
     was a much more thoughtful person before I went on TV. But I 
     was offered speeches only after I went on TV.'' Her Time 
     colleague the columnist Hugh Sidey said that when he stopped 
     appearing regularly on television his lecture income 
     shrivelled. Obey wishes that it would shrivel for the rest of 
     the pundit class as well. An attitude of scorn often 
     substitutes for hard work or hard thought and it's difficult 
     to deny that the over-all result of this dynamic is a 
     coarsening of political discourse.
       Celebrity journalism and the appearance of conflicts 
     unavoidably erode journalism's claim to public trust. ``My 
     view is that you're going to start having character stories 
     about journalists,'' Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New 
     York University and the director of the Project on Public 
     Life and the Press, told me recently. ``It's inevitable. If I 
     were a big-name Washington journalist, I'd start getting my 
     accounts together. I don't think journalists are private 
     citizens.''
                                                                    ____

            [From the American Journalism Review, June 1995]

                        Take the Money and Talk

                         (By Alicia C. Shepard)

       It's speech time and the Broward County Convention Center 
     in Fort Lauderdale.
       ABC News correspondent and NPR commentator Cokie Roberts 
     takes her brown handbag and notebook off of the ``reserved'' 
     table where she has been sitting, waiting to speak. She steps 
     up to the podium where she is gushingly introduced and 
     greeted with resounding applause.
       Framed by palm fronds, Roberts begins her speech to 1,600 
     South Florida businesswomen attending a Junior League-
     sponsored seminar. Having just flown in from Washington, 
     D.C., Roberts breaks the news of the hours-old arrest of a 
     suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing. She talks of 
     suffragette Susan B. Anthony, of how she misses the late 
     House Speaker Tip O'Neill, of the Republican takeover on 
     Capitol Hill. Then she gives her listeners the inside scoop 
     on the new members of Congress.
       ``They are very young,'' says Roberts, 52. ``I'm constantly 
     getting it wrong, assuming they are pages. They're darling. 
     They're wildly adept with a blow dryer and I resent them 
     because they call me ma'am.'' The audience laughs.
       After talking for an hour on ``Women and Politics,'' 
     Roberts answers questions for 20 minutes. One woman asks the 
     veteran correspondent, who has covered Washington 

[[Page S10354]]
     since 1978, when there will be a female president.
       ``I think we'll have a woman president when a woman is 
     elected vice president and we do in the guy,'' Roberts quips.
       This crowd loves her. When Roberts finishes, they stand 
     clapping for several minutes. Roberts poses for a few 
     pictures and is whisked out and driven to the Miami airport 
     for her first-class flight back to Washington.
       For her trouble and her time, the Junior League of Greater 
     Fort Lauderdale gave Roberts a check for $35,000. ``She's 
     high, very high,'' says the League's Linda Carter, who lined 
     up the keynote speakers. The two other keynote speakers 
     received around $10,000 each.
       The organization sponsored the seminar to raise money for 
     its community projects, using Roberts as a draw. But shelling 
     out $35,000 wouldn't have left much money for, say, the 
     League's foster care or women's substance abuse programs or 
     its efforts to increase organ donors for transplants.
       Instead, Roberts tab was covered by a corporate sponsor. JM 
     Family Enterprises. The $4.2 billion firm is an umbrella 
     company for the largest independent American distributor of 
     Toyotas. The second-largest privately held company in 
     Florida, it provides Toyotas to 164 dealerships in five 
     southern states and runs 20 other auto-related companies.
       But Roberts doesn't want to talk about the company that 
     paid her fee. She doesn't like to answer the kind of 
     questions she asks politicians. She won't discuss what she's 
     paid, whom she speaks to, why she does it or how it might 
     affect journalism's credibility when she receives more money 
     in an hour-and-a-half from a large corporation than many 
     journalists earn in a year.
       ``She feels strongly that it's not something that in any 
     way shape or form should be discussed in public.'' ABC 
     spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said in response to AJR's request 
     for an interview with Roberts.
       Roberts' ABC colleague Jeff Greenfield, who also speaks for 
     money, doesn't think it's a good idea to duck the issue. ``I 
     think we ought not not talk about it.'' he says. ``I mean 
     that's Cokie's right, obviously,'' he adds, but ``if we want 
     people to answer our questions, then up to a reasonable 
     point, we should answer their questions.''
       The phenomenon of journalists giving speeches for 
     staggering sums of money continues to dog the profession. 
     Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief James Warren has 
     created a cottage industry criticizing colleagues who speak 
     for fat fees. Washington Post columnist James K. Glassman 
     believes the practice is the ``next great American scandal.'' 
     Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley has denounced it on the 
     Senate floor.
       A number of news organizations have drafted new policies to 
     regulate the practice since debate over the issue flared a 
     year ago (see ``Talk is Expensive,'' May 1994). Time magazine 
     is one of the latest to do so, issuing a flat-out ban on 
     honoraria in April. The Society for Professional Journalists, 
     in the process of revising its ethics code, is wrestling with 
     the divisive issue.
       The eye-popping sums star journalists receive for their 
     speeches, and the possibility that they may be influenced by 
     them, have drawn heightened attention to the practice, which 
     is largely the province of a relatively small roster of well-
     paid members of the media elite. Most work for the television 
     networks or the national news weeklies; newspaper reporters, 
     with less public visibility, aren't asked as often.
       While the crescendo of criticism has resulted in an 
     official crackdown at several news organizations--as well as 
     talk of new hardline policies at others--it's not clear how 
     effective the new policies are, since no public disclosure 
     system is in place.
       Some well-known journalists, columnists and ``Crossfire'' 
     host Michael Kinsley and U.S. News & World Report's Steven V. 
     Roberts among them, scoff at the criticism. They assert that 
     it's their right as private citizens to offer their services 
     for whatever the market will bear, that new policies won't 
     improve credibility and that the outcry has been blown out of 
     proportion.
       But the spectacle of journalists taking big bucks for 
     speeches has emerged as one of the high-profile ethical 
     issues in journalism today.
       ``Clearly some nerve has been touched,'' Warren says. ``A 
     nerve of pure, utter defensiveness on the part of a 
     journalist trying to rationalize taking [honoraria] for the 
     sake of their bank account because the money is so 
     alluring.''
       A common route to boarding the lecture gravy train is the 
     political talk show. National television exposure raises a 
     journalist's profile dramatically, enhancing the likelihood 
     of receiving lucrative speaking offers.
       The problem is that modulated, objective analysis is not 
     likely to make you a favorite on ``The Capital Gang'' or 
     ``The McLaughlin Group.'' Instead, reporters who strive for 
     objectivity in their day jobs are often far more opinionated 
     in the TV slugfests.
       Time Managing Editor James R. Gaines, who issued his 
     magazine's recent ban on accepting honoraria, sees this as 
     another problem for journalists' credibility, one he plans to 
     address in a future policy shift. ``Those journalists say 
     things we wouldn't let them say in the magazine. . . .'' says 
     Gaines, whose columnist Margaret Carlson appears frequently 
     on ``The Capital Gang.'' ``It's great promotion for the 
     magazine and the magazine's journalists. But I wonder about 
     it when the journalists get into that adversarial atmosphere 
     where provocation is the main currency.''
       Journalists have been ``buckraking'' for years, speaking to 
     trade associations, corporations, charities, academic 
     institutions and social groups. But what's changed is the 
     amount they're paid. In the mid-1970s, the fees peaked at 
     $10,000 to $15,000, say agents for speakers bureaus. Today, 
     ABC's Sam Donaldson can get $30,000, ABC's David Brinkley 
     pulls in $18,000 and the New York Times' William Safire can 
     command up to $20,000.
       When a $4.2 billion Toyota distributor pays $35,000 for 
     someone like Cokie Roberts, or a trade association pays a 
     high-profile journalist $10,000 or $20,000 for an hour's 
     work, it inevitably raises questions and forces news 
     executives to re-examine their policies.
       That's what happened last June at ABC. Richard Wald, senior 
     vice president of news, decided to ban paid speeches to trade 
     associations and for-profit corporations--much to the dismay 
     of some of ABC's best-paid correspondents. As at most news 
     organizations, speaking to colleges and nonprofits is 
     allowed.
       When Wald's policy was circulated to 109 employees at ABC, 
     some correspondents howled (see Free Press, September 1994). 
     Protests last August from Roberts, Donaldson, Brinkley, 
     Greenfield, Brit Hume and others succeeded only in delaying 
     implementation of the new guidelines. Wald agreed to 
     ``grandfather in'' speeches already scheduled through mid-
     January. After that, if a correspondent speaks to a forbidden 
     group, the money must go to charity.
       ``Why did we amend it? Fees for speeches are getting to be 
     very large,'' Wald says. ``When we report on matters of 
     national interest, we do not want it to appear that folks who 
     have received a fee are in any way beholden to anybody other 
     than our viewers. Even though I do not believe anybody was 
     every swayed by a speech fee. I do believe that it gives the 
     wrong impression. We deal in impressions.''
       The new policy has hurt, says ABC White House correspondent 
     Ann Compton. Almost a year in advance, Compton agreed to 
     speak to the American Cotton Council. But this spring, when 
     she spoke to the trade group, she had to turn an honorarium 
     of ``several thousand dollars'' over to charity. Since the 
     policy went into effect, Compton has turned down six 
     engagements that she previously would have accepted.
       ``The restrictions how have become so tight, it's closed 
     off some groups and industries that I don't feel I have a 
     conflict with,'' says Compton, who's been covering the White 
     House off and on since 1974. ``It's closed off, frankly, the 
     category of organizations that pay the kind of fees I get.'' 
     She declines to say what those fees are.
       And it has affect her bank account. ``I've got four kids 
     ...'' Compton says. ``It's cut off a significant portion of 
     income for me.''
       Some speakers bureaus say ABC's new policy and criticism of 
     the practice have had an impact.
       ``It has affect us, definitely,'' says Lori Fish of Keppler 
     Associates in Arlington, Virginia, which represents about two 
     dozen journalists. ``More journalists are conscious of the 
     fact that they have to be very particular about which groups 
     they accept honoraria from. On our roster there's been a 
     decrease of some journalists accepting engagements of that 
     sort. It's mainly because of media criticism.''
       Other bureaus, such as the National Speakers Forum and the 
     William Morris Agency, say they haven't noticed a difference. 
     ``I can't say that the criticism has affected us,'' says Lynn 
     Choquette, a partner at the speakers forum.
       Compton, Donaldson and Greenfield still disagree with 
     Wald's policy but, as they say, he's the boss.
       ``I believe since all of us signed our contracts with the 
     expectation that the former ABC policy would prevail and took 
     that into account when we agreed to sign our contracts for X 
     amount,'' Donaldson says, ``it was not fair to change the 
     policy midstream.'' Donaldson says he has had to turn down 
     two speech offers.
       Greenfield believes the restrictions are unnecessary.
       ``When I go to speak to a group, the idea that it's like 
     renting a politician to get his ear is not correct,'' he 
     says. ``We are being asked to provide a mix of entertainment 
     and information and keep audiences in their seats at whatever 
     convention so they don't go home and say, `Jesus, what a 
     boring two-day whatever that was.'''
       Most agree it's the size of the honoraria that is fueling 
     debate over the issue. ``If you took a decimal point or two 
     away, nobody would care,'' Greenfield says. ``A lot of us are 
     now offered what seems to many people a lot of money. They 
     are entertainment-size sums rather than journalistic sizes.''
       And Wald has decided ``entertainment-size sums'' look bad 
     for the network, which has at least a dozen correspondents 
     listed with speakers bureaus. It's not the speeches 
     themselves that trouble Wald. ``You can speak to the American 
     Society of Travel Agents or the Electrical Council.'' he 
     says, ``as long as you don't take money from them.''
       But are ABC officials enforcing the new policy? ``My 
     suspicion is they're not, that they are chickenshit and Cokie 
     Roberts will do whatever the hell she wants to do and they 
     don't have the balls to do anything,'' says the Chicago 
     Tribune's Warren, whose newspaper allows its staff to make 
     paid speeches only to educational institutions.

[[Page S10355]]

       There's obviously some elasticity in ABC's policy. In 
     April, Greenfield, who covers media and politics, pocketed 
     $12,000 from the National Association of Broadcasters for 
     speaking to 1.000 members and interviewing media giants 
     Rupert Murdoch and Barry Diller for the group. Wald says that 
     was acceptable.
       He also says it was fine for Roberts to speak to the Junior 
     League-sponsored business conference in Fort Lauderdale, even 
     though the for-profit JM Family Enterprises paid her fee.
       ``As long as the speech was arranged by a reasonable group 
     and it carried with it no tinct from anybody, it's okay,'' 
     says Wald. ``I don't care where they [the Junior League] get 
     their money.''
       Even with its loopholes, ABC has the strictest restrictions 
     among the networks. NBC, CBS and CNN allow correspondents to 
     speak for dollars on a case-by-case basis and require them to 
     check with a supervisor first. Last fall, Andrew Lack, 
     president of NBC News, said he planned to come up with a new 
     policy. NBC spokesperson Lynn Gardner says Lack has drafted 
     the guidelines and will issue them this summer. ``The bottom 
     line is that Andrew Lack is generally not in favor of getting 
     high speaking fees,'' she says.
       New Yorker Executive Editor Hendrik Hertzberg also said 
     last fall that his magazine would review its policy, under 
     which writers are supposed to consult with their editors in 
     ``questionable cases.'' The review is still in progress. 
     Hertzberg says it's likely the magazine will have a new 
     policy by the end of the year.
       ``There's something aesthetically offensive to my idea of 
     journalism for American journalists to be paid $5,000, 
     $10,000 or $20,000 for some canned remarks simply because of 
     his or her celebrity value,'' Hertzberg says.
       Rewriting a policy merely to make public the outside income 
     of media personalities guarantees resistance, if not outright 
     hostility. Just ask John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal's 
     Washington bureau. This year, Harwood was a candidate for a 
     slot on the committee that issues congressional press passes 
     to daily print journalists.
       His platform included a promise to have daily 
     correspondents list outside sources of income--not amounts--
     on their applications for press credentials. Harwood's goal 
     was fuller disclosure of outside income, including speaking 
     fees.
       ``I'm not trying to argue in all cases it's wrong,'' says 
     Harwood. ``But we make a big to-do about campaign money and 
     benefits lawmakers get from special interests and I'm struck 
     by how many people in our profession also get money from 
     players in the political process.''
       Harwood believes it's hypocritical that journalists used to 
     go after members of Congress for taking speech fees when 
     journalists do the same thing. (Members of Congress are no 
     longer permitted to accept honoraria.)
       ``By disclosing the people who pay us,'' says Harwood, ``we 
     let other people who may have a beef with us draw their own 
     conclusions. I don't see why reporters should be afraid of 
     that.''
       But apparently they are. Harwood lost the election.
       ``I'm quite certain that's why John lost,'' says Alan J. 
     Murray, the Journal's Washington bureau chief, who made many 
     phone calls on his reporter's behalf. ``There's clearly a lot 
     of resistance,'' adds Murray, whose newspaper forbids 
     speaking to for-profit companies, political action committees 
     and anyone who lobbies Congress. ``Everybody likes John. But 
     I couldn't believe how many people said--even people who I 
     suspect have very little if any speaking incomes--that it's 
     just nobody's business. I just don't buy that.''
       His sentiment is shared in the Periodical Press Gallery on 
     Capitol Hill, where magazine reporters applying for press 
     credentials must list sources of outside income. But in the 
     Radio-Television Correspondents Gallery, where the big-name 
     network reporters go for press credentials, the issue of 
     disclosing outside income has never come up, says Kenan 
     Block, a ``MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour'' producer.
       ``I've never heard anyone mention it here and I've been 
     here going on 11 years,'' says Block, who is also chairman of 
     the Radio-Television Correspondents Executive Committee. ``I 
     basically feel it's not our place to police the credentialed 
     reporters. If you're speaking on the college circuit or to 
     groups not terribly political in nature, I think, If 
     anything, people are impressed and a bit envious. It's like, 
     `More power to them.'''
       But the issue of journalists' honoraria has been mentioned 
     at Block's program.
       Al Vecchione, president of McNeil/Lehrer Productions, says 
     he was ``embarrassed'' by AJR's story last year and 
     immediately wrote a new policy. The story reported that 
     Robert MacNeil accepted honoraria, although he often spoke 
     for free; partner Jim Lehrer said he had taken fees in the 
     past but had stopped after his children got out of college.
       ``We changed [our policy] because in reading the various 
     stories and examining our navel, we decided it was not 
     proper,'' Vecchione says. ``While others may do it, we don't 
     think it's proper. Whether in reality it's a violation or 
     not, the perception is there and the perception of it is bad 
     enough.''
       MacNeil/Lehrer's new policy is not as restrictive as ABC's, 
     however. It says correspondents ``should avoid accepting 
     money from individuals, companies, trade associations or 
     organizations that lobby the government or otherwise try to 
     influence issues the NewsHour or other special * * * programs 
     may cover.''
       As is the case with many of the new, stricter policies, 
     each request to speak is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 
     That's the policy at many newspapers and at U.S. News.
       Newsweek tightened its policy last June. Instead of simply 
     checking with an editor, staffers now have to fill out a form 
     if they want to speak or write freelance articles and submit 
     it to Ann McDaniel, the magazine's chief of correspondents.
       ``The only reason we formalized the process is because we 
     thought this was becoming more popular than it was 10 years 
     ago,'' McDaniel says, ``We want to make sure [our staff 
     members] are not involved in accepting compensation from 
     people they are very close to. Not because we suspect they 
     can be bought or that there will be any improper behavior but 
     because we want to protect our credibility.''
       Time, on the other hand, looked at all the media criticism 
     and decided to simply end the practice. In an April 14 memo. 
     Managing Editor Gaines told his staff, ``The policy is that 
     you may not do it.
       Gaines says the new policy was prompted by ``a bunch of 
     things that happened all at once.'' He adds that ``a lot of 
     people were doing cruise ships and appearances and have some 
     portion of their income from that, so their ox is gored.''
       The ban is not overwhelmingly popular with Time staffers. 
     Several, speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, argue that 
     it's too tough and say they hope to change Gaines' mind. He 
     says that won't happen, although he will amend the policy to 
     allow paid speeches before civic groups, universities and 
     groups that are ``clearly not commercial.''
       ``Academic seminars are fine,'' he says. ``If some college 
     wants to pay expenses and a $150 honorarium, I really don't 
     have a problem with that.''
       Steve Roberts, a senior writer with U.S. News & World 
     Report and Cokie Roberts' husband, is annoyed that some media 
     organizations are being swayed by negative publicity. He says 
     there's been far too much criticism of what he believes is 
     basically an innocuous practice. Roberts says journalists 
     have a right to earn as much as they can by speaking, as long 
     as they are careful about appearances and live by high 
     ethical standards.
       ``This whole issue has been terribly over-blown by a few 
     cranks,'' Roberts says. ``As long as journalists behave 
     honorably and use good sense and don't take money from people 
     they cover, I think it's totally legitimate. In fact, my own 
     news organization encourages it.''
       U.S. News not only encourages it, but its public relations 
     staff helps its writers get speaking engagements.
       Roberts says U.S. News has not been intimidated by the 
     ``cranks,'' who he believes are in part motivated by 
     jealousy. ``I think a few people have appointed themselves 
     the critics and watchdogs of our profession. I, for one, 
     resent it.''
       His chief nemesis is Jim Warren, who came to Washington a 
     year-and-a-half ago to take charge of the Chicago Tribune's 
     bureau. Warren, once the Tribune's media writer, writes a 
     Sunday column that's often peppered with news flashes about 
     which journalist is speaking where and for how much. The 
     column includes a ``Cokie Watch.'' named for Steve Roberts' 
     wife of 28 years, a woman Warren has written reams about but 
     has never net.
       ``Jim Warren is a reprehensible individual who has attacked 
     me and my wife and other people to advance his own visibility 
     and his own reputation,'' Roberts asserts. ``He's on a 
     crusade to make his own reputation by tearing down others.''
       While Warren may work hard to boost his bureau's reputation 
     for Washington coverage, he is best known for his outspoken 
     criticism of fellow journalists. Some reporters cheer him on 
     and fax him tips for ``Cokie Watch.'' Others are highly 
     critical and ask who crowned Warren chief of the Washington 
     ethics police.
       Even Warren admits his relentless assault has turned him 
     into a caricature.
       ``I'm now in the Rolodex as inconoclast, badass Tribune 
     bureau chief who writes about Cokie Roberts all the time,'' 
     says Warren, who in fact doesn't. ``But I do get lots of 
     feedback from rank-and-file journalists saying, `Way to go. 
     You're dead right.' It obviously touches a nerve among 
     readers.''
       So Warren writes about Cokie and Steve Roberts getting 
     $45,000 from a Chicago bank for a speech and the traveling 
     team of television's ``The Capital Gang'' sharing $25,000 for 
     a show at Walt Disney World. He throws in parenthetically 
     that Capital Gang member Michael Kinsley ``should know 
     better.''
       Kinsley says he would have agreed a few years ago, but he's 
     changed his tune. He now believes there are no intrinsic 
     ethical problems with taking money for speaking. He does it, 
     he wrote in The New Republic in May, for the money, because 
     it's fun and it boosts his ego.
       ``Being paid more than you're worth is the American 
     dream,'' he wrote. ``I see a day when we'll all be paid more 
     than we're worth. Meanwhile, though, there's no requirement 
     for journalists, alone among humanity, to deny themselves the 
     occasional fortuitous tastes of this bliss.''
       To Kinsley, new rules restricting a reporter's right to 
     lecture for largesse don't accomplish much.
       ``Such rules merely replace the appearance of corruption 
     with the appearance of propriety,'' he wrote. ``What keeps 
     journalists on 

[[Page S10356]]
     the straight and narrow most of the time is not a lot of rules about 
     potential conflicts of interest, but the basic reality of our 
     business that a journalist's product it out there for all to 
     see and evaluate.''
       The problem, critics say, is that without knowing who 
     besides the employer is paying a journalist, the situation 
     isn't quite that clear-cut.
       Jonathan Salant, president of the Washington chapter of the 
     Society of Professional Journalists, cites approvingly a 
     remark by former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee 
     in AJR's March issue: ``If the Insurance Institute of 
     America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a 
     speech, don't tell me you haven't been corrupted. You can say 
     you haven't and you can say you will attack insurance issues 
     in the same way, but you won't. You can't.''
       Salant thinks SPJ should adopt an absolute ban on speaking 
     fees as it revises its ethics code. Most critics want some 
     kind of public disclosure at the very least.
       Says the Wall Street Journal's Murray, ``You tell me what 
     is the difference between somebody who works full time for 
     the National Association of Realtors and somebody who takes 
     $40,000 a year in speaking fees from Realtor groups. It's not 
     clear to me there's a big distinction. I'm not saying that 
     because you take $40,000 a year from Realtors that you ought 
     to be thrown out of the profession. But at the very least, 
     you ought to disclose that.''
       And so Murray is implementing a disclosure policy. By the 
     end of the year, the 40 journalists working in his bureau 
     will be required to list outside income in a report that will 
     be available to the public.
       ``People are not just cynical about politicians,'' says 
     Murray. ``They are cynical about us. Anything we can do to 
     ease that cynicism is worth doing.''
       Sen. Grassley applauds the move. Twice he has taken to the 
     floor of the Senate to urge journalists to disclose what they 
     earn on the lecture circuit.
       ``It's both the amount and doing it,'' he says. ``I say the 
     pay's too much and we want to make sure the fee is disclosed. 
     The average worker in my state gets about $21,000 a year. 
     Imagine what he or she thinks when a journalist gets that 
     much for just one speech?''
       Public disclosure, says Grassley, would curtail the 
     practice.
       Disclosure is often touted as the answer. Many journalists, 
     such as Kinsley and Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt--a 
     television pundit and Murray's predecessor as bureau chief--
     have said they will disclose their engagements and fees only 
     if their colleagues do so as well.
       Other high-priced speakers have equally little enthusiasm 
     for making the information public. ``I don't like the idea,'' 
     says ABC's Greenfield. ``I don't like telling people how much 
     I get paid.''
       But one ABC correspondent says he has no problem with 
     public scrutiny. John Stossel, a reporter on ``20/20,'' 
     voluntarily agreed to disclose some of the ``absurd'' fees 
     he's earned. Last year and through March of this year Stossel 
     raked in $160,430 for speeches--$135,280 of which was donated 
     to hospital, scholarship and conservation programs.
       ``I just think secrecy in general is a bad thing,'' says 
     Stossel, who did not object to ABC's new policy. ``We [in the 
     media] do have some power. We do have some influence. That's 
     why I've come to conclude I should disclose, so people can 
     judge whether I can be bought.''
       (Stossel didn't always embrace this notion so 
     enthusiastically. Last year he told AJR he had received 
     between $2,000 and $10,000 for a luncheon speech, but 
     wouldn't be more precise.)
       Brian Lamb, founder and chairman of C-SPAN, has a simpler 
     solution, one that also has been adopted by ABC's Peter 
     Jennings, NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS' Dan Rather and Connie 
     Chung. They speak, but not for money.
       ``I never have done it,'' Lamb says. ``It sends out one of 
     those messages that's been sent out of this town for the last 
     20 years: Everybody does everything for money. When I go out 
     to speak to somebody I want to have the freedom to say 
     exactly what I think. I don't want to have people suspect 
     that I'm here because I'm being paid for it.''
       On February 20, according to the printed program, Philip 
     Morris executives from around the world would have a chance 
     to listen to Cokie and Steve Roberts at 7 a.m. while enjoying 
     a continental breakfast. ``Change in Washington: A Media 
     Perspective with Cokie and Steve Roberts,'' was the schedule 
     event at the PGA resort in Palm Beach during Philip Morris' 
     three-day invitational golf tournament.
       A reporter who sent the program to AJR thought it odd that 
     Cokie Roberts would speak for Philip Morris in light of the 
     network's new policy. Even more surprising, he thought, was 
     that she would speak to a company that's suing ABC for libel 
     over a ``Day One'' segment that alleged Philip Morris adds 
     nicotine to cigarettes to keep smokers addicted. The case is 
     scheduled to go to trial in September.
       At the last minute, Cokie Roberts was a no-show, says one 
     of the organizers. ``Cokie was sick or something'' says Nancy 
     Schaub of Event Links, which put on the golf tournament for 
     Philip Morris. ``Only Steve Roberts came.''
       Cokie Roberts won't talk to AJR about why she changed her 
     plans. Perhaps she got Dick Wald's message.
       ``Of course, it's tempting and it's nice,'' Wald says of 
     hefty honoraria. ``Of course, they [ABC correspondents] have 
     rights as private citizens. It's not an easy road to go down. 
     But there are some things you just shouldn't do and that's 
     one of them.''
                                                                    ____

          [From the Columbia Journalism Review, May-June 1995]

   Where the Sun Doesn't Shine--Financial Disclosure for Journalists 
                              Doesn't Fly

                           (By Jamie Stiehm)

       Journalists don't like to politick on their own behalf; 
     they'd much rather cover politics as a spectator sport. But 
     every so often a few souls in Washington are asked--if not 
     told--by their bureau chiefs to run for the prestigious 
     Standing Committee of Correspondents in one of the 
     congressional press galleries. In the case of the daily 
     newspaper gallery, this is an inner circle, democratically 
     elected, that makes important logistical decisions affecting 
     coverage of both Congress and the national political 
     conventions. Hence the tendency of the bigger newspapers and 
     wire services to exercise their clout to get their people in 
     there.
       So this year, chances are that if he had kept quiet, John 
     Harwood of the Wall Street Journal, the only candidate from 
     one of the ``Big Four'' national newspapers, would have won. 
     But instead, Harwood chose to ignite a controversial issue 
     that has divided the journalistic community ever since Ken 
     Auletta's September 12 New Yorker article made it the talk of 
     the town: whether journalists should disclose to their peers 
     and the public their ``outside income''--that is, income 
     earned from speeches and sources other than their day jobs.
       ``I think it's time we do a better job of disclosing the 
     sort of potential conflicts we so often expose in the case of 
     public officials,'' Harwood wrote to 2,000 colleagues in a 
     campaign letter. In an interview, he adds, ``Given the impact 
     the media have on public policy discussions, we should be 
     willing to subject ourselves to more scrutiny.''
       This philosophy did not play too well with the masses. As 
     they paid campaign calls around town, Harwood and the 
     Journal's Washington bureau chief, Alan Murray, could hardly 
     help noticing that the disclosure proposal did not excite 
     enthusiasm. ``I was surprised,'' Murray states flatly, ``to 
     find out so many of my colleagues oppose the right thing to 
     do.''
       Yet only a handful of daily gallery members, the so-called 
     celebrity journalists who make substantial money from 
     speaking engagements, would likely have serious outside 
     income to disclose. (Harwood himself says that he earned only 
     $300 last year from an outside source, for a speech he gave 
     to the World Affairs Council.) The vast majority of the 
     gallery members are beat reporters who might reasonably 
     resent what some see as an invasion of privacy. ``What 
     business of the gallery is it what my income is?'' says 
     Stephen Green, of Copley News Service, who also ran and lost. 
     ``People who are paying your salary should decide whether you 
     have a conflict or not.'' Alan Fram of The Associated Press, 
     the big winner, opposed disclosure partly on the ground that 
     reporters are private citizens, not public officials.
       Fram and Green see ``philosophical perils,'' as Green put 
     it, in ``licensing'' reporters by requiring them to reveal 
     certain facts and activities. ``That opens up a door we don't 
     want to walk through,'' says Fram. ``What's the next step? 
     Voting registration?''
       Of the three press galleries that accredit reporters on 
     Capitol Hill--the daily, periodical, and radio-TV galleries--
     only the periodical press gallery requires members to list 
     all sources of earned income. This rule has always applied to 
     the periodical gallery, largely because it receives more 
     applications from people who might be moonlighting as trade 
     association lobbyists, government consultants, or corporate 
     newsletter writers.
       Harwood argues that he only wants the daily gallery to do 
     what the periodical gallery already does: put the sources, 
     not the amounts, of outside income on record for any other 
     gallery member to look up. He would go one step further, 
     however, and make records available to the general public, 
     not just journalistic peers: ``Put the judgment out there.''
       Would writing these things down prevent anything impure 
     from taking place? Maybe: environmental lawyers, for example, 
     have found that the most effective laws are the ``sunshine'' 
     statutes that made certain polluting practices less common 
     simply by requiring companies to report them.
       Anyway, the results are in. Out of a field of five, Harwood 
     lost narrowly to the three winners: Fram of AP, Sue Kirchhoff 
     of Reuters, and Bill Welch of USA Today, none of whom share 
     his views. Is financial disclosure for journalists an idea 
     whose time has come? If Harwood's loss is a good sounding of 
     the current state of journalistic opinion, the answer is: not 
     yet.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia because it is the beginning, 
not the end, and it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that will begin 
the process for a complete hearing on the matter. As I understand it, 
it is a sense-of-the-

[[Page S10357]]
Senate resolution that in essence calls for a separate Senate 
resolution to be offered in the future during the 104th Congress that 
would in essence call for the Rules Committee to begin the process of 
complete hearings on the issue.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, while I have indicated that I am prepared to 
accept the amendment, I think it is fair to say that there are 
questions with respect to the concept as it relates to members of the 
Senate Press Gallery only, as I understand it.
  Mr. BYRD. It pertains only to the credentialing of members of the 
Senate Press Gallery.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I do believe that several of the points that the 
Senator from West Virginia made during his comments with respect to the 
amendment were, in fact, on target, specifically the issue as to the 
power of the press in choosing what to cover. There is a tendency for 
us in public life to hear--and I guess from time to time believe--that 
we have been inaccurately quoted. My own experience is that has not 
really been a problem. The issue which I think is important--the issue 
which I think the publishers of newspapers have said themselves--is 
that the power of the press is really to choose what to cover and what 
not to cover.
  My point for making this is that the individuals who are members of 
the Press Gallery in the Senate, frankly, and from my perspective, are 
not the ones that determine what is going to be covered and what is 
not.
  So I think that frankly there will have to be a complete hearing on 
the issue to make a determination about whether the Senate in fact 
should move on this concept.
 But at this point, as I said a moment ago, I am prepared to accept the 
amendment.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, the 
manager of the bill, for his comments and for his support in offering 
to accept the amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the words of 
the Senator from West Virginia on his sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
and am also willing to accept the amendment on the grounds that I see 
it as the precursor to having a hearing on this so that all sides can 
be aired. I would want to make sure that we were not precluding 
anyone's ability to be in the Press Gallery with this kind of 
amendment. I think those kinds of questions and answers can be 
gathered. I understand that is what this amendment is trying to attain 
and with that would not object to it.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the minority manager. I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia [Mr. Byrd]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 312 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--39

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Bryan
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  So the amendment (No. 1802) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend the Appropriations Committee for 
bringing this bill to the floor. Senator Hatfield, Senator Byrd, 
Senator Mack, and Senator Murray, in my view, have crafted a bill that 
reduces the amount we will spend on the legislative branch by over $200 
million and an amount which is $427 million below the fiscal 1995 
budget estimate.
  This is an excellent piece of legislation. It is certainly not 
perfect, but I, again, congratulate the managers of the bill for an 
outstanding effort to reduce spending on the legislative branch. 
Obviously, it is where we must begin if we are going to ask other 
sectors of America to experience spending cuts as well. I thank my 
colleagues.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to share with the Senate my 
congratulations to the subcommittee, in particular the subcommittee 
chairman, Senator Connie Mack, because we started out this year on our 
side of the aisle--and I am very pleased this has become bipartisan--
with the suggestion that if we are going to fix the fiscal policy of 
our Nation, we ought to start by fixing our own House, and we ought to 
save some money for the taxpayers in terms of what we spend on the U.S. 
Senate.
  I happen to cochair our Republican task force with my friend Connie 
Mack. We recommended that we take $200 million out of the Senate's 
expenditures out of the legislative budget. I am pleased to report that 
we were taken almost literally by the chairman. He saved $200.041 
million. So if every subcommittee that was charged with reducing the 
expenditures of our Government looked to the budget resolution for its 
assumptions, or to what my friend, Connie Mack, looked to--it was a 
resolution by the Republicans to take $200 million out--if everybody 
did their jobs that well, this would be a pretty good year.
  Frankly, I want to make one other point. I am not saying that the 
budget resolution assumption should be adopted by any committee because 
I understand the Budget Act said the appropriators will make the final 
decision. It also said on the entitlement, the committees that write 
the law change the law. If we do not start getting rid of some agencies 
of our Federal Government, some functions of the Government, some 
programs of the Government, we are just putting off for another year 
what is inevitable. It will just get worse, not better. Good programs 
will have to be reduced, rather than those that are marginal and 
perhaps not needed.
  Why do I state that? Because in this appropriations bill, this 
subcommittee has succeeded in doing away with one of the many service 
organizations that help the U.S. Senate do its work. As I understand 
it, over a 2-year phase, we will eliminate what we recommended in our 
early resolutions to the subcommittee. We will be getting rid of one of 
those service organizations, is that not correct?
  Mr. MACK. That is correct. I just say to the Senator that there 
probably will 

[[Page S10358]]
be an amendment proposed later in the morning, or in the early 
afternoon, to restore the Office of Technology Assessment.
  Again, we did take the direction from both the early resolution by 
our conference but also the budget resolution that said, if we are 
going to meet this target, we are going to have to make not only 
reductions, but we are going to have to eliminate some of the agencies, 
and we have done that. I thank the Senator for his help on that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not prejudging that vote. I am 
speaking to the bill as it currently is. I was a member of the 
appropriations committee that voted to sustain their work with 
reference to the service organization we say we should get rid of over 
2 years. I hope that the U.S. Senate, every time we have an issue like 
this--and it will come up today--that we not always think how can we 
save it and make sure it is still around and look at it again.
  Sooner or later, you have to make decisions that you do not need 
everything, everything in the budget, and that the Senate does not need 
everything that currently serves the Senate. If you do not start doing 
that, then I do not believe we have a lot of credibility. I do not 
believe the American people are going to buy it for a minute that we 
ought to be cutting other programs, and we cannot get rid of one 
organization that helps us do our job.
  Sooner or later, we have to be examples, and it has to be real, not 
rhetoric. I commend the subcommittee and its chairman. I hope the 
debate will center around, can we really do with less and still do our 
jobs? I believe we can. I do not see any shortage of professional 
talent helping us around here, scientific or otherwise. We have so many 
groups of science institutions that can help us, I do not know that we 
need our own $22 million science service organization. That is what the 
issue will be.
  I yield the floor and thank the chairman for his work and his ranking 
member for her diligent work.


                           Amendment No. 1803

 (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate that the 104th Congress 
   should consider comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
     Bradley, Mr. Simon, Mr. Biden, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. 
     Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 1803.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. MACK. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue reading.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the current system of campaign finance has led to 
     public perceptions that political contributions and their 
     solicitation have unduly influenced the official conduct of 
     elected officials;
       (2) the failure to limit campaign expenditures in any way 
     has caused individuals elected to the United States Senate to 
     spend an increase portion of their time in office raising 
     campaign funds, interfering with the ability of the Senate to 
     carry out its constitutional responsibilities;
       (3) the public faith and trust in Congress as an 
     institution has eroded to dangerously low levels and public 
     support for comprehensive congressional reforms is 
     overwhelming; and
       (4) reforming our election laws should be a high 
     legislative priority of the 104th Congress.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that as soon as possible before the conclusion of the 104th 
     Congress, the United States Senate should consider 
     comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation that will 
     increase the competitiveness and fairness of elections to the 
     United States Senate.
                Amendment No. 1804 to Amendment No. 1803

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate in regard to the 
              consideration of certain legislative issues)

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], for Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1804 to amendment No. 1803.
       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that before the conclusion of 
     the 104th Congress, comprehensive welfare reform, food stamp 
     reform, Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, superfund reform, 
     wetlands reform, reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act, reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, 
     immigration reform, Davis-Bacon reform, State Department 
     reauthorization, Defense Department reauthorization, Bosnia 
     arms embargo, foreign aid reauthorization, fiscal year 1996 
     and 1997 Agriculture appropriations, Commerce, Justice, State 
     appropriations, Defense appropriations, District of Columbia 
     appropriations, Energy and Water Development appropriations, 
     Foreign Operations appropriations, Interior appropriations, 
     Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
     appropriations,----

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. MACK. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue reading.
  The bill clerk continued reading as follows:

     Legislative Branch appropriations, Military Construction 
     appropriations, Transportation appropriations, Treasury and 
     Postal appropriations, and Veterans Affairs, Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations, 
     reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, reauthorization 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, health 
     care reform, job training reform, child support enforcement 
     reform, tax reform, and a ``Farm Bill'' should be considered.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Feingold be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes on the pending 
amendment, No. 1803, to be followed by 20 minutes for debate prior to a 
motion to table under the control of Senator McCain, and that following 
the conclusion or yielding back of time, Senator Dole or his designee 
be recognized to make a motion to table the Feingold amendment, and 
that no further amendments be in order prior to the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I further ask that once the motion to table 
is made, the amendment be laid aside until 2:30 in order to consider 
other amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Florida for 
his cooperation. I am working on an agreement on this amendment.
  I have offered this amendment today concerning the need for campaign 
finance reform because I firmly believe that there is a broad majority 
of Senators on both sides of the aisle who believe our campaign finance 
laws are in need of significant repair.
  My resolution asks the Members of the U.S. Senate whether they 
believe we have a seriously flawed system of campaign financing and 
whether they believe we should consider changing it during the 104th 
Congress.
  It is a simple proposition, but I think it is a very important one. I 
could not be more delighted that this resolution has bipartisan support 
in its cosponsorship. It includes the Senator from Arizona [Mr. 
McCain], the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], the Senator from 
Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], the 
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], the Senator from Vermont 

[[Page S10359]]
[Mr. Leahy], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], the Senator 
from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], and 
the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka].
  Mr. President, this resolution does not propose any specific reforms. 
It does not mention spending limits or public financing or PAC 
contributions or any of the other proposals that have been connected in 
the past with campaign finance. It merely says that sometime during the 
next year and a half this Chamber should consider legislation that will 
restore a greater degree of fairness and competitiveness to the 
elections that are involved to elect people to the Senate.
  Why is this necessary? It seemed that significant campaign finance 
reform was going to be achieved in the 103d Congress. Unfortunately, 
the effort fell apart as House and Senate negotiators were unable to 
bridge their differences. I am the first to say there was blame on the 
part of both parties for this falling apart, but I am offering this 
resolution today because there has not been any sort of indication that 
the Senate will be considering this issue either this year or next 
year. It is not even mentioned in the Republican contract. It is not on 
the majority leader's list of items we need to do before the August 
recess. I am afraid that it might not even be on the list of the things 
we need to do before the turn of the century if we do not pass some 
kind of resolution.
  It is clear that the campaign spending in our political system is 
spiraling out of control. The FEC recently released some startling 
numbers with respect to the level of spending in the 1994 elections. 
According to the FEC, the 1994 elections were the most expensive in 
history, sporting a price tag of $724 million. That is a 62-percent 
increase--Mr. President, a 62-percent increase--from aggregate spending 
just 4 years earlier in 1990.
  The effect of this escalation in spending to me is a sort of politics 
of exclusion as it becomes increasingly difficult for average working 
Americans to run for public office. It is very distressing that 
candidates are first and foremost judged on their fundraising ability 
and their personal wealth rather than their merits as candidates. I 
think most of us would agree that the democratic political system 
should encourage individuals to run for elective office but that is not 
what our current system does.
  If anything, the current system sends a message that political 
campaigns are expressly reserved for the very few who have the ability 
to do what the current system requires of them to run an effective 
campaign, and we all know it. The message we get is that if you cannot 
raise and spend millions of dollars, you are not really an effective or 
viable candidate.
  If you are a powerful member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
as was my opponent in 1992, and you have the ability to raise nearly $6 
million for a campaign, then the current system, of course, 
accommodates you. If you are independently wealthy and if you decide 
you would like to use your wealth to run for elective office, as the 
current trend seems to me, then the current system also accommodates 
you.
  If you are a schoolteacher and serve part time in the city council 
and decide you would like to run for the U.S. Senate, then the current 
system tells you that based on your income level, employment status, 
and other such factors, you are automatically a long-shot candidate. 
Your positions on the issues are at best secondary. Your experience as 
a teacher and your record on the city council is secondary. Why? 
Because you lack substantial campaign funds, or a war chest as it is 
called now, that will inhibit you from getting your message across to a 
statewide electorate. This makes you a long shot, and the thought of 
not running at all has to cross your mind.
  This has to change. Unfortunately, despite the nearly universal 
agreement that something needs to be done to curtail campaign spending 
and improve the election process, time and time again Congress fails to 
pass the needed legislation. So I offer this resolution today because 
there needs to be, first of all, a clear statement that campaign 
finance reform should be on the agenda for this Congress. It is not 
even mentioned, as I said before, in the Republican contract, and we 
need to figure out a way to get it onto the agenda.
  The only effort that has been made in the whole Congress this session 
on campaign finance reform was to take away the campaign finance system 
we have that has helped make Presidential elections more fair. 
Thankfully, we defeated that effort, and we did it on a bipartisan 
vote. It is now time to refocus our efforts on fixing the congressional 
system and to find answers to a disturbing question. That is, how, Mr. 
President, can we expect ordinary Americans to run for elected office 
when the price tag is literally, literally millions of dollars and the 
costs escalated at a rate of over 60 percent in the past 4 years?
  I know recently there was a handshake between the Speaker of the 
other body and the President about a commission. I noticed there was no 
Member of this body who was a party to that agreement, so it did not 
terribly impress me in part for that reason. But the Speaker recently 
just backed off of that anyway, so let us not assume that any sort of 
commission will even be created let alone believe that it will make a 
difference.
  There is no reason at all for this body not to move forward on this. 
We cannot pretend that this is not a pressing problem, and we cannot 
pretend that we do not know how to deal with it. Congress has to 
demonstrate to the American people that it can act responsibly and 
decisively and that it can approach this problem in a bipartisan 
manner.
  On another front, Mr. President, the set of figures recently released 
by the FEC gives us some telling data, surprising data. For example, 
contributions by political action committees to all congressional 
candidates back in 1990 totaled $149 million. Now, this went up 
slightly in 1992 to $178 million but stayed in 1994 at $178 million. 
So, Mr. President, PAC contributions, even though many people would 
like to see them eliminated, have been fairly level over the past three 
election cycles.
  On the other hand, and this is what really shocked me, contributions 
and loans from candidates themselves--in other words, those who 
contribute to their own campaigns--increased at a rate of 37 percent 
from the 1992 level. So personal contributions to your own campaign is 
now sort of the new growth industry in the area of campaign financing.
  That means the greatest increase in campaign financing comes from 
candidates that finance themselves. That translates into an electoral 
system tailored only for those who either have access to a large base 
of campaign contributors or another group, those who have the personal 
wealth and means to afford an expensive political campaign. Either way, 
again, the schoolteacher that serves on the city council is becoming 
increasingly less likely to have any chance at all of seeking this 
office and attaining it.
  Mr. President, not too long ago, I heard one of the candidates for 
President, the Senator from Texas, say something that I found kind of 
fascinating. Announcing his bid for the Republican nomination to the 
White House in 1996, the Senator from Texas stated that he had the most 
reliable friend you can have in American politics, and that is ready 
money.
  There was a time when the most reliable friend you could have in 
politics was a strong record on the issues, substantial grassroots 
support, or maybe even the endorsement of a large newspaper in your 
State. But a candidate for the Presidency has indicated that he may be 
the best candidate in 1996 not because of his stance on the issues, not 
because of his popularity with the voters in his party, but because he 
has the most money, or at least did at that time, of the eligible 
candidates.
  Those remarks are simply an accurate portrayal of what our election 
system has become. It is not so much about your stance on the issues or 
the speeches you give on the campaign trail or even the countless 
volunteers that the Senator from Minnesota and I remember so well from 
our campaigns who usually sit in unairconditioned offices all day 
stuffing envelopes for you.
  Sadly enough, our election system has become all about money--who has 
it, who can raise the most, and who can spend the most. It is no longer 
one person, one vote. It is more $1, one vote, or $1 million, 1 million 
votes. 

[[Page S10360]]

  I was a supporter last year of S. 3, the campaign finance reform 
bill, and that bill was filibustered. I did not believe that it was a 
perfect bill, but on balance I believe it represented a substantial 
improvement over the current system and it clearly would have installed 
a level of fairness back into our campaign system.
  On the first day of the 104th Congress, I introduced S. 46, another 
attempt to try to reform our campaign system. I do not hold out any 
false hopes that my bill will become law in the near future. That is 
why I am certainly willing to compromise on this issue and to work with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to write a bill that will 
somehow get us off the road we are on of further protecting incumbents 
and encouraging multimillion dollar campaigns.
  I do, however, in working with the Senator from Arizona, who has been 
a tremendous partner in this issue, believe that certain principles 
have to be included. A good bill has to provide incentives to keep 
campaign spending down to a reasonable level, and it has to provide 
some sort of assistance to legitimate but underfunded challengers, so 
that our elections will indeed be competitive and fair. I also want to 
see candidates raise more of their funds in their own home States 
rather than constantly crisscrossing the country looking for funding 
from the west to the east coast.
  Mr. President, for the past several months, the Senate has been 
diverting almost all of its attention to the Republican Contract With 
America. This was the campaign that said, ``Put us in power and we will 
change the way Washington does business.'' But it is disappointing 
again that this subject has not really come up. How can you change 
``business as usual'' without suggesting that we need to change the 
outrageous degree of fundraising, the disproportionate influence of 
out-of-State special interests, and the lack of competitive challengers 
to well-placed incumbents?
  Though it was not part of the contract, I know there are Members on 
the other side of the aisle who truly are committed to comprehensive 
campaign finance reform. And I continue to believe that we can have a 
bipartisan reform bill. In fact, Mr. President, just look at very 
recent history. We have had statements by the Senator from Kentucky 
indicating:

       The 102nd Congress is faced with many challenges, not the 
     least of which is ensuring the credibility of this 
     institution and the electoral process of our Nation. To that 
     end I [Senator McConnell], along with the Senate Republican 
     leader, Senator Dole . . . am introducing the Comprehensive 
     Campaign Finance Reform Act. This bill is the most sweeping 
     legislation ever put forth on this issue. [This reform act] 
     would restore integrity and competitiveness to our electoral 
     process while preserving constitutional rights and our 200-
     year-old democratic freedoms.

  That is from January 1991, by the Senator from Kentucky.
  More recently, in January 1993, the now majority leader stated:

       Just as Congress needs reforming, so, too, does the way in 
     which you are elected to Congress. And today, as we have done 
     before, Senate Republicans will be introducing legislation to 
     reform our campaign finance system. . . .
       Again, this is an area in which I think we are going to 
     need bipartisan effort if we are to have a meaningful 
     campaign finance reform bill. . . .
       So I hope that we can maybe impose some deadline--30, 60 
     days--for Democrats and Republicans to work out a bipartisan 
     package.

  The majority leader then went on to say:

       If ever there was an issue that cried out for bipartisan 
     cooperation, it is campaign finance. Senator Boren of 
     Oklahoma and Senator McConnell of Kentucky are this Chamber's 
     acknowledged campaign finance reform experts. Perhaps if 
     Senator Mitchell and I gave them 30 days to get together and 
     hammer out a comprehensive reform proposal, they would 
     succeed.

  And, finally, Mr. President, simply a copy of the front page of S. 7, 
which is the legislation by the majority leader and many other Members 
on the other side of the aisle calling for Federal campaign finance 
reform.
  So it is clear that the other side is on record in favor of doing 
this.
  Let me simply reserve the remainder of my time at this point and say 
that this is the amendment which we worked, on a bipartisan basis, to 
put together that can at least start us on the real road to campaign 
finance reform, not just a resolution, not just a commission, but a 
true bipartisan effort that I hope will bear fruit.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator has 6 minutes 8 
seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator--may I withhold?
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the gentlemen yield 3 minutes to me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 20 minutes under 
the unanimous-consent agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. OK.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I may 
consume.
  While my friend from Florida is here, I want to talk about two 
aspects of this situation. One is what just transpired that brought us 
to this time agreement. As my colleague from Florida knows, I served 12 
years in both the House and the Senate in the minority status. And one 
of the things that frustrated me enormously as a member of the minority 
was that I was unable to get issues that were important to me and my 
constituents before this body.
  I will say that the previous majority leader on the other side of the 
aisle, on numerous occasions I went to Senator Mitchell and said, 
``Senator Mitchell, I want a vote on this issue. I'll be glad to agree 
to a time agreement. I will be glad to have whatever parameters you 
decide so as not to interfere with the functioning of this body.'' I 
will tell you, Mr. President, Senator Mitchell always granted me that 
vote.
  For us to start in with parliamentary maneuvering not allowing people 
who have a reasonable amendment with an agreement for a reasonable time 
frame, I think is a betrayal, frankly, of what we were seeking over the 
last 12 years in my experience in the minority. The Senator from 
Wisconsin spent all day yesterday on the floor waiting to be 
recognized. The Senator from Wisconsin was willing to have a reasonable 
time agreement so he could get a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
before this body with an up-or-down vote on it or a tabling motion.
  Now, it seems to me--it seems to me--that if we are going to conduct 
business around here with comity, if someone has a reasonable request--
a reasonable request--we should grant that request. Now, this was a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution about a strongly held view by the 
Senator from Wisconsin. And I hope in the future we can avoid this kind 
of thing and sit down and say, OK, what will the arrangements be? If 
not today, next week or next month or even next year. But filling up 
the tree with parliamentary maneuvering, I think, is beneath us.
  I want to make one additional point, Mr. President, if I may. 
Campaign finance reform is something that the American people want. In 
1994 the American people said, ``We do not like the way you do business 
in Washington. We do not like the way you do business.'' And they also 
said, ``We do not like the way you get there.'' I know, that message 
was clear. And I am confident, because I believe in representative 
government, Mr. President, that sooner or later we will address this 
issue, because it is the will of the people. They do not like what is 
going on. Now we may make it worse, I do not know. I think we can make 
it better. But no average citizen in America believes that the system 
under which we elect Presidents of the United States and the system 
under which we elect representatives to Congress is a fair and 
equitable system, because of the role that money plays in these 
campaigns.
  If I could just, as an aside, say to my friend from Wisconsin--just 
an aside--if he is going to quote Republicans now, it would be fair if 
he quoted the latest deal that people can have that the Democratic 
National Committee gave if you want to have breakfast with the 
President or meetings with the President, all those good deals. Let us 
put some balance in this now. Let us not make it a partisan issue. 
There are egregious activities on both sides on this issue.
  But getting back to the fundamental point, I do not believe, Mr. 
President, that 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 Senators will be able to block the 
will of the American people.
  Now, what the Senator from Wisconsin and I are seeking to do is set 
forth 

[[Page S10361]]
a framework, which we will be introducing this week, for campaign 
finance reform that has the fundamental elements that we believe are 
the will of the American people. We want to engage in a debate. We 
want--it is not a perfect document--we want to engage in the kind of 
consensus building that will lead us to a fundamental reform of the 
system that most Americans think is broken. And I think we have that 
obligation. I would like to work with all of my colleagues and any of 
them on this issue. But I greatly fear that unless we do this, unless 
we embark on this very difficult effort, the American people will lose 
further confidence in us and their system of government and the way we 
select our leaders, whether it be a Presidential campaign or any other.
  So, I think it is an important issue, and I think the Senator from 
Wisconsin had the right to see at least what the will of the Senate is 
here. Maybe his motion will be tabled. I do not know. But the fact is 
that we need to get about addressing this issue, and we proved in the 
last few years that we cannot do it on a partisan basis. It has to be 
on a nonpartisan basis.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and I want to thank whoever 
worked out the agreement for this time agreement and the tabling motion 
to give the Senator from Wisconsin an opportunity to get a vote on this 
issue as to what the will of the Senate is.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes; I will be glad to yield to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me, first of all, ask the question and say that I 
fully agree with the Senator from Arizona that it certainly would not 
be accurate to assign to only one party the blame on this issue. In 
fact, in my comments I indicated that this thing went down last session 
not just because of a Republican filibuster but also, I think, because 
of substantial Democratic opposition in the other body. That has to be 
said. There have been many different analyses of what happened on 
November 8, but I ask the Senator from Arizona if he does not think in 
part the problem of the Democrats had to do with the failure to reform 
this system when they were in control?
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree with my colleague on that. But I also think there 
is no doubt that on both sides of the aisle there was such a strong 
preference for the status quo that clearly the issue was not given the 
priority that it deserved, which I think was the primary reason for its 
failure.
 I will say, it was a bipartisan failure as well.

  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will take a moment of my time. I want 
to comment, in light of the comments of the Senator from Arizona. I 
have only been here 2\1/2\ years, but I have never seen a greater 
demonstration of bipartisanship and courage as I have seen on the part 
of the Senator from Arizona in his willingness to try to make sure a 
Member of the minority party and himself have an opportunity to raise 
an issue of this kind.
  That is exactly the kind of conduct that the American people have 
been crying out for, and it has been a tremendous experience for me to 
know that in this body, that people assume is so partisan, that these 
kinds of experiences do and can occur.
  So I want to thank him at this point, and I look forward to working 
with him on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield the 
floor?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I do yield and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 4 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of this amendment with the Senator from Wisconsin and the 
Senator from Arizona. As I understand the amendment, it really says 
nothing more than we should, during this Congress, take up this issue 
of campaign finance reform. It is an extremely reasonable amendment, 
one I think that should engender the support of Democrats and 
Republicans.
  A very good friend of mine who is going to be leaving the Senate, 
Paul Simon, wrote a book not too long ago, and I had a chance to read a 
rough draft. The first chapter was on campaign finance reform. I said 
to the Senator, ``That should have been the first chapter, because this 
is really the root issue.''
  I think it is the root issue and really the root problem for several 
reasons. I only have 4 minutes today, but we will be coming back to 
this over and over again, because I think we are going to insist on 
this reform during this Congress.
  First of all, it is a root issue, Mr. President, because I think, in 
a way, this mix of money and politics, which really becomes the 
imperative of American politics, if you will, this money chase, it 
undercuts democracy and it undercuts democracy for two reasons.
  First of all, it undercuts the very idea that each person in 
Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, or Florida should count as one and no 
more than one, because that is not really what is going on any longer 
to the extent that big money has such a dominant influence in politics.
  Second of all, it undercuts democracy because it represents 
corruption, but not the corruption of individual officeholders, but 
rather a more systemic type of corruption where too few people have too 
much wealth and power. That is what is skeptical, cynical about public 
affairs, and all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, have the 
strongest possible self-interest in having your citizens really 
believing in politics and public affairs. But when people see this 
influence of money, they become very cynical.
  Mr. President, it also has a lot to do, unfortunately, with 
representation or lack of representation. I remember during the 
telecommunications bill--and I am not trying to pick on any group of 
people--but the reception room was packed with people. Some people just 
march on Washington every day, they are lobbyists or others, they 
represent a lot of big money, they make big campaign contributions.
  I have to say, when we talk about low-income energy assistance, which 
I think we will be talking about, cuts in low-income energy assistance 
or nutrition programs for children, whatever, you never see that mix of 
money and politics. Those citizens are just as much citizens as any 
group of citizens having the same representation. I think something is 
terribly wrong.
  So, Mr. President, I have introduced bills in the past, I have 
introduced a bill this Congress, offered amendments, and have given 
enough speeches about the need for campaign finance reform. I say to 
the Senator from Wisconsin, I am proud to be part of this effort. I 
think we ought to pass this bill, and we ought to pass it this 
Congress. I think it is the strongest and most important thing we can 
do.
  I also have to tell you, Mr. President, that from my own point of 
view--Mr. President, how much more time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. May I intervene here to say to the Senator from 
Minnesota, if he will yield for a moment, the Senator from Arizona has 
some additional time which he has indicated he will be willing to yield 
to the Senator from Minnesota, if the Senator wants more time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I think probably 5 
minutes more will be fine.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes 
of the time of the Senator from Arizona be given to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Minnesota has 5 minutes of the time of the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, I view all of these reform 
efforts--the gift ban and lobbying disclosure, which we take up on 
Monday, and the campaign finance reform--to be just critical measures, 
because I think people have to believe in this process or they are not 
going to believe in the products of this process. 

[[Page S10362]]

  I think people feel that politics has become a game they cannot play. 
I think people feel like this is a political process that does not 
represent them well. I think people feel like only a few people are 
well represented in politics.
  We have to make our political process more accountable, more honest, 
more open, with more integrity, and I cannot think of a better way to 
do it than to take strong action and pass a comprehensive gift ban and 
lobbying disclosure bill next week--I know we are going to have 
spirited, long, hard, tough debate about that--and, in addition, pass 
this campaign finance reform bill sometime this Congress. Again, the 
only thing this amendment says is we should take this up.
  Mr. President, I will make one final point. I am now up for 
reelection. I was so hoping we could pass a campaign finance reform 
bill. I absolutely hate the system and the way in which we have to 
raise money. I think almost every single Senator does.
  I said in Minnesota, and for several years, I will only raise $100; 
if nothing changed, I will have to raise money to run against other 
people. With all the ads on TV, communications becomes the weapon of 
electoral conflict and all of us end up having to do that.
  But, quite frankly, all of us ought to get together in a bipartisan 
way once and for all to pass a reform bill that really would, I think, 
make this political system operate in a much more effective way, not 
just for Democrats and not just for Republicans, but for all the people 
in this country. I think that is critically important.
  We have gone through this debate before and, quite often, any time 
there is any kind of campaign finance reform bill, people say, even if 
there is a minimum amount of public money--maybe we can do without 
any--even if there is a minimum amount, people say this is food stamps 
for politicians.
  It is not. The elections do not belong to the politicians, they 
belong to the people back in our States. I think the Senator from 
Arizona is absolutely on the mark when he says that one of the strong 
messages that has come from people--it came in the 1990 election in 
Minnesota; it came in the 1992 election the Senator from Wisconsin was 
involved in; and the 1994 election--is people want to see change, 
people want to see reform.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that all of my colleagues will vote for 
this amendment. This amendment just says we make a commitment to bring 
this question up. We make a commitment, Democrats and Republicans 
together, to introduce a bill and to pass this legislation. I think 
this amendment ought to receive 100 votes because, quite frankly, I 
think that is the sacred trust we have of people in our country. They 
want us to make this change. They want more democracy, not less. They 
want more opportunities for people to run for office. They want more 
openness in the political process. They yearn for a political process 
they can believe in. What better thing could we do than to take up 
campaign finance reform, along with gift ban and lobbying disclosure, 
and pass a reform bill of which all of us can be proud.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that I may be yielded such time 
as I may require, on the time of the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. He 
and I have worked together on many issues. We sat down, as he 
indicated, in the beginning of this Congress and listed a couple of our 
top priorities of what we would like to see happen here. At the very 
top of the list was our shared belief that if there is anything that 
needs to be changed in this country, it is the way we finance 
campaigns. Three Members of this body, including the Senator from 
Minnesota, myself, and the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, did 
get elected even though we were not Members of Congress and were not 
personally wealthy. But we all know we are the exceptions to the rule.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How does the Senator know that I am not personally 
wealthy?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I saw the recent reports on the Members of the Senate. 
You were not high on the list. I regret to say that neither was I.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I stand corrected.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. We all had campaigns that people watched. Do you know 
why? Because we were not supposed to win, because of big money. Even 
though we happen to be sitting here and it is a wonderful thing to have 
this opportunity, there are thousands and thousands of Americans as 
well qualified as any one of us who decided not to get into the fray 
because of the money, because of the absolutely daunting nature of the 
amount of money that is required to run for the U.S. Senate.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I compliment the Senator on his amendment that comes 
before us today and for his perseverance on this critically important 
topic of campaign finance reform.
  Let me just say that I agree with you. We need more people running 
for office in this country. We need the best and the brightest. It is 
indeed a sad note that people decide not to run, not to be here, simply 
because the daunting task of raising millions of dollars overwhelms 
them. That is not, to me, what this country is about or what democracy 
is about.
  Until we reform the campaign finance laws and level the playing 
field, we are not going to get back to a point that allows everyone to 
be here and to speak out on the important issues of the day. I commend 
the Senator for the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. As I look at Senator Murray and 
the Senator from Minnesota, I know we were all serious candidates. But 
we know that among the things that got attention were things like 
Senator Murray's tennis shoes and I had a blue van with an Elvis 
Presley ``endorsement.'' The Senator from Minnesota had a green bus. I 
think those were fine and they had to do with a serious process that 
was connected with it. I do not think it should be necessary for 
somebody to just happen to hit the right moment and right sense of the 
people in their State. We ought to be able to get our message out with 
fairness and equality.
  As I look at the Senators, I want to compliment the Senator from 
Washington in helping us get this agreement. She is trying to get this 
appropriations bill approved. She is managing it for the Democratic 
side. We did want to get this on other bills, as we indicated. We 
thought there were perhaps slightly more appropriate vehicles, such as 
the telecommunications bill. This is where you get the daunting nature 
of the task and the discouragement of candidates. If you look at the 
contributions in the report of Common Cause on the telecommunications 
bill, among the levels of contributions to Members of this body from 
groups involved with that bill, one Senator received $273,000. Many 
others received in the one hundred ninety thousands and in the one 
hundred seventy thousands. There are over 20 people who got over 
$100,000 in campaign contributions in connection with that issue.
  We thought that would be a good bill to do it on, but people urged us 
to let that bill alone. Now the regulatory reform bill--that is the one 
on which I spent a lot of time here trying to attach it to. I heard one 
Senator in this body say that in the 23 years he has been here, he has 
never seen the business community more unified on an issue. That is 
sort of good news and bad news. Of course, we all want to be 
probusiness when we can, but when you have complete unanimity in the 
business community, I think sometimes you have to take a look at the 
other side, and what people who might be affected by it would do. The 
report of Public Citizen, again, shows enormous levels of 
contributions, Senators receiving over $300,000 in contributions from 
the interests in that issue, and many others in the $200,000 or 
$100,000 category. That is just an interest relating to that one 
particular bill. So we decided to use this bill as a vehicle to make 
this simple statement. I believe, Mr. President, that this is the 
beginning.
  People often say, what is the point of a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution? Well, what we are trying to do, as the Senator from Arizona 
knows, is to try to take the first step. You have to take 

[[Page S10363]]
the first step, which is to get everybody on record either for or 
against the concept of campaign finance reform. It is regrettable that 
we are a quarter of the way through the 104th Congress and we have not 
even taken that first step.
  But I hope today, when the tabling motion is made, that the Members 
consider what the view of the people of this country is. I am confident 
that whether you are Republican or Democrat, the American people are 
generally disgusted with the way these campaigns are financed. Perhaps 
the California Senate race was the most extreme example. When you tell 
someone that a person spent $28 million of his own money trying to get 
elected to the U.S. Senate, they really wonder whether they have 
anything to do with the process at all anymore. How can they possibly 
even dream of running for the U.S. Senate if that is the kind of ante 
that is required?
  So, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Chair informs the Senator from Wisconsin that he has 2 minutes 55 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate on this issue. 
The debate has not changed. I came to the conclusion years ago that we 
are never going to get campaign finance reform if we leave it up to the 
two parties, because there is always the case that the party in the 
majority will obviously try to fix it to suit them and make it a little 
better for the majority than members of the minority.
  That has been true in the past, and I assume it will be true today. 
In fact, I suggested a number of times that we have a commission of 
outsiders with no ax to grind to take a look at campaign finance 
reform. I guess that is pretty much what Speaker Gingrich and President 
Clinton suggested to each other up in New Hampshire.
  In any event, it seems to me that with all the things we have yet to 
do in this Congress, and certainly campaign finance reform is 
important, we have regulatory reform right now. It means a lot more to 
most families than campaign finance reform. It costs each family about 
$6,000 per year, and we are about 2 votes short of getting 60 votes to 
move on regulatory reform. It is much more important than campaign 
finance reform. We are taking money out of someone's pocket. They may 
not care a thing about politics and never contributed a nickel to 
anyone. We cannot do that, because we cannot get the votes on the other 
side.
  We have welfare reform to take up. It will take a long time. I just 
suggest that this may be a matter of great priority with a few Members 
of the Senate. It does affect all Members. We can all reach down and 
find some horror stories.
  In fact, we could go to the White House if we had $100,000--I think 
that is the going rate to do business with the President--$100,000. 
They have different packages for different people of different economic 
circumstances. That does raise eyebrows, when people say, ``I have to 
see the President. It is $100,000''--I guess that is per couple. That 
is only $50,000 apiece.
  Maybe that is what the people have in mind here. I assume this would 
apply to the executive branch as well as the Congress. There are 
excesses. There are people who get elected without a lot of money. I am 
finding out right now in the Presidential race, the worst part of the 
job is trying to raise the money. I do not ask people for money. I will 
not call people. I will not make telephone calls. I do not like to do 
that. I do not mind somebody else asking, but I do not like to ask.
  In any event, this may have some merit, but with all the other things 
we have on our plate, and with part of the August recess already 
slipping away, I know this says ``by the end of the 104th Congress,'' 
and it seems to me that it will be even more difficult next year 
because then we are in an election year, when everybody wants to be 
involved in politics, politics becomes the focus of a lot of people.
  Mr. President I move to table the underlying amendment, No. 1803, and 
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. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1803 
is set aside until 2:30 p.m. today
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just conclude, we are making some 
progress. I think the American people are probably happy that now the 
laws we impose on them also apply to Congress. We have done that this 
year. That was a big step in the right direction. It probably means we 
will not pass so many crazy laws because they now also apply to 
Congress.
  On Monday, we will take up gift ban reform and lobbying reform. We 
will overhaul that. We are also considering a constitutional amendment 
later on this year to limit terms of Members of the House and the 
Senate.
  It is not that we are not aware that some of these things, I think, 
cry out for action. We are addressing more, in this first year, than we 
have addressed in the years past. We will continue to try to make 
improvements, so that the American people understand that. But I think 
also we need to keep our eye on the ball. A lot of these other issues 
do not mean a great deal to the American people, too.


                           Amendment No. 1805

    (Purpose: To stop the practice of hiring elevator operators for 
                          automatic elevators)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1805.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 26, add at the end the following, ``The 
     account for the Office of Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper is 
     reduced by $10,000, provided that there shall be no new 
     elevator operators hired to operate automatic elevators.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this budget that is brought to the floor, I 
think, deserves commendation of all of the Members. This is an 
extraordinary departure from past policies. It involves literally a 16-
percent cut that the President had requested for funding for Congress, 
and virtually a 9-percent real cut, actually a little over that, 9.13-
percent real cut, over what we spent in the past year.
  I am not aware of any Congress that has taken such dramatic action in 
the history of our country, to reduce its expenditures. Certainly in 
terms of dollars that have been cut from the budget, this has to be the 
all-time record winner. I think the distinguished chairman and the 
ranking member deserve a great deal of credit for bringing this kind of 
proposal to the floor.
  It reflects a sincere and real interest in coping with some of our 
problems with regard to the budget. It does it in a very important way. 
It does it by setting an example.
  It not only talks about reducing spending, but it proposes a budget 
for the Senate itself that reduces spending. That, I think, is the 
critical key element, if we are to have credibility in trying to deal 
with our budget problems. It is no secret to anyone here that this 
country has the biggest deficit of any nation in the world. It is no 
secret here that this country has the biggest trade deficit of any 
nation in the world. It is no secret here that we have one of the 
lowest savings rates of any major industrialized country in the world.
  The American people believe it is long past time we ought to face up 
to these problems. So this budget that is for the Senate itself sends 
an important message. It sends an important message, not because we are 
the biggest part of Federal spending, it sends a very important message 
because we set an example. You cannot say one thing and do another, and 
that is what has been the problem with so many past Congresses. They 
talked about deficit reduction, but each year they increased spending 
and they increased spending on themselves. 

[[Page S10364]]

  So I look at this budget with great admiration for the fine people 
who spent long hours to try to find real savings, and they have done 
it.
  There is one item that I think deserves attention and it is included 
in the amendment that I brought forward. It does not call for the 
dismissal of any elevator operators, but it does suggest that we should 
not hire new ones. As elevator operators on the automatic elevators 
retire, this measure contemplates that we would not replace them. I 
think it is important. Some will say, ``Oh, come on,'' but I believe it 
is very important because we have to set an example. If our efforts to 
deal with the deficit are to have any credibility at all, we have to be 
willing in our own House to set the example.
  How do the American people respond when they hear we hire elevator 
operators to operate automatic elevators? I will tell you, real people 
think it is nuts. Real people, who work for a living every day, real 
people who have to pay the tax bills every day, think it is ludicrous 
for us to have people push the buttons for us.
  Over the years I have heard almost every kind of excuse for hiring 
patronage employees to operate the elevators. I must tell you, it is my 
perception the major reason this phenomenon occurs is, first, because 
people did it in the past, and, second, because many of these positions 
are patronage.
  Over the years, I have heard people talk about how critical it was to 
get here on time for votes and that having the elevator operators was a 
key element in that. I have no doubt that the people who say that are 
sincere. I must tell you, I think it is bunk. If people want to get 
here for votes on time, they come. We do not have elevator operators in 
the office buildings. We do have elevator operators on the elevators 
reserved for Senators, and that may be a different question for a 
different day. But those seem to operate just fine.
  I have every confidence that every Member of the Senate is capable of 
pushing the buttons to move the elevator from the bottom floor to the 
second floor in order to arrive here in time for votes. I have every 
confidence they are able to push the button from the second floor, to 
push the B button to get down to the basement. To suggest Members of 
this body cannot move through the elevators without elevator operators 
on automatic elevators is absurd.
  But more important, there is a very important point that Members 
should consider with this. If we are not willing to eliminate elevator 
operators on automatic elevators, what kind of confidence can this 
country have if we are going to deal with $200 billion to $300 billion 
deficits? What kind of belief can they have that we are going to stick 
with a budget plan that lasts 7 years? If we are not willing to make 
even a modicum of effort to control spending in our own house, on an 
item as frivolous as this, how can they believe that we intend to 
reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars? The answer is 
they will not. And the answer is, it is important Americans believe 
that we have a new Government and new commitment and a new willingness 
to deal with problems.
  Is this a small item? Of course it is. But the symbolism is terribly 
important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mack].
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado has gained a 
tremendous reputation over the years for his efforts to reduce Federal 
spending, and I compliment him on that. I was interested in his 
comments about having ``every confidence that Members can push the 
buttons on the automatic elevators.'' That was an unquestioned level of 
confidence. It has been a long time since I have heard that level of 
confidence in our colleagues. But I accept that comment.
  I would say to the Senator, I am prepared to accept the amendment but 
it does, in fact, go counter to the approach that the committee has 
taken with respect to reducing the expenditures of the Federal 
Government, particularly the Congress, the legislative branch. We had a 
very significant request, if you will, or directive given to us, to 
reduce the legislative branch budget by over $200 million, which, in 
fact, we have accomplished with about $41,000 to spare. We accomplished 
that, however, not by having the committee try to find every item 
throughout the legislative branch that any of us, or either of us, 
thought was important to cut. I will say to my friend and colleague 
that I think it is more important that we give a direction, or a 
directive, to the individuals responsible for the various functions of 
the legislative branch, indicating to them what we think they should do 
as far as a total is concerned, and ask them to, in essence, make the 
best judgment about how to reach that goal. I believe with our having 
taken that approach, we have been successful in our effort.
  The Sergeant at Arms was given a directive of a reduction of 12.5 
percent. The Sergeant at Arms came back with a little bit over 14 
percent, and should be complimented for that achievement.
  But as I indicated a moment ago, even though I have a different 
approach in bringing about significant reductions to the legislative 
branch, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not note that 
our new Sergeant at Arms has done a very admirable job. He has already 
cut the number of elevator operators from 20 to 10, and saved over 
$118,000 in this fiscal year. So I would not want a moment to pass 
without recognizing what I think is a very dramatic change in policy by 
the new Sergeant at Arms. I think this amendment will help affirm that 
very significant effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from 
Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I, too, will not object to accepting this 
amendment. Let me just add, I concur with the manager of the amendment, 
Senator Mack, who I think has done an outstanding job working with the 
different departments. The Sergeant at Arms did come back with a 14.5-
percent cut. They are definitely going to be looking at how they can do 
that in the coming months when we will see the effect of that. It is, I 
think, difficult for us to micromanage them from this point, but I am 
willing to accept this amendment.
  Let me at this point say, in doing so, I also want to send my 
compliments to our current elevator operators, whom I think many of us 
do not take the time to say ``thank you'' to so often. They are always 
kind and courteous and efficient. I appreciate the fact that they find 
me in the crowds. I know that is not a problem that some of the other 
Members have.
  But they are always here, they are always smiling, they are on time. 
I think oftentimes when we have amendments like that, it is seen as a 
slam on some people who are doing a very efficient job, and, I think, 
one that we do not say ``thank you'' for, often enough.
  So let me take this opportunity to thank them for the job that they 
do for all of us.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1805) was agreed to.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1806

 (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding war crimes in 
                              the Balkans)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask that it be modified to be put in 
the form of an amendment to the pending bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1806.


[[Page S10365]]

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:
       Sec.  . (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) war and human tragedy have reigned in the Balkans since 
     January 1991;
       (2) the conflict has occasioned the most horrendous war 
     crimes since Nazi Germany and the Third Reich's death camps;
       (3) these war crimes have been characterized by ``ethnic 
     cleansing'', summary executions, torture, forcible 
     displacement, massive and systematic rape, and attacks on 
     medical and relief personnel committed mostly by Bosnian Serb 
     military, para-military, and police forces;
       (4) more than 200,000 people, mostly Bosnian Muslims, have 
     been killed or are missing, 2.2 million are refugees, and 
     another 1.8 million have been displaced in Bosnia;
       (5) the final report of the Commission of Experts on War 
     Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia, submitted to the United 
     Nations Security Council on May 31, 1995, documents more than 
     3500 pages of detailed evidence of war crimes committed in 
     Bosnia;
       (6) the decisions of the United Nations Security Council 
     have been disregarded with impunity;
       (7) Bosnian Serb forces have hindered humanitarian and 
     relief efforts by the United Nations High Commissioner for 
     Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and 
     other relief efforts;
       (8) Bosnian Serb forces have incessantly shelled relief 
     outposts, hospitals, and Bosnian population centers;
       (9) the rampage of violence and suffering in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina continues unchecked and the Untied Nations and 
     NATO remain unable or willing to stop it; and
       (10) the feeble reaction to the Bosnian tragedy is sending 
     a message to the world that barbaric warfare and inhumanity 
     is to be rewarded: Now, therefore, be it
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate hereby--
       (1) condemns the war crimes and crimes against humanity 
     committed by all sides to the conflict in the Balkans, 
     particularly the Bosnian Serbs; and
       (2) condemns the policies and actions of Bosnian Serb 
     President Radovan Karadzic and Bosnian Serb military 
     commander Ratko Mladic and urges the Special Prosecutor of 
     the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 
     to expedite the review of evidence for their indictment for 
     such crimes.
       (3) It is the sense of the Senate that the Special 
     Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
     Former Yugoslavia should investigate the recent and ongoing 
     violations of international humanitarian law in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.
       (4) The Senate urges the President to make all information, 
     including intelligence information, on war crimes and war 
     criminals available to the International Criminal Tribunal 
     for the Former Yugoslavia.
       (5) It is the sense of the Senate that the President should 
     not terminate economic sanctions, or cooperate in the 
     termination of such sanctions, against the Governments of 
     Serbia and Montenegro unless and until the President 
     determines and certifies to Congress that President Slobodan 
     Milosovic of Serbia is cooperating fully with the 
     International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered so that 
the Senate will have an opportunity to articulate a forceful 
condemnation of the war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed 
by all sides in the conflict in the Balkans, particularly the Bosnian 
Serbs, so that the Senate will have an opportunity in the final 
analysis to condemn the policies and actions of the Bosnian Serb 
President, Radovan Karadzic, and the Bosnian Serb military commander, 
Ratko Mladic, and urge the special prosecutor in the International 
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to expedite the review of 
evidence for their indictment for such crimes.
  I had spoken on this subject generally on Tuesday evening following 
the introduction of the resolution by our distinguished majority leader 
calling for lifting the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Moslems may 
have an opportunity to defend themselves.
  I support the action of the majority leader in urging the adoption of 
that resolution. It seems to me that the mission of the U.N. forces in 
Bosnia has been a mission impossible when they are charged to keep the 
peace when there is no peace to keep. U.N. forces ought to be withdrawn 
so that they can no longer be held hostage and so that then the Bosnian 
Moslems may have an opportunity to defend themselves under article 51 
of the U.N. Charter, and that there may be appropriate help from the 
United Nations, NATO, and the United States by way of massive 
airstrikes. But there has not been a condemnation of the action of the 
Bosnian Serbs by this body, and I think that is very important.
  The conduct of the Bosnian Serbs has been on a level of brutality and 
inhumanity which has been virtually unparalleled at least since World 
War II, and the nations of the world have stood by and have watched 
these atrocities and ethnic cleansing go on without a denunciation of 
this kind of conduct.
  Hopefully, the International Criminal Tribunal will ultimately bring 
to justice all of those involved up to and including the highest 
levels. While the Western democracies articulate values of decency and 
humanity, we have sat back and have watched this atrocious conduct 
unfold.
  There is little left of dignity and honor or basic human dignity in 
what has gone on in Bosnia, and at the very minimum this conduct ought 
to be condemned in the most forceful possible terms, which is what this 
resolution calls for.
  I have introduced it for that purpose and to speak briefly on some of 
the underlying factors. I have told the managers of the bill that I 
would not insist on a rollcall. There is no reason to take an 
additional 20 minutes of the Senate's time to have what would most 
probably be a unanimous vote.
  However, these are matters which ought to be called to the attention 
of the American people and the people of the world as forcefully as 
possible. It is my hope that the President of the United States will 
speak out on this subject, and that the President of the United States 
will use the forcefulness of the bully pulpit of the White House to 
acquaint the American people with what is occurring.
  We have seen confirmed reports of the Bosnian Serbs rounding up young 
men, 11 and 12 years of age, and slitting their throats and placing 
them in heaps. We have seen the photographs in the public press of 
young Moslem women from Bosnia going into the fields and hanging 
themselves because that kind of suicide is preferable to the kind of 
brutality which is being inflicted by the Bosnian Serbs. We have seen 
the active reports from the safe havens of the United Nations which 
have been invaded by the Bosnian Serbs, taking away elderly women, 
taking away elderly men, committing the most atrocious kind of conduct.
  I am not going to take a great deal of time here today, with the 
pendency of the other legislation. But I would cite just a couple of 
examples which are illustrative:
  The Bosnian Serbs going to a Moslem victim and cutting off two 
fingers of each victim's hand so as to make the sign of the cross; and 
then they cut the prisoner's nose and ears off; and finally cut their 
throats, causing death.
  Another example, a woman hiding in a barn with her husband and two 
young daughters, ages 13 and 7. Five Chetniks, Serbian paramilitaries, 
find them, beckon the father over, and in the sight of his two young 
daughters and wife, brutally murder him with a gun without his having 
uttered a word.
  In the presence of an elderly woman, the husband is accosted by 
Bosnian Serbs, as they were fleeing, slicing his throat right in front 
of her, causing death.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that examples be admitted into 
the Record, without going through them in detail at this moment which 
chronicles and specifies the kinds of blatant atrocities which are 
being perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Examples of War Crimes or Crimes Against Humanity in the Former 
                               Yugoslavia


                               example 1

       The Final Report of the Commission of Experts to 
     Investigate War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia reveals the 
     existence of 150 mass graves containing between 5 and 3,000 
     bodies and over 700 detention facilities in which, up until 
     March 1994, an estimated 500,000 persons were imprisoned, 
     murdered, tortured, and raped.
       The estimated number of tortured persons is over 50,000.
       The estimated number of raped women is over 20,000.

[[Page S10366]]

       The Serb policy of ethnic cleansing included total forceful 
     transfer of civilian populations from Serb controlled areas 
     in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law as 
     well as the destruction of public and private property, 
     including religious and cultural heritage.
       All of the above constitute war crimes and crimes against 
     humanity and could even rise to the level of genocide.


                               example 2

       The camp commanders.--Zeljko Meakic:
       A. Complicit in the killing of, and in the causing of 
     serious bodily or mental harm to, and in the deliberate 
     infliction of conditions of life on, Bosnian Muslims and 
     Bosnian Croats people, intending to bring about their 
     physical destruction as a national, ethnic or religious group
       B. Held individually responsible for the crimes committed 
     by his close subordinates (deputies and shift commanders) and 
     by the guards who regularly and openly killed, raped, 
     tortured, beat and otherwise subjected prisoners to 
     conditions of constant humiliation, degradation, and fear of 
     death.
       C. Personally beat the prisoners upon arrival with batons 
     and other weapons
       D. Kicked one prisoner who was tortured in the chest.


                               example 3

       Zoran Zigic and Dusan Knezevic ordered prisoners to drink 
     water like animals from puddles on the ground, jumped on 
     their backs and beat them until they were unable to move; as 
     the victims were removed in a wheelbarrow, one of the Serbs 
     discharged the contents of a fire extinguisher into the mouth 
     of one of the victims.


                               example 4
       Dusan Tadik and others: Belonged to a group of Serbs from 
     outside the camp, who called on one day prisoners out of 
     their rooms, severely beat them with various objects and 
     kicked them on their heads and bodies. After one of the four 
     prisoners was beaten, two other prisoners were called on and 
     ordered by a member of the group to lick his buttocks and 
     genitals, and then to sexually mutilate him; one of the two 
     covered the prisoner's mouth to silence his screams, and the 
     other bit off the prisoner's testicle. This prisoner and two 
     other died from the attack; the fourth one, who was severely 
     injured, was thrown onto the back of a truck with the dead 
     and driven away.


                               example 5

       Most recently, in the wake of the fall of Srebrenica, there 
     are numerous accounts of new Serbian cruelty: throats slit, 
     women raped before women and children were packed on buses 
     for a mass ethnic deportation.
       Twenty-year-old woman made her way into a grove of trees 
     near the refugee camp at night and hung herself.
       Hundreds of men were reportedly killed by Serbs and 
     thousands taken away for investigation of ``possible war 
     crimes.''
       One refugee reported that the buses carrying the Muslims 
     were stopped outside Srebrenica and Serbs took young men and 
     women off. ``They made us watch while they cut the men's 
     throats and raped the women.'' (New York Times, 15 July)
                               example 6

       In Potocari, where there was a U.N. base to which many 
     refugees fled, there were accounts of Bosnian Serb soldiers 
     coming into the factories were refugees where spending the 
     night.
       ``They took some young boys with them, kids who were 
     probably between 12 and 17 years old. Later we heard 
     screaming outside. . . . On Wednesday morning we went 
     outside. . . . I saw seven of the boys with their throats 
     cut, and two others hanging from a tree.''
       The same night, Serb soldiers reportedly abducted three 
     women, ages 12, 14, and 23. When the three returned several 
     hours later, they were naked and covered with scratches and 
     bruises, and the two youngest were bleeding from the assault. 
     At dawn, the 14 year-old ``slipped off to the side. She took 
     a scarf she had with her, tied it around her neck and hanged 
     herself from a beam.''
       Wednesday morning, the Serbs ``took about 15 women. When 
     the women started to scream, the Chetniks [Serb soldiers] 
     covered their mouths and dragged them away. We left the 
     factory on buses a few hours later and by the time we left 
     none of the women had come back.'' (New York Times, July 17, 
     1995)


                               example 7

       Thousands of thin and exhausted Bosnian Muslim men have 
     begun pouring into Tuzla after being missing since the fall 
     of Srebrenica a week ago.
       One soldier told of seeing a father shoot his badly wounded 
     son when he could carry his child no farther.
       Others said they saw comrades commit suicide during the 
     long walk by pulling the pins on hand grenades and holding 
     them to their necks or by standing next to them as they 
     exploded.
       ``There were dozens and dozens of dead bodies on my 
     trail.''
       U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said about 19,000 of 
     Srebrenica's 42,000 residents still are not officially 
     accounted for. (Gazette-Montreal, July 18, 1995)
       Another U.N. official relayed the following account: ``One 
     woman told us that her husband was grabbed by the Bosnian 
     Serbs as they were fleeing Srebrenica and they slit his 
     throat right in front of her. She said she saw the bodies of 
     at least eight other men whose throats had also been cut.


                               example 8

       A report from the Bosnian War Crimes Commission in 1992 
     claimed that since the beginning of the war, at least 260,000 
     people had passed through concentration camps and prisons set 
     up by the Serbs while 10,000 people had been killed in them.


                               example 9

       The Report described the mutilation and torture of men, 
     women and children by Serbs: ``One account . . . claims that 
     Serbian fighters burned alive elderly people who refused to 
     leave their homes and forced mothers to drink the blood of 
     their murdered children.'' (The Daily Telegraph August 3, 
     1992)


                               example 10
       One candidate for prosecution would be Gen. Ratko Mladic, 
     the commander of Serbian forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
     Mladic was the Yugoslav Army commander in the Serbian-
     controlled area of Knin in Croatia before being transferred 
     to Bosnia to head army forces there. Following the army's 
     nominal withdrawal from Bosnia, he stayed on as Serbian 
     commander and was overheard on Serbian radio frequencies 
     disregarding subordinates who questioned artillery attacks on 
     the residential neighborhood of Velesice in Sarajevo because 
     of the number of Serbian residents there. ``Burn it all,'' 
     Mladic instructed his troops, ordering them to shell the area 
     with the heaviest weapons in the Serbian arsenal: 155-
     millimeter howitzers. (The Nation, August 31, 1992)


                               example 11

       Zerina Hodzic's account of what happened to her husband is 
     typical: I was hiding in the barn with my husband Rifet age 
     35 and our two daughters ages 13 and 7. Five Chetniks Serbian 
     paramilitaries found us and pointed their index fingers at my 
     husband and beckoned him toward them. One of the Chetniks 
     shot him without ever having uttered a word.

  Mr. SPECTER. A summary, Mr. President, was contained in the final 
report of the Commission of Experts to Investigate War Crimes in the 
Former Yugoslavia. That report specifies the existence of some 150 mass 
graves containing between 5,000 and 3,000 bodies each, and 700 
detention facilities where up to 300,000 persons were imprisoned, 
murdered, tortured, and raped; with tortures estimated at some 50,000, 
and rapes estimated at some 20,000.
  And I will further call attention, Mr. President, to the fact that in 
the proceedings in the international criminal tribunal for the former 
Yugoslavia, that Bosnian Serb commanders are being held responsible for 
atrocities. In the case of two of the commanders, they were held 
responsible for the acts of their subordinates, which gives rise to an 
expectation that officials at the highest level may be held responsible 
in the International Criminal Tribunal.
  Mr. President, it is a difficult matter as to how far the United 
States and NATO can go in assisting the Bosnian Moslems. I have said on 
this floor that I am opposed to the use of ground forces in that arena. 
It is an open question as to whether other support can be given, such 
as heavy bombing, which could perhaps bring about a balance of power 
between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Moslems, giving the Bosnian 
Moslems an opportunity to defend themselves. But there are a wide range 
of options.
  I believe that if the people of this country understood the intensity 
of the barbarism which is going on, when you have acts like cutting off 
ears and cutting off noses, slicing the throats of young boys, and have 
the brutal conduct leading young women to hang themselves rather than 
be subjected to the atrocities from the Bosnian Serbs, there might well 
be a different public reaction. And there might well be a different 
leadership reaction if the President would speak out to the Nation as a 
whole, using the force of his bully pulpit. Some people watch C-SPAN 2 
and some people hear and see what we are doing. But it is too hard for 
people to follow the atrocities that are occurring, too hard for people 
to follow the fine print in all the newspapers to see exactly what is 
going on. But if the people of America were aware of what is going on, 
I think there would be widespread public outrage, just as outrage has 
been expressed by this Senator and others on this Senate floor.
  So it is minimal, but I think the least that we can do, to express 
our outrage and to have the voice of the Senate speak out in condemning 
the action of the Bosnian Serbs, condemning the action of the Serbian 
President Radovan Karadzic and the Serbian military leader Slobodan 
Milosevic, and asking the special prosecutor of 

[[Page S10367]]
the tribunal to review the issue of indictment, that if we will not act 
directly in a military sense, that at least we will put those people on 
notice that what they are doing will not be ignored, and will be 
subject for criminal prosecution at a later date, by analogy to the 
Nuremberg war trials. The day of reckoning may come, and those leaders 
and all those that can be identified will face the death penalty in a 
court of law for their acts of brutality in Bosnia today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. First, let me commend my friend from Pennsylvania for 
his leadership on this issue. I was unaware that the Senate did not yet 
issue a statement of the denunciation of these kinds of atrocities. I 
agree with him absolutely that it is time we did so. And I appreciate 
what he has done here today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be allowed to 
proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________