[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9763-S9765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on H.R. 3754 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
3754) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of July 30, 1996.)
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the conference report is an appropriation of
$2,165,000,000, for the legislative branch for fiscal year 1997.
This is a reduction of $22 million below the enacted program levels
in fiscal year 1996, $174 million below the requested amount, and,
compared to fiscal 1995 the bill reflects a $225 million reduction.
Mr. President, I thank the members of the committee, and especially
our ranking member, Senator Murray for her help and cooperation in
producing this legislation.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
agreement to H.R. 3754, the fiscal year 1997 legislative branch
appropriation bill.
I commend Senator Mack for his leadership of the managers on the part
of the Senate. I also compliment the House conferees, particularly the
House subcommittee chairman, Mr. Packard, and his minority counterpart,
Mr. Thornton. Their obvious knowledge of this legislation certainly
played a large part in the expeditious manner in which this conference
proceeded.
All in all, Mr. President, this is a good conference agreement. In
most cases, we split the difference with the House with respect to the
funding levels for the related agencies in this bill. One exception is
the funding for the Joint Economic Committee. The Senate-passed bill
funded that committee at a level of $750,000 and the House-passed bill
at a level of $3,000,000. The conferees agreed to a funding level of
$2,750,000 with language stating that the long-term need for this
committee should be reviewed and that funding for the committee is
expected to be phased down to zero in the future.
In addition, I was pleased that the House accepted my amendment
regarding the disposal of excess computer equipment to public schools.
And, at the recommendation of Congressmen Fazio and Serrano, the House
included language stating that they support this policy for excess
House computer equipment.
Mr. President, I note that section 312 of the House-passed bill, the
issue of so-called dynamic scoring, was dropped from the conference
agreement. As Members are aware from previous statements I have made on
the floor, I steadfastly opposed this provision and, therefore, am
pleased to report that the House agreed to remove this provision from
the conference agreement.
In closing, I again commend this Legislative Branch Subcommittee
chairman, Senator Mack, for his leadership and for the spirit of
bipartisanship in which he operates. Many difficult issues have arisen
with respect to this legislation over the 2 years of his subcommittee
chairmanship and he has unfailingly faced those issues and resolved
them in a fair and objective way on a nonpartisan basis. He has always
endeavored to keep me fully informed on all matters coming before the
subcommittee, for which I am deeply appreciative.
I urge the support of this conference agreement by all Members.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
report on H.R. 3754, the legislative branch appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1997.
This bill provides new budget authority of $2.2 billion and new
outlays of $1.9 billion for the Congress and other legislative branch
agencies, including the Library of Congress, the General Accounting
Office, and the Government Printing Office, among others.
When outlays from prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are
taken into account, the bill totals $2.3 billion in budget authority
and $2.2 billion in outlays. The bill is under the Senate
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation by $21 million in budget authority and
$47 million in outlays.
I commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member for producing
a bill that is substantially within their 602(b) allocation. I am
pleased that this bill continues to hold the line on congressional
spending.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of H.R. 3754, as reported by the committee of
conference, be inserted in the Record. I urge the Senate to support
this conference report.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal year 1997, dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:
Outlays from prior-year BA and other
actions completed........................ ........... 214
[[Page S9764]]
H.R. 3754, conference report.............. 2,166 1,917
Scorekeeping adjustment................... ........... ...........
-------------------------
Subtotal nondefense discretionary....... 2,166 2,131
=========================
Mandatory:
Outlays from prior-year BA and other
actions completed........................ 92 92
H.R. 3754, conference report.............. ........... ...........
Adjustment to conform mandatory programs
with Budget:
Resolution assumptions................ -0 -0
-------------------------
Subtotal mandatory.................. 92 92
=========================
Adjusted bill total................. 2,258 2,223
=========================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Defense discretionary..................... ........... ...........
Nondefense discretionary.................. 2,187 2,178
Violent crime reduction trust fund........ ........... ...........
Mandatory................................. 92 92
-------------------------
Total allocation........................ 2,279 2,270
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate
Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Defense discretionary..................... ........... ...........
Nondefense discretionary.................. -21 -47
Violent crime reduction trust fund........ ........... ...........
Mandatory................................. ........... ...........
-------------------------
Total allocation........................ -21 -47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff.
Books for the Blind
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support final passage of
the conference report on the appropriations bill for the legislative
branch. The managers of the bill have done a laudable job in their
continued efforts to reduce spending, and I am particularly delighted
that they were able to include my amendment on books for the blind.
This amendment, which makes a very small change in current copyright
law, will make an enormous difference to our Nation's blind children
and adults. It has the approval of the authorizing committees in both
Chambers, as well as the support of the National Federation of the
Blind, the American Foundation for the Blind, the American Printing
House for the Blind, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, the American
Council of the Blind, the Association of American Publishers, and the
U.S. Office of Copyright.
The amendment which I offered with Senators Frahm, Stevens, Leahy,
McConnell, Bingaman, Frist, Ford, Pressler, and DeWine resulted from
the efforts of Ambassador Anthony Veliotes, representing the
Association of American Publishers, and Dr. Kenneth Jernigan,
representing the blindness community. In January, they met and agreed
that this amendment would address the needs of the blindness community
without compromising the rights and interests of the publishers. I
greatly appreciate their help and the help of my constituent, Ed Beck,
the legislative representative for the Rhode Island affiliate of the
National Federation of the Blind, who first brought this to my
attention.
National Library Service and a number of nonprofit organizations,
such as The American Printing House for the Blind and Recording for the
Blind and Dyslexic, reproduce, in specialized formats, published
material that is readily available to sighted individuals in libraries,
bookstores, newsstands, and countless other locations. ``Specialized
formats'' refers to braille, sound recordings--either on cassette or
phonorecord--and new digital formats that can be used with special
software. My amendment seeks to end the unintended censorship of blind
individuals' access to current information. Under this amendment,
groups that produce specialized formats for the blind no longer are
required to gain permission from the copyright holder before beginning
production.
James Gashel of the National Federation of the Blind was invaluable
in his efforts to help us put forth a proposal that would be acceptable
to all sides. He is a strong and able spokesman for the blind. Also, I
would like to thank the managers of the bill, who were completely
accepting of this amendment, as well as their staff, Larry Harris with
Senator Mack and Jim English with Senator Murray.
Let me close by quoting from a letter I received from Mr. Gashel that
explains the significance of this amendment to the blindness community.
Mr. Gashel writes:
This is a significant change for us. It means, for example,
that the current best-sellers, which the Library of Congress
produces for us, should be available in Braille or recorded
format within months rather than a year or more. It also
means that blind children in schools should be able to have
the editions of textbooks being used by their sighted
classmates this year rather than the ones in use last year.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to commend the managers of the bill
for reconciling the differences between the two bodies on this measure.
They have indeed produced a good bill.
I want to comment on one issue in specific. I am saddened that the
managers did not keep language offered by Senator Feingold and myself
to stop the revolving door and restrict former staff and Members from
lobbying the Hill until after a decent cooling-off period elapses.
Unfortunately, this issue will not be resolved today and we will have
to return to it at another time.
Our amendment would have doubled from 1 year to 2 the time a staffer
would have to wait before he or she could lobby the office that
previously employed them. It was our intention that senior staff and
former Members would have to wait 5 years before being able to lobby.
Some have raised the issue that the amendment offered by the Senator
from Wisconsin and myself was harder on senior staff than it was on
Members. I want to clarify for the Record that in the drafting process,
we inadvertently neglected to include the provision that made the
lobbying ban for Members 5 years. Instead, the amendment as offered,
made the lobbying ban for Members the same as that for lower level
staff. Again, I want to repeat, that was not our intention. We had
hoped that our error could be corrected when the bill was considered in
conference. However, we were told that the Senate receded to the House
regarding this matter and subsequently the McCain-Feingold provision
was dropped from the bill.
Additionally, I want to note that the cooling-off period for staff--
regardless of salary--only restricts that individual from lobbying his
or her own boss or committee of employment. On the other hand, the
cooling-off period for former Members of Congress would restrict such
individuals from lobbying the entire congressional branch of
government. This restriction is much tougher than that for staff.
However, I again repeat, it should have been a 5-year restriction.
I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I yield the floor.
general accounting office issues
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this conference report provides $338.4
million for the General Accounting Office. This is $44.4 million less
than 1996 appropriations. This reduction is the second year of a
program to reduce GAO funding by a total of 25 percent.
GAO should be commended for agreeing to this downsizing program.
GAO's work here is an example to Federal agencies for how to downsize
quickly, while still performing the agency's mission.
In addition to this model downsizing, there are two matters of note
for GAO this year.
First, this year is GAO's 75th anniversary. I want to express to the
evaluator staff at GAO my sincere appreciation for their hard work,
much of it on difficult and controversial issues and all of it under
the strenuous circumstance of a major downsizing.
Also, this is the last year of Comptroller General Charles A.
Bowsher's 15-year term. After September 30 Congress and the President
will jointly select and appoint a new Comptroller General. As that
process is started, I want to express three thoughts that I believe
should be kept in mind as a new Comptroller General is selected.
First, it has been traditional to select an individual with an
accounting background as Comptroller General. However, most of GAO's
work is actually not accounting; much of it is evaluations and other
types of investigations. We should consider for Comptroller General an
individual who has a broad background in the type of work GAO actually
does, not necessarily just accounting. I believe this approach may help
in improving the quality of GAO work that has concerned some of us in
recent years.
Second, for many years I have been an advocate of outside expert peer
review of enforce high quality standards of GAO's work. I continue to
believe that GAO work would benefit from regular review by outside
experts, and I
[[Page S9765]]
will want to discuss how best to effect such review with the new
Comptroller General-designate as the Senate confirms his, or her,
nomination.
Third, my concern for peer review for GAO reports has been heightened
by a recent GAO action. GAO has just decided to eliminate its Program
Evaluation and Methodology Division. While very small, this division
has distinguished itself by producing some exceptional reports and by
helping other GAO divisions improve the quality of many of their
reports. Disbanding this division will eliminate and important source
of internal expert review; this decision increases the need for
external peer review.
I congratulate Comptroller General Bowsher and GAO and their 75th
anniversary and I look forward to working with GAO and my colleagues in
the Senate to continue this agency's tradition of very important and
valuable work for Congress.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference
report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and that any statements relating to the conference report be placed in
the Record at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
____________________