[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9875-S9877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The 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. 
     2209) having met, after full and free conference, have agreed 
     to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this 
     report, signed by all of the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 18, 1997.)
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I am pleased to report that the House 
and Senate conferees reached an agreement on funding for the 
legislative branch for the fiscal year 1998. The agreement we reached 
provides for total spending of slightly under $2.5 billion--an increase 
of 2 percent over the fiscal year 1997 level and a decrease of 6 
percent from the President's budget.
  Before we begin, I would like to state for the record that the issue 
of pay for Members of Congress is not in this bill.
  However, there were significant differences in the amount of funding 
in the House and Senate bills. The House wanted to limit the growth of 
the legislative branch to the fiscal year 1997 level exclusive of 
Senate items. The Senate had made a commitment to the General 
Accounting Office--a commitment which was made when Senator Mack 
chaired this subcommittee and oversaw a 25-percent reduction in GAO. 
This was a 25-percent reduction in their budget and a 33-percent 
reduction in staff. I participated in the decision to reduce the 
agency, and I was also a party to the Senate's commitment to stabilize 
the agency once it made the reduction. Senator Dorgan shared my desire 
to meet that commitment.
  I want to thank Senator Dorgan for his hard work, and interest in the 
bill. It was only with his strong support that we were able to provide 
adequate funding--a $7 million increase in direct appropriations plus 
and increase of $1.5 million in offsetting receipts over the fiscal 
year 1997 level.
  The Federal Government will spend almost $1.7 trillion next year. The 
legislative branch has the responsibility to oversee this budget and 
make sure that taxpayer funds are being spent wisely. GAO is 
responsible for identifying wasteful Federal spending and recommending 
ways in which we can save billions of dollars. This past year GAO has 
identified $6 billion in measurable savings in the Federal Government. 
That does not include other savings which cannot be measured in 
dollars--such as better organization, ways in which an agency can 
better serve taxpayers, etc. For every $1 appropriated to GAO, they 
have identified $50 savings. This is an agency which is worth the 
investment.
  Maintenance was another issue in this bill. I believe strongly in the 
need to invest in maintenance. Saving a small amount of money now on 
maintenance will only result in higher costs in the future.
  I learned in business that if you do not properly maintain your 
building and equipment you will soon find yourself spending much more 
money to replace those items which have crumbled or can no longer 
function. There are a number of maintenance and security items which 
the Senate identified as priorities such as, repairs to the Library of 
Congress roof, investment in the Capitol powerplant, and Capitol 
security.
  Funding for the Joint Committee on Taxation was also an issue. The 
Senate conferees agreed at the strong urging of the House conferees to 
split the difference between the House and Senate bills resulting in an 
increase of $91,500 over the Senate bill. For many years now the Joint 
Committee on Taxation has operated as an extension of the Finance and 
Ways and Means committees. Members of Congress who are not members of 
those committees have not been able to get revenue estimates for their 
proposals. Without the revenue estimates, it is almost impossible to go 
to the floor to offer an amendment to a tax bill.
  We have been assured by the House that Congressman Archer--the 
current chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation is committed to 
working harder to provide to Senators and Representatives revenue 
estimates in a timely fashion. It is our intent to ensure that the 
Joint Committee on Taxation assists all Members of Congress. Included 
in the statement of managers on page 26 of the conference report is 
language identifying the scope of the assistance we expect the Joint 
Committee to provide to Members.
  During the course of the next year, I would like to hear from my 
colleagues if they are finding the Joint Committee to be helpful.
  In reaching this agreement, the Senate came down $37 million in 
budget authority and the House went up $24 million. I am comfortable 
that the legislative branch will be able to meet its oversight 
responsibilities with the funding provided in this agreement.
  Again, I would like to thank Senator Dorgan as the ranking member for 
his hard work on reaching this agreement. In addition, I would like to 
thank Senator Steven, Senator Craig and Senator Boxer for their 
assistance on the subcommittee as well as the following staff: 
Christine Ciccone, Jim English, Mary Dewald, Mary Hawkins, Chuck 
Turner, and Chip Yost, for their superior work.
  I thank my colleagues in advance for their support of the conference 
report.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement to H.R. 2209, the fiscal year 1998 legislative branch 
appropriation bill. The conference agreement provides a total of $2.25 
billion for fiscal year 1998 for the Congress and other legislative 
branch agencies. This represents a reduction of $144 million from the 
budget request.
  All in all, this is a good conference agreement. I wish to take just 
a minute to point out the level of funding agreed to by the conferees 
with respect to the General Accounting Office [GAO]. As Members are 
aware, an agreement was reached last Congress between the GAO and 
appropriators to reduce the GAO's budget by a total of 25 percent over 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The GAO successfully implemented a plan for 
this reduction, without having to be dragged kicking and screaming. Our 
commitment to them, in return, was to stabilize their funding at that 
reduced level. Unfortunately, for fiscal year 1998, the House 
recommended an appropriation of only $323.5 million for the GAO, a 
reduction of $37.9 million below their budget request. The Senate bill, 
after thorough consideration and cooperation from the GAO itself, found 
that an appropriation of $346.8 million would be sufficient to maintain 
GAO's level of operations.

[[Page S9876]]

  Madam President, this was the most difficult issue in the conference. 
Chairman Bennett joined me in urging the House to come up substantially 
from their level. Ultimately, the conferees agreed to an appropriation 
of $339.5 million for fiscal year 1998, $7 million above the fiscal 
year 1997 appropriation and $16 million above the House-passed bill. 
While not providing GAO every last dollar that they would like to have 
had, this level of funding comes very close to fulfilling our 
commitment to the GAO.
  I commend Senator Bennett for his fairness and the leadership he 
showed during our conference with the House. I also compliment the 
House conferees, particularly the House subcommittee chairman, 
Congressman Walsh, and his minority counterpart, Congressman Serrano, 
as well as their very capable staffs, Ed Lombard for the majority and 
Greg Dahlberg for the minority.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference 
agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as I said when this bill came before the 
Senate for consideration, this is, overall, a good bill. It contains 
very few of the types of earmarks and set-asides for pork-barrel 
spending that are included in most of the appropriations bills.
  Of course, I don't believe I have ever had the pleasure of reading an 
appropriations bill that is completedly devoid of earmarks, and this 
bill is no exception.
  When this bill came before the Senate, I applauded the Senate's 
decision to eliminate or reduce funding for several projects that did 
not appear to be high-priority projects. The Senate cut $50,000 for a 
study of electromagnetic fields in the Russell Senate Office Building, 
reduced funding for elevator modernization in the Hart Building by 
$200,000. Unfortunately, the Senate did include $100,000 for a new 
subway from the Russell Building to the Capitol.
  Because of these and other reductions, the overall budget for Senate 
buildings was reduced by about $2 million. This conference agreement 
restores the full $52 million originally proposed for the Senate.
  My staff was told by the Appropriations Subcommittee staff that this 
restored money will not be used for the projects noted above that the 
Senate explicitly cut. Instead, $2 million will be transferred and used 
for maintenance and repair projects and security improvements in the 
Capitol. Although I can find nothing in the conference agrement that 
would ensure this is the case, I trust that none of the restored funds 
will be used, for example, to study electromagnetic fields in the 
Russell Senate Office Building.
  Finally, I am disappointed that the conferees chose to specifically 
reverse the direction in the Senate report that would require the 
General Accounting Office to place higher priority on Members' requests 
for audits, studies, and investigations. This has been a particular 
matter of concern to me, and I was pleased that the Senate 
Appropriations Committee chose to take the initiative to establish the 
proper priority for the GAO's work.
  I am sure most of my colleagues have, at one time or another, been 
advised that the GAO cannot complete work we have requested in a timely 
fashion. But I don't know if my colleagues are aware that GAO does a 
great deal of work that is either self-initiated or requested 
informally by staff members. And often this work is placed ahead of 
work that is requested by Members in the GAO's assignment of staff and 
resources to complete the work. I don't believe most of my colleagues 
would think that is the proper prioritization for an agency that works 
for the Congress.
  Frankly, I can see no good reason why the conferees took the unusual 
step of repudiating this very much-needed directive. Unfortunately, 
however, because this provision has been summarily reversed by the 
conferees, I will have to consider other appropriate means to ensure 
that GAO's prioritization of work reflects the needs of the Congress, 
not the GAO itself.
  Madam President, these are not major problems. The total of the pork-
barrel provisions in this bill is only slightly more than $1 million. 
However, again, I remind my colleagues that every taxpayer dollar we 
waste reinforces the disdain of the American people for the Congress 
and our way of doing business.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of objectionable provisions be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record.

   Objectionable Provisions in the Conference Report on the FY 1998 
                 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill


                             Bill Language

       $100,000 from the Library of Congress budget for an 
     International Copyright Institute.
       $2,250 from the Library of Congress budget for official 
     representational and reception expenses offor activities of 
     the International Copyright Institute.
       Earmark of unlimited amount of GAO's funds to finance an 
     appropriate share of the expenses of: the Joint Financial 
     Management Improvement Program, including the salary of the 
     Executive Director and secretarial support; the National 
     Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional Intergovernmental 
     Audit Forum, as determined by the respective forum, including 
     necessary travel expenses of non-Federal participants; and 
     the costs of the American Consortium on International Public 
     Administration, including any expenses attributable to its 
     membership in the International Institute of Administrative 
     Sciences.


                            Report Language

       $300,000 for improved lighting in the Senate Chamber.
       $100,000 to design a new subway from the Russell Building 
     to the Capitol Building.
       $550,000 to modernize elevators in the Hart Building.
       Total Objectionable Provisions: $1.052 million.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 2209, the legislative branch appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1998.
  The bill, as reported, provides $2.25 billion in new budget authority 
and $2 billion in outlays 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 outlays. The bill is under the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation by 
$36 million in budget authority and $86 million in outlays.
  I want to commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for producing a bill that is 
substantially within their 302(b) allocation. I am pleased that this 
bill continues to hold the line on congressional spending.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table 
displaying the Budget Committee scoring of H.R. 2209, as reported by 
the committee of conference. I urge the Senate to support this 
conference report.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

           H.R. 2209, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, 1998 SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                                   [Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Defense       Nondefense         Crime         Mandatory         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
    Budget authority............  ..............           2,251  ..............              92           2,343
    Outlays.....................  ..............           2,251  ..............              92           2,343
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority............  ..............           2,287  ..............              92           2,379
    Outlays.....................  ..............           2,337  ..............              92           2,429
President's request:
    Budget authority............  ..............           2,386  ..............              92           2,478
    Outlays.....................  ..............           2,352  ..............              92           2,444
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority............  ..............           2,261  ..............              92           2,353

[[Page S9877]]

 
    Outlays.....................  ..............           2,262  ..............              92           2,354
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority............  ..............           2,286  ..............              92           2,378
    Outlays.....................  ..............           2,269  ..............              92           2,361
 
 CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority............  ..............             -36  ..............  ..............             -36
    Outlays.....................  ..............             -86  ..............  ..............             -86
President's request:
    Budget authority............  ..............            -135  ..............  ..............            -135
    Outlays.....................  ..............            -101  ..............  ..............            -101
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority............  ..............             -10  ..............  ..............             -10
    Outlays.....................  ..............             -11  ..............  ..............             -11
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority............  ..............             -35  ..............  ..............             -35
    Outlays.....................  ..............             -18  ..............  ..............             -18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
conference report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Allard
     Brownback
     Burns
     Coats
     Gramm
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay it on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________