[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13030-13033]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I now call up S. 1206.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1206) making appropriations for the legislative 
     branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that the senior Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, is on her way to the floor. I will wait 
until she is here to express to the entire Senate my appreciation for 
her assistance as the ranking member of the Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee of Appropriations.
  I have been delighted to have the opportunity to work with her on 
this legislation and I will make that clear when she arrives. I 
understand she is in another committee meeting, and in the pattern of 
the Senate, finds herself torn between two equally important 
responsibilities. That is a situation with which we are all familiar.
  I will, for the information of Senators, point out that the 
legislative branch bill provides $1.68 billion in budget authority, 
exclusive of House items, for fiscal year 2000. This is $114 million or 
6.4 percent less than the fiscal 1999 level. It represents $105 million 
or a 5.9-percent decrease from the President's budget request. So in 
this time of difficulty, we are coming in below last year's spending 
and below where the President recommended.
  There are increases in the bill, of course. There always will be in 
an appropriations bill. You cut some places, and you increase others. 
The majority of the increases in the bill account for cost-of-living 
adjustments only, and they are estimated at 4.4 percent across the 
board.
  The Senate portion of the bill increases funding for the Senate by 
only 3 percent above the fiscal 1999 level, which is less than the 4.4-
percent COLA adjustment. So while the Senate portion of the bill is 
going up, it is going up less than the mandatory COLA that is required 
by law.
  The bill funds 79 percent of the budget request of the Architect of 
the Capitol. Of the funds provided, 73 percent will fund operations, 
with the other 27 percent to fund Capitol projects.
  I have always been one who has insisted on funding Capitol projects. 
As a businessman, I know that sometimes the most expensive savings you 
can achieve are savings that you take in the name of maintenance 
deferral. As things begin to deteriorate around the Capitol, it is 
tempting to say we can put it off for another year and look good in the 
short term. All you do when you do that is raise your costs in the long 
term. So throughout my tenure on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee 
and particularly my tenure as the chairman of that subcommittee, I have 
always been a champion of funding the Capitol projects and funding the 
maintenance projects to their fullest level, believing that in the long 
run that saves money.
  Why then am I standing here today and saying that we are not going to 
do that in this bill, and we are not giving the Architect of the 
Capitol the funds that were requested? Well, there are several reasons 
for that. I think it is worth an explanation.
  The subcommittee did not fund the Architect's request for $28 million 
for Capitol dome renovations. I have been in the Capitol dome with the 
Architect of the Capitol, and I have seen firsthand how desperately in 
need of renovation it is. However, the full scope of the project will 
be determined during the paint removal process which is currently 
underway. The paint removal process is not expected to be completed 
until next summer. Therefore, I think it prudent for us to delete the 
funds from this bill until we have the completion of that process and 
have the information available to us that will come as a result. That 
is why we do not recommend proceeding until the full scope of the 
project has been determined. That is where a large part of the savings 
that we referred to have come from.
  I see the Senator from California has arrived. I wish to make public 
acknowledgment of the great contribution she has made to the 
Legislative Branch Subcommittee. This is her first assignment on the 
subcommittee as its ranking member, and I have found her not only 
delightful and cooperative to deal with but, perhaps even more 
appreciated, fully engaged. It is one thing to have a colleague who is 
nice to deal with but who never shows up and never pays any attention 
to any of the issues. The Senator from California not only shows up but 
comes with her homework having been done, a full agenda of her own, and 
complete understanding

[[Page 13031]]

of the issues. I appreciate very much the opportunity I have had of 
working with her and welcome her to the subcommittee and to this 
particular bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Bennett, and commend him for the fair and 
responsible bill that has been put together. This is my first year as 
the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, and I have 
found Senator Bennett to be very open and willing to discuss issues. 
His leadership on our subcommittee is carried out in the best 
bipartisan spirit.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and appreciate her 
comments.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman, Senator Bennett, just outlined for the Senate, the fiscal 
year 2000 legislative branch appropriation bill was reported out of the 
full Appropriations Committee on Thursday, June 10, 1999, by a vote of 
28-0. As reported by the committee, the bill, which totals 
$1,679,010,000 in budget authority, exclusive of House items, is 
$113,962,000, or 6.4 percent, below last year's enacted level and 
$104,529,000, or 5.9 percent, below the President's request. For Senate 
items only, the subcommittee recommends a total of $489,406,000--a 
reduction of $28,187,000, or 5.4 percent, from the President's request.
  For the Capitol Police, the subcommittee recommends a total of $88.7 
million for salaries and general expenses. This is an increase of $5.8 
million, or 6.8 percent, over last year's enacted level. I commend the 
agency for soliciting a management review which was conducted by an 
outside consulting firm. Since that time, the Capitol Police has been 
very aggressive in addressing the management deficiencies outlined in 
that report. First, they provided the subcommittee with a departmental 
response which addressed the findings of the review, and they are 
currently in the process of developing a strategic planning process 
which will provide for a systematic approach to organizational 
enhancements and professional growth for the future. In this regard, 
this bill contains the funding required for improvements to information 
technology and transfers this responsibilities from the Senate Sergeant 
at Arms to the Capitol Police. This action was recommended in the 
management review report. The bill also provides for cost-of-living and 
comparability increases for the men and women of the United States 
Capitol Police.
  For the General Accounting Office, the subcommittee recommends a 
funding level of $382.3 million, which is $4.8 million below the budget 
request, but is almost $10 million above what the House is proposing. 
The level proposed by the subcommittee will permit the GAO to maintain 
the current level of 3,275 FTEs, which is what the Comptroller 
requested for Fiscal Year 2000 and it will also provide adequate funds 
for them to meet their mandatory requirements.
  Mr. President, I also want to take a minute, as I did during our full 
committee markup, to talk about the Senate Employees Child Care Center. 
As Members may be aware, the groundbreaking for the child care center 
began in the fall of 1996, and the center was to be completed in the 
fall of 1997. Here we are in June of 1999, and the center remains 
incomplete. I have encouraged the Architect of the Capital to raise the 
priority of this project and bring this problem-plagued project to 
completion by the current targeted date of September 1, 1999. This new 
center will expand the quality of child care services available to the 
staff who help us.
  Again, Mr. President, I want to personally thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Bennett, for the courtesies he has extended to 
me. He is, indeed, a most thoughtful and gracious chairman--a real 
gentleman--who has made my first year on the subcommittee a most 
pleasant one.
  If I may, Mr. President, I extend my very sincere thanks to Mary 
Dewald and Christine Ciccone of the staff for their excellent work on 
this bill. It has been very special, and we are blessed with wonderful 
staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and 
particularly thank her for remembering the staff. We stand here before 
the television cameras, but we take credit for the work they do. I 
appreciate her doing that.


                  Amendments Nos. 683 and 684, En Bloc

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I now send to the desk a managers' 
amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes amendments en 
     bloc numbered 683 and 684.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 683

(Purpose: To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to modify 
service requirements relating to creditable service with congressional 
                          campaign committees)

       On page 38, insert between lines 21 and 22 the following:

     SEC. 313. CREDITABLE SERVICE WITH CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN 
                   COMMITTEES.

       Section 8332(m)(1)(A) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) such employee has at least 4 years and 6 months of 
     service on such committees as of December 12, 1980; and''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 684

 (Purpose: To further restrict legislative post-employment lobbying by 
                      Members and senior staffers)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Section 207(e) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Members of congress and elected officers.--Any person 
     who is a Member of Congress or an elected officer of either 
     House of Congress and who, within 2 years after that person 
     leaves office, knowingly makes, with the intent to influence, 
     any communication to or appearance before any Member, 
     officer, or employee of either House of Congress, or any 
     employee of any other legislative office of Congress, on 
     behalf of any other person (except the United States) in 
     connection with any matter on which such former Member of 
     Congress or elected officer seeks action by a Member, 
     officer, or employee of either House of Congress, in his or 
     her official capacity, shall be punished as provided in 
     section 216 of this title.
       ``(2) Congressional employees.--(A) Any person who is an 
     employee of the Senate or an employee of the House of 
     Representatives who, within 2 years after termination of such 
     employment, knowingly makes, with the intent to influence, 
     any communication to or appearance before any person 
     described under subparagraph (B), on behalf of any other 
     person (except the United States) in connection with any 
     matter on which such former employee seeks action by a 
     Member, officer, or employee of either House of Congress, in 
     his or her official capacity, shall be punished as provided 
     in section 216 of this title.
       ``(B) The persons referred to under subparagraph (A) with 
     respect to appearances or communications by a former employee 
     are any Member, officer, or employee of the House of Congress 
     in which such former employee served.'';
       (2) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``paragraph (5)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
       (3) in paragraph (7)(G), by striking ``, (2), (3), or (4)'' 
     and inserting ``or (2)''; and
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on 
both sides. I ask for their adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (No. 683 and 684) were agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, having agreed to the managers' amendment, 
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read for the third time and 
passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate, and that 
following passage the Senate insist on its amendments, request a 
conference with the

[[Page 13032]]

House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the House bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for the 
     legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is amended pursuant to the unanimous 
consent agreement.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read the 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record at the end of my remarks the Senate Budget Committee 
scoring of the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman and ranking member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
Subcommittee for bringing the Senate a bill that is within the 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $1.7 billion in new 
budget authority and $1.4 billion in new outlays for the operations of 
the U.S. Senate and joint agencies supporting the legislative branch. 
When House funding is added to the bill, and with outlays from prior 
years and other completed actions, the Senate bill totals $2.5 billion 
in budget authority and $2.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2000.
  The bill is $23 million in BA and $20 million in outlays below the 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. I commend the managers of the bill 
for their diligent work, and I urge the adoption of the bill.

                               Exhibit 1

      H.R. 1905, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, 2000, SPENDING
                    COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    General
                                    purpose   Crime   Mandatory   Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority...............    2,455   .......        94    2,549
  Outlays........................    2,464   .......        94    2,558
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...............    2,478   .......        94    2,572
  Outlays........................    2,484   .......        94    2,578
1999 level:
  Budget authority...............    2,353   .......        94    2,447
  Outlays........................    2,328   .......        94    2,422
President's request:
  Budget authority...............    2,620   .......        94    2,714
  Outlays........................    2,614   .......        94    2,708
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............    2,416   .......        94    2,510
  Outlays........................    2,453   .......        94    2,547
 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...............      (23)  .......  .........     (23)
  Outlays........................      (20   .......  .........     (20)
1999 level:
  Budget authority...............      102   .......  .........     102
  Outlays........................      136   .......  .........     136
President's request:
  Budget authority...............     (165)  .......  .........    (165)
  Outlays........................     (150)  .......  .........    (150)
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............       39   .......  .........      39
  Outlays........................       11   .......  .........      11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.


  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, ever since I arrived here in 1993, I 
have supported initiatives to help restore the public's confidence in 
government by limiting the influence of special interests over the 
legislative process. It's a big task, Mr. President and along the way I 
have offended and even angered some people around here.
  I have worked to require greater disclosure of the expenses and 
activities of lobbyists. I pushed to put in place new gift restrictions 
that stopped Senators and staff from accepting free vacations and fancy 
dinners from lobbyists as used to be the norm around here. And finally, 
I have argued that we need to reform the woefully loophole-ridden 
campaign finance system that we currently live under. Reforming 
Congress is a crucial issue for me because the electorate has grown to 
view this institution with cynicism and disdain, and even to 
fundamentally distrust their own elected representatives.
  Now Mr. President, a crucial part of the culture of special interest 
influence that pervades Washington is the revolving door between public 
service and private employment. But by putting a lock on this revolving 
door for some period of time, we can send a message that those entering 
government employment should view public service as an honor and a 
privilege--not as another wrung on the ladder to personal gain and 
profit.
  There are countless instances of former members of Congress who once 
chaired or served on committees with jurisdiction over particular 
industries or special interests now lobbying their former colleagues on 
behalf of those very industries or special interests. Former committee 
staff directors are using their contacts and knowledge of their former 
committees to secure lucrative positions in lobbying firms and 
associations with interests related to those committees.
  There have been some very interesting studies showing just how 
regularly the revolving door swings. Of the 91 lawmakers who left 
Congress at the end of 1994, at least 25 later registered to lobby. A 
1995 study of 353 former lawmakers showed that one in four had lobbied 
for private interests after leaving office. In fact, there were more 
than 100 former Members of Congress who appear on the lobbying reports 
filed in August 1997, and that doesn't count Members who left office in 
1996, since they could not yet register without violating the current 
revolving door law. I could go on, Mr. President, and on and on and on. 
The problem of revolving door lobbying is quite clear.
  The amendment I am offering today is designed to strengthen the post-
employment restrictions on Members of Congress and senior congressional 
staff that are currently in place. Keep in mind, post-employment 
restrictions are nothing new. There is currently a one year ban on 
former members of Congress lobbying the entire Congress as well as a 
one-year ban on senior congressional staff lobbying the committee or 
the Member for whom they worked. And by Senate rule, we prohibit all 
departing Senate staff from lobbying their former employing entity for 
one year. Members and senior staff are also prohibited from lobbying 
the executive branch on behalf of a foreign entity for one year.
  The amendment would double the current restriction and prohibit 
members of Congress from lobbying the entire Congress for two years. 
Thus, in most cases, an entire two year Congress will intervene before 
a former Member can be back lobbying his or her former colleagues. 
Perhaps the longer period will encourage those who leave the Congress 
to seek opportunities for future employment outside of the lobbying 
world. Perhaps it will discourage big business from putting former 
Members on their payroll right after they leave office. But in any 
event, this longer ``cooling off period'' will give the public more 
confidence in the integrity of this body.
  With respect to staff, the amendment makes some changes as well. Here 
we are talking only about those staff who make three quarters or more 
of the salary of a member of Congress. In other words, this amendment 
would change the post-employment restrictions only on staff making over 
$102,000 per year. These senior staff work closely with us, at the 
committee level, or with the leadership, or in our personal offices. 
This amendment would prohibit these very senior staffers from lobbying 
the House of Congress in which they work during the same 2-year period 
as we are prohibited from lobbying the entire Congress. So senior 
Senate staffers couldn't lobby the Senate and senior House staffers 
couldn't lobby the House.
  Now here we have struck a balance, Mr. President. It seems clear to 
me that the current restrictions which prohibit lobbying contacts only 
with

[[Page 13033]]

the former employer, whether Member or committee, are inadequate. High 
level staffers have contacts and work closely with people throughout 
the body, not just with the other staff or Members on their committees 
or in their Member's office. These are people making $102,000 or more. 
They are highly in demand in the lobbying world, not just for their 
expertise but for their contacts. If the cooling off period is to mean 
anything with respect to these senior staff, it must cover more than 
the individual committee or member of Congress for whom they worked.
  Some senior staff undoubtedly have contacts with their counterparts 
in the other body. But their day to day work, and therefore their 
closest contacts will be in the house of Congress in which they work. 
So this amendment leaves an outlet for the use of a former staffer's 
expertise in lobbying the other body. To me, that is a reasonable 
balance, and not an unreasonable restriction on a staffer's future 
employment.
  Now some might argue that we are inhibiting talented individuals from 
pursuing careers in policy matters on which they have developed 
substantial expertise. It may be asked why a former high-level staffer 
on the Senate Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Commerce 
Committee cannot accept employment with a telecommunications company? 
After all, this person has accumulated years of knowledge of our 
communication laws and technology. Why should this individual be 
prevented from accepting private sector employment in the 
communications field ?
  But my amendment does not bar anyone from seeking private-sector 
employment. Staffers can take those jobs with the telecommunications 
company, but what they cannot do is lobby their former colleagues in 
the house of Congress for which they worked for two years. They can 
consult, they can advise, they can recommend, but they cannot lobby 
their former colleagues.
  I considered an even longer cooling off period for staffers to be 
barred from lobbying their former employer, be it a member or a 
committee, but decided that the two year, house of Congress limitation 
strikes the best balance. Two years is the length of an entire 
Congress. That period of time should be enough to mitigate to a great 
extent the special access that the staffer is likely to have because of 
his or her former position. At the same time, it allows the staffer who 
is intent on pursuing a lobbying career to concentrate on the other 
body for two years, and then return to the side of the Capitol in which 
he or she worked after that period.
  Mr. President, this amendment is not an attack on the profession of 
lobbying. The right to petition the government is a fundamental 
constitutional right. Simply attacking lobbyists does not address the 
true flaws of our political system. Lobbying is merely an attempt to 
present the views and concerns of a particular group and there is 
nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, lobbyists, whether they 
are representing public interest groups or Wall Street, can present 
important information to Members of Congress that may not otherwise be 
available.
  I strongly believe that there is no more noble endeavor than to serve 
in government. But we need to take immediate action to restore the 
public's confidence in their government, and to rebuild the lost trust 
between members of Congress and the electorate. This amendment is a 
strong step in that direction because it addresses a perception that 
too often rises to the level of reality--that the interests that hire 
former Members or staffers from the Congress have special access when 
they lobby the Congress. We need to slow the revolving door to address 
that perception, and this amendment will do just that.
  I am pleased that the managers have agreed to accept my amendment and 
that it has become part of the bill that will go to the President for 
signature.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Baucus
     Conrad
     Gramm
     Smith (NH)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harkin
       
  The bill (H.R. 1905), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. H.R. 1905 having passed, the Senate insists on 
its amendments, requests a conference with the House, and the Chair 
appoints the following conferees.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Abraham) appointed Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. Craig, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
Byrd conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________