[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9115-S9118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 3754, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3754) making appropriations for the 
     legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1997, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.
       Pending:
       Chafee amendment No. 5119, to provide for a limitation on 
     the exclusion copyrights of literary works reproduced or 
     distributed in specialized formats for use by blind or 
     disabled persons.


[[Page S9116]]


  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 5119

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand that there is a pending 
amendment before the Senate, which is the Chafee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The pending amendment 
is the amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand the amendment has been cleared 
by both sides of the aisle, including the authorizing committee chair 
and ranking member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Ford and Senator Frist be added as cosponsors to the Chafee amendment 
and that the amendment be agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5119) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Murray was good enough to 
file on my behalf an amendment dealing with a recently adopted rule on 
the acceptable uses of the Senate Internet Services. I have some very 
serious concerns about this new rule, concerns that many of my 
colleagues in the Senate share.
  Senator Ford and Senator Warner have worked closely with me on this 
issue and I think we have reached a compromise which is very reasonable 
and accommodating for both the Rules Committee and the Senators who 
would be affected by the new Internet policy. I would like to thank 
them for agreeing to take another look at this policy. As a result of 
that compromise, I have withdrawn my amendment and am looking forward 
to working with the members of the Rules Committee and other Senators 
who are interested in the Senate Internet policy over the next 2 
months. During that time, implementation of the rule dealing with 
promotional or commercial links on Senate home pages will be delayed.
  I do want to take a moment to inform other Senators who may not have 
had a chance to read the new Senate Internet policy, about the issue my 
amendment addressed. On July 22, 1996, the Senate Committee on Rules 
and Administration adopted a policy for the use of the U.S. Senate 
Internet Services. Among other things, the rule states that ``The use 
of Senate Internet Services for personal, promotional, commercial, or 
partisan political campaign purposes is prohibited.''
  Now most of those restrictions I would agree are appropriate and 
prudent. But I am concerned about the ambiguity of the terms 
``promotional'' and ``commercial''. My amendment would have clarified 
that language by allowing a ``home state exemption''--similar to the 
one that is included under the gift rule to allow gifts of home State 
products. Under my amendment, Senators would have been allowed to link 
to sites, businesses, and organizations in their home State as long as 
those links are accompanied by a disclaimer stating that the link is 
not an endorsement of the products, locations, or services they 
feature.
  Like many Senators I have links on my Web page to places and 
organizations in my home State. My home page is a virtual office for 
people who may not be able to get to my offices in Montpelier or 
Burlington. Without the links to Vermont sites it would be a pretty 
uninviting place--no native Vermont art on the walls, no calendar of 
events, and no directory of places to go and things to see while you 
are in the area. That's not the kind of hospitality I like to show 
people who have taken the time to visit my office.
  Under the July 22 rule, I will probably have to eliminate most of the 
home state links on my Senate Web page or defend my decision to keep 
those links before the Senate Ethics Committee. However I won't be 
alone--over half of my colleagues in the Senate have similar links on 
their Web pages to tourist spots, businesses or event listings in their 
home States, including most of the members of the Rules Committee 
itself. Mr. President, I do not believe that is what the committee 
intended. I do not believe that most Members are aware of this rule and 
the affect that it will have on the individuality of their home pages.
  The Internet is a new milestone in communication which the Senate 
should be using to the advantage of all States. But it is also a 
rapidly changing field, and I understand completely the difficulty that 
Senator Ford, Senator Warner and the other members of the Rules 
Committee have had in setting down a policy for Senate use of the 
Internet. The World Wide Web is uncharted territory when it comes to 
drawing the line between what is an appropriate use of Senate resources 
and what is not. But by opening up this dialog between all interested 
Senators, we can will go a long way toward finding that balance.
  This will certainly not be the last time that the Senate grapples 
with the problem of fitting advances in telecommunications technology 
to a government body that pre-dates the pony express. However, I hope 
that the process we are establishing now of open communication between 
Senators who are deeply interested in this emerging technology and the 
Rules Committee, will continue as we travel down this road.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read a third 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. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I ask what the current business of the 
Senate is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is to be recognized for up to 20 minutes, followed 
immediately by a vote on passage of the bill.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I noted the absence of a quorum and thought 
perhaps there was a timeframe open here for me to introduce a bill; 
however, I see the Senator from West Virginia is here and prepared to 
go ahead.
  Under the previous order, I am happy to abide by that and will do 
this at another time.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time did the Senator need to introduce his bill?
  Mr. COATS. There is no rush on this. I think we should stick with 
what was agreed upon.
  Mr. BYRD. I probably have more time under the order than I will use.
  Mr. COATS. I just want to introduce legislation. I can probably do it 
in 2 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent 
that he may speak as in morning business and introduce a bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator 
from West Virginia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Coats pertaining to the introduction of S. 2000 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3754, the Fiscal 
Year 1997 Legislative Appropriations Bill. This is the second year, I 
believe, that the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] has 
chaired the Legislative subcommittee and it is also the second year 
that the equally distinguished Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] 
has served as the ranking member of the subcommittee. Both Senators are 
to be commended for the efforts that they have made to ensure that the 
legislative branch of Government does its share in contributing toward 
deficit reduction.
  As has been stated, the pending measure contains funding levels that 
are below the previous year's budget by a little over $22 million, or 
around 1 percent. Further, the proposed fiscal year 1997 funding level, 
in total, is $13 million less than what the legislative branch had 6 
years ago in fiscal year 1991. So when we consider the cost increases 
that have occurred over this 6

[[Page S9117]]

year period, the legislative branch has taken a significant reduction 
in funding.
  I note that the largest reduction contained in the bill is to the 
budget of the General Accounting Office, for which a reduction of $44 
million is recommended, as well as a personnel ceiling of 3,500 
positions. That reduction fulfills a commitment made by the GAO to 
reduce its budget by 25 percent over a 2-year period. But for that 44 
million-dollar reduction, the pending measure would, in fact, show an 
increase above fiscal year 1996.
  Overall, I believe that this bill recognizes the fact that we have 
reached the bottom of the barrel as far as further reductions in the 
legislative branch budget. A large portion of the legislative branch 
budget is for personnel whose purpose is to assist Members of the House 
and Senate in carrying out their responsibilities. It is my strongly 
held belief that we must be very careful in the future to avoid any 
further arbitrary reductions in the legislative branch. We have reached 
the point, by making such dramatic reductions in staff throughout the 
legislative branch, that it is affecting the ability of Members to 
adequately address issues of national importance which arise in 
Congress every day and to adequately serve the people who send us here. 
In fact, let me take this opportunity to congratulate a very 
commendable group of individuals. Who are they? The United States 
Senate staff.
  Senators like to think of themselves as akin to stars in the heavens, 
giving off light, and giving off heat, energy and brilliance--separate 
and distinct suns in orbits all of our own, as it were, creating their 
very own blinding illumination. In truth our lights would be very dim 
indeed without the dedicated hard work and unbelievable loyalty of 
those who labor so long on our behalf and on behalf of our 
constituents.
  The people who open our mail, who read our mail and who answer much 
of our mail, the people who answer our telephones, and take a great 
deal of guff in the process on many occasions, the people who research 
our issues, the people who prepare our press releases, the people who 
work on the Nation's problems, as well as on the problems of our 
respective States, the people on the committees who craft legislative 
language. I doubt that there is a Senator here--there may be one--who 
personally writes his own bills, the bills that he introduces. The 
people who intercede on behalf of our constituents when we cannot do so 
ourselves, the people who toil on the Senate floor, the people who 
negotiate far into the night, I am talking about our committee staffs 
in particular here, negotiate far into the night to reconcile 
intractable differences with Members of the other body sometimes, long 
after Senators have gone home and gone to bed. All of these individuals 
unselfishly give countless hours and energies in order to serve 
Senators and to benefit their country.

  Some of those staff members may have certain advantages, this is 
true. But these are very special people, and they are special people 
who are mostly unsung and very often unappreciated. Daily, they combine 
demanding, stressful, and difficult careers with equally demanding 
private lives. When they leave home in the morning, they often have no 
idea what time they may return to their loved ones at night. Many of 
us, Senators, are here in that same boat. We do not know what time we 
are going to get to go home at night. But certainly those employees do 
not for the most part. Still they manage to rear children and cook and 
clean and carry out the hundreds of other chores which must be 
performed in their personal lives weekly, despite impossible hours.
  Every Senator in this body, each and every Member on both sides of 
the aisle, is deeply in their debt, as are our constituents and the 
Nation as a whole.
  So we are supposed to pay them well, and in many instances, or most 
instances, I think we do pay them well. But not always, by any means.
  That is why I am particularly concerned that this year those same 
capable, hard-working, largely uncomplaining individuals have been 
singled out, not for praise, but, at least indirectly, for scorn. It is 
my understanding that, for the first time in the years in which there 
have been cost-of-living adjustments, the staff of the U.S. Senate are 
alone--alone--among all Federal employees in this land in their failure 
to receive the COLA. Staffers of the House of Representatives have been 
authorized to receive their COLAS, the entire rest of the Federal work 
force has already received a cost-of-living adjustment, including the 
employees who staff the Federal judiciary.
  I often wonder. It strikes me as strange that Senators, many 
Senators, in thinking of reducing personnel and of not increasing 
salaries of the staff or of Members themselves, do not dare touch the 
judiciary. They do not want to touch the judiciary.
  So staffers of the Federal judiciary have received the cost-of-living 
adjustment. I do not regret that. I am not complaining about that. But 
only Senate staffers have been singled out for this special kind of 
strange and unfair treatment. I cannot fathom any substantive reason 
for such gross unfairness. I cannot understand why such a situation has 
been allowed to develop. I am sure it is not intended to be punitive, 
but in a way it is punitive. When our staffs in the Senate look across 
at the other end of the Capitol and see the staffs of the House, when 
they look across the street and see the staffs of the judiciary, and 
when they look down Pennsylvania Avenue and see the staffs of the 
executive branch who received their COLA's, how could our staffs, how 
could our committee staffs, help but wonder, why is this? Why the 
difference? Why the discrimination?
  Unlike most of the Federal work force that normally receives any 
approved cost-of-living adjustment automatically, Senate staffers may 
only receive such COLA if their respective Senator approves the 
increase for each member of his or her staff. Senators do not have to 
give the COLA to anyone on their staffs or anyone on their committee 
staffs who is under their jurisdiction if they do not wish to. But, 
this year even the option for Senators to do so has been effectively 
taken away from Members.

  I would like to at least have the option. I would at least like to be 
able to pass the COLA's on to the lower paid members of my staff. I 
would like to make that judgment based on each staff person's merits. 
But that option I do not have. No other Senator has that option this 
year.
  Do I hear deficit cutting given as a reason for such disparity? If we 
wanted to make a serious reduction in the deficit through this means, 
we could prohibit the cost-of-living adjustment for anyone and everyone 
in the Federal Government in the first place, including the judicial 
branch. No. Serious deficit reduction is not the issue here. Some sort 
of misguided symbolism can be the only reason for such an unwarranted 
slap in the face for our own loyal employees in the Senate on our 
personal staffs and on committee staffs.
  In my opinion, this is a very poor way to thank the hundreds of 
people who toil to make Senators the celestial heavenly bodies that we 
sometimes believe we are. It is pretty shabby treatment, if you ask me.
  In a city that is as expensive to live in and work in as is 
Washington, DC, how can any Senator be comfortable knowing that we are 
treating the very people who help us to serve our constituents in such 
a fashion?
  I thank the managers of the bill. They have included moneys so that 
the COLA's can be passed on for the coming year. I hope that the 
leadership will authorize that this be done.
  I think the extreme matter should be rectified immediately for this 
year and should not be repeated in 1997. Why? Because common decency 
and fairness demand it.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
passage of H.R. 3754, the legislative branch appropriations bill, occur 
at 3 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S9118]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MACK. I yield the floor. 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. COATS. 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. COATS. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill having been 
read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Brown
     Conrad
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Heflin
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Frahm
       
  The bill (H.R. 3754), as amended, was passed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments to the bill, request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes thereon, and that the Chair appoint conferees on the 
part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Mack, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hatfield, Mrs. Murray, Ms. 
Mikulski, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the Senate.
  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. EXON. 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. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Nebraska be allowed to proceed as in morning business for not 
exceeding 2 minutes the purpose of introducing legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Exon pertaining to the introduction of S. 2003 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________