[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.

                          ____________________