[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4354-S4356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of minutes on the 
legislative appropriations bill and to commend Senator Stevens and 
Senator Byrd, the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, as well as our good friends, the chair and ranking member of 
the subcommittee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Bennett, for the work 
they have done in putting together, I think, a very responsible bill on 
the Senate side in terms of dealing with the costs of running the 
legislative branch of Government.
  They have put together a good bill. They have been fiscally 
restrained in their approach. Obviously, our legislative branch should 
not be exempt from the kind of scrutiny we apply to every single aspect 
of this, the Federal budget. They are to be commended for packaging a 
bill that does less than the administration wanted but is certainly far 
more responsible, far more thoughtful, far more balanced than what the 
other body has apparently crafted.
  The bill here is $59 million over current spending but $147 million 
below the President's budget request for operations of the legislative 
branch. We need to remember we are not just talking about Members' 
salary or staffs. We are talking about being the temporary custodians 
of these buildings we call the Capitol Grounds.
  A few minutes ago, I greeted another student group from my State, 
from Woodstock High School, a group of eighth graders, and, earlier, a 
group of students from a school in Washington, DC. I try to tell the 
young people when they are here, these are their buildings; this is 
their Government. They are not voters yet, but I want them to develop 
an appreciation of what has been handed down to us as temporary 
custodians, what we will be handing down to them in the coming 
generation so their children and their grandchildren will be able to 
come to this great Capital City of ours, come to the great buildings, 
and cherish and appreciate what it represents to them as citizens of 
the greatest democracy ever created in the history of mankind. As 
temporary custodians of their well-being, we have a responsibility not 
to somehow pad the budgets to serve our own comfortable interests but 
to see to it that we preserve this venue, this seat of democracy, for 
coming generations.
  That is what Senator Feinstein and Senator Bennett have done with 
this budget. Regretfully, it is what the other body has not done. That 
is what makes me so sad. We can have differences here--Democrats, 
Republicans, conservatives, liberals, moderates--and debate issues. 
When it comes to the buildings, when it comes to the people every day 
who work here, whose names you will never know, who care for the 
facilities, who guard these buildings, not just the Members and the 
staffs who work here but the 10,000-plus tourists who come to their 
Nation's Capitol every day and come into the buildings. Officer 
Chestnut and Officer Gibson, who lost their lives just a few feet from 
where I am speaking, were protecting not only the membership when those 
shots fired but protecting hundreds of tourists gathered in the 
building.
  To see a budget that disregards the importance of having good 
security here, not just for the Senators and Congressmen but for the 
innocent tourists who come to see their Nation's Capitol, is something 
of which we ought to be very mindful. What the House has done, of 
course, was to cut the police force by almost 12 percent, resulting in 
a reduction in force of almost 30 percent of the police force on these 
grounds.
  I was a young boy in the 1950s in the other Chamber, a few feet from 
that Chamber, when shots rang out from the gallery, and Members of 
Congress were shot on that day. I was down in Washington on a spring 
break. I literally just missed being in the Chamber as a tourist on 
that day.
  We have taken a lot of steps since then to try to see to it that 
people who are armed can't come in here and threaten the lives of 
people in these buildings. I remember being a relatively new Member in 
this Chamber when, I thank the Lord, we had all left on a Monday night 
and a bomb went off in the building. Had we been here, there would have 
been those, I suspect, who would have been severely injured, if not 
killed.

[[Page S4355]]

  And of course the tragedy involving Officers Chestnut and Gibson and 
the gunfire in the Capitol Building is a sad commentary on the times in 
which we live. We all know this. But to talk about reducing the police 
force of these grounds by 30 percent, cutting the present force, is 
irresponsible. Hopefully, it will be reversed.
  I commend our champions of this legislative appropriations bill for 
fighting back and putting their foot down, and saying you are not going 
to tolerate this because it is wrong to do this to the American public.

  The Library of Congress as well would be cut here, the greatest 
library in the world just a few blocks from this Capitol--again, a 
great public library. The people of Connecticut may be more sensitive 
to this issue than others are. The very first public library in the 
United States was founded in New Haven in the 1600s, so we in my State 
have a special affection for libraries and their value.
  The greatest of all libraries in the world is the Library of 
Congress. There is a wonderful exhibit going on as we celebrate the 
200th anniversary of the Library of Congress. I encourage people who 
are coming to Washington to visit the wonderful exhibit of the 
Jefferson library. It is Thomas Jefferson's library. It was the 
greatest private library in the hands of any citizen in this country 
when he donated it. Actually, it was sold for a very modest amount 
after the Capitol was burned in the War of 1812. Thomas Jefferson took 
the 6,000 volumes that was his library, the greatest private library in 
the world, and said this ought to be the basis of a great national 
library. At the cost of $23,000, those volumes became the core of the 
Library of Congress we now celebrate, as we should, here in our 
Nation's Capital. The House proposal to cut into that budget by 1 
percent, again, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
  The Congressional Research Service, again, is of great value to us as 
we try to do our work. They are wonderful people. It does not matter, 
when you are provided a report, whether it is Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents--they give us the facts, data, hard evidence that we rely 
on as we try to do the people's business. We couldn't possibly afford, 
nor should we, to expand our staffs to include all these people who 
serve as our extended staff. The Congressional Research Service, the 
CRS, has been of great value to people in these Chambers over the 
years. The House proposal eliminating one out of seven employees is an 
example of an unwise reduction in force.
  With regard to the General Accounting Office, the House cuts it by 7 
percent. Again, the General Accounting Office is tremendously valuable. 
I don't know of a single Member who has not relied on the General 
Accounting Office at one time or another to get good, hard, clean facts 
and evidence behind some of the more perplexing problems we face in our 
country.
  As to the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget 
Office, as well, the House has acted very irresponsibly. I commend our 
leaders, as the ranking member on the authorizing committee, the Rules 
Committee, and express my support for what they are trying to do.
  I say to the literally dozens and dozens of people who work in these 
buildings, be they police officers or custodial staff, doorkeepers, and 
the like, we do not get a chance to say this to you as often as we 
should but we appreciate immensely what you do. The American public, as 
I said, may never get to know your names, but you preserve their assets 
here every single day. The majority of us in this Chamber appreciate 
what you do. We appreciate the efforts you make around the clock.
  Many us have been here late in the night and meet these wonderful 
people, many of them women--women, not young women--who come by and 
clean these offices after everyone leaves, doing the tremendous work 
that they do. They are never seen by the Members or staff around here. 
I want to tell them today on this floor how much I appreciate the work 
they do. Again, I am confident I reflect the views of the overwhelming 
majority of Members in this body.
  We thank Senator Feinstein and we thank Senator Bennett for their 
efforts. We applaud Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for demonstrating 
once again their deep appreciation for being good temporary caretakers, 
temporary custodians, of these facilities and these assets that belong 
to the American public. I am proud to be associated with both of these 
fine leaders.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2621 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have reserved time 
for an amendment which would deal with funding for mailings for open 
house town meetings. The budgets today are very restrictive. In years 
gone by, there was an opportunity for a Senator to schedule an open 
house town meeting in a county seat and send out postal patron notices 
to everybody in the county. Then, an open house town meeting would be 
held where a relatively small number of people would appear, but at 
least everybody in the county had notice that the Senator was coming. 
Everyone had an opportunity to hear a short report about what was going 
on in Washington and then an opportunity to ask the Senator questions.
  We are under considerable fire and criticism on the issue of 
fundraising and the issue of access. For example, when we have 
fundraisers and people attend, they certainly do have access to 
Senators. There is no way to have a fundraiser where people attend 
without having that kind of access.
  The question then arises: Is that kind of access unfair? I believe 
there is a very good answer to that by having the Senator go to the 
county seat, and make it convenient for people in the county to have 
access to the Senator to ask questions. The concept of having a town 
meeting to let people express themselves is something that I believe is 
very important and very fundamental.
  The budget we have today does not allow for that. I was just 
discussing the matter with the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee to see if we might structure something which could be 
accommodated without having a contested amendment and a contested 
debate and then a rollcall vote.
  What the Senator from Utah and I were talking about was an analysis 
of how many of our colleagues want to have open house town meetings. 
Many of our colleagues do not choose that as a form of communication 
with constituents. Others may have only a few open house town meetings. 
There is a big difference between small States and big States. There is 
a different picture that certainly arises in Utah than Pennsylvania.
  As I said to the Senator from Utah, I would not necessarily be 
concerned about having the town meetings in the big metropolitan areas 
where there is a greater opportunity to communicate with the citizens 
through television and through newspaper stories. However, if you take, 
say, some of the northern tier counties of Pennsylvania or the north 
central or southern tier, unless you actually go to the county, it is 
very hard to make that kind of contact.
  I would not want the entire year to go by without taking action. As I 
discussed with the Senator from Utah, perhaps in collaboration with the 
Senator from California, who is the ranking member on this 
subcommittee, and the Senators on the Rules Committee, we could try to 
get an estimate and perhaps put a funding mechanism in one of the later 
appropriations bills. Perhaps it could come in the appropriations bill 
on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair.
  I do believe Senators would like to have this opportunity. It may 
well be that it would not be very expensive, depending on how many 
Senators chose it. Maybe we could, on an experimental basis, create a 
relatively small fund and find some way to administer it so

[[Page S4356]]

the people who want to have the town meetings can but with some 
limitations so that one or a few Senators do not take too much of the 
fund. Therefore, we could move in the direction of encouraging these 
open house town meetings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for raising this 
issue because it is a very legitimate issue, and I think it is a 
legitimate issue for the legislative branch subcommittee to deal with. 
We did not deal with it in subcommittee and in full committee. It 
becomes a challenge to try to find the money right now in terms of an 
offset within the bill.
  The point the Senator from Pennsylvania makes is an extremely valid 
one. There are people who, in rural areas particularly, do not really 
have any sense of opportunity to interact with a Senator unless that 
Senator physically goes to those counties. Then when you try to notify 
the people that you are coming, you have a real challenge because they 
do not have the mass media coverage. Yes, they may get a major 
newspaper from a major metropolitan area, but they do not read it for 
hometown announcements. If you try local newspapers, many times they do 
not do the job, either.
  The problem we have in terms of the reactions from members of the 
Rules Committee is that the Rules Committee has attempted to create the 
opportunity for this in terms of flexibility for the overall budget and 
saying to a Senator, ``You have a pot of money you can use either for 
franking or for stationery, for travel, or some other item,'' and they 
are opposed to earmarking a particular amount of money for this 
particular purpose.
  If we sit down with members of the Rules Committee and lay out the 
importance of what it is the Senator from Pennsylvania is highlighting 
and talk it through to find some creative way, I think we can move in 
that direction. I pledge to the Senator from Pennsylvania that I will 
work with him to see if we cannot do that because I agree absolutely 
with the end he is trying to achieve.
  I think it is very important that we try to help Members communicate 
with their constituents in a meaningful kind of way.
  As I understand it, from the Senator from Pennsylvania, this is not 
talking about a mass mailing of campaign literature, as we are accused 
of doing under newsletters and use of the franking. This is talking 
about simply a notice that would go out under the frank with respect to 
town meetings.
  I am very sympathetic with that and would be happy to work with the 
Senator and the Senators from the Rules Committee and, of course, 
Senator Feinstein, to see if we can't find a way to devise something 
that is not overly expensive--because I agree with the Senator, not 
every Senator would want to use it--but that at the same time we could 
provide an opportunity for those Senators who would be willing to do 
the town meeting.
  So I am happy to deal with the Senator to see if we can't find way to 
work this out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in response to Chairman Bennett's 
suggestion, I would like to assure the Senator from Pennsylvania, as a 
member of the Rules Committee, I would be very happy to take a look at 
this and see what the problem is. The ranking member of the Rules 
Committee was here and is familiar with the subject. I believe he would 
be agreeable, as well, to take a look. And we will see what the problem 
is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and the 
Senator from California for those statements. Let us proceed on that 
basis.
  Picking up on what the Senator from Utah said, it isn't a political 
mailing touting what any of us may think he or she has done. It is 
notice that the Senator is going to have his or her body at a given 
place.
  As open house town meetings go, that can be a fairly high price to 
pay, to go out and face the music and face the constituents because 
they do keep track of our votes. But they have a very hard time 
following us if they live in Coudersport in Potter County or live in 
the northern tier of Pennsylvania or a southern tier county such as 
Fulton. They don't necessarily get any of the major newspapers and are 
outside television range. They may see some national television, but 
that is not an effective way for Senators to communicate with the 
people of their States.
  When you appear at a town meeting, there is a feeling that something 
is going on that is positive. We Members of Congress in the Senate and 
the House are subject to a lot of criticism as being ``inside the 
beltway'' and not being accessible. People don't know what we are 
doing. And then we are going to these fundraisers where people have to 
make contributions to have access to us.
  This is something which is not very healthy for a democracy. So let 
us proceed.
  I will not offer an amendment at this time. I will see if we can work 
it out, starting with the chairman and ranking member on this 
subcommittee, and moving over to the chairman and ranking member on the 
Rules Committee, to try to structure a program which would accomplish 
the purpose and be affordable.
  I thank the Senator from Utah and the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think, as I 
said, he has raised an issue very much worth pursuing and one that we 
will, in all good faith, go forward on, to see if we can't work out 
some kind of solution that can get us where it is we need to be.

                          ____________________