[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16222-16226]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report H.R. 2918.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2918) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, there will be at least one more vote 
today.
  Senator Nelson should be here momentarily to start managing the 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1365

  (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, it is my understanding that 
there is an amendment already at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1365.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise today to present the 
fiscal year 2010 legislative branch bill. I want to start by thanking 
Senator Murkowski and her staff for their help in putting this bill 
together. I am very grateful for her support on this subcommittee. This 
was truly a bipartisan effort from start to finish. I thank her and I 
note that her health is improving because her leg is improving and she 
is getting to places on her own now.
  This bill funds the salaries of the very dedicated public servants 
who support the legislative branch of government. The legislative 
branch is home to not only all of us here in the Senate and the House, 
but the Capitol Police, the Library of Congress, the Architect of the 
Capitol, the Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing 
Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Compliance, and 
the Open World Leadership Center.
  In crafting this bill, it was our firm belief that the legislative 
branch should lead by example, funding only the most critical needs of 
our agencies and being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. This 
proved to be quite a challenge when we were presented with a budget 
request that reflected a 15-percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 
enacted level. However, after several hearings, many meetings, and 
countless hours of staff negotiations, I am proud to say that we did 
exactly what we set out to do in writing this bill.
  The bill before us today totals $4.6 billion, which is a 4.7-percent 
increase over the current year. The bill includes House-related items 
solely considered by that body which totaled $1.475 billion. It is 
important to note that the

[[Page 16223]]

Senate Legislative Branch appropriations bill, which did not include 
House-related items, over which we had no control, represented only a 
3.3-percent increase over fiscal year 2009 and was significantly below 
the budget request. If you include the $25 million that GAO received in 
the stimulus bill, then this is only a 2.4-percent increase over 
current year funding levels.
  The fiscal year 2010 bill provides $934 million for the Senate, which 
is an increase of 4.3 percent over the current year. This funding will 
provide for annual salary and operating increases for Senate offices, 
the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and other 
agencies that support the operation of the Senate.
  The bill includes $331 million for the Capitol Police, which is an 8-
percent increase over current year. This includes $15.4 million to 
fully implement the merger of the Library of Congress Police with the 
Capitol Police, providing seamless security throughout the entire 
Capitol complex.
  The bill also provides for 10 additional civilian positions to help 
resolve management issues, including the constant increase in the 
demand for overtime. The committee did not provide the 76 new officers 
requested in fiscal year 2010, but does direct GAO to work with the 
Capitol Police to ensure that they are getting the most efficient use 
of their nearly 1,800 officers currently on board, by far the biggest 
this force has ever been.
  The Architect of the Capitol is funded at $445 million, which is a 
decrease of $18 million, or 4 percent below current year. The amount 
includes $48 million in deferred maintenance projects, including $16.8 
million for continued work on asbestos abatement and structural repairs 
in the utility tunnels. I am happy to say that the utility tunnel work 
is on schedule and significantly below original cost estimates. The 
bill also includes over $14 million in energy and sustainability 
projects across the Capitol campus.
  The Library of Congress funding totals $638.5 million, which is a 4-
percent increase over the current year. This amount includes $8.5 
million for technology upgrades to allow for increased digitization of 
the Library's collections and full funding for the Digital Talking Book 
for the Blind project.
  The Government Accountability Office is funded at $553.6 million, 
which is a 4-percent increase over current year, and provides all 
salary and inflationary increases for GAO's current staff level.
  The Government Printing Office is funded at $147 million, which is a 
4-percent raise over current year, allowing for the continued 
implementation of GPO's Federal Digital System and other technology 
upgrades.
  The Congressional Budget Office is funded at $45 million, a 2-percent 
increase over the current year. Combined with the $2 million included 
in the supplemental, CBO will have adequate funding and FTEs needed to 
perform the critical work associated with health care spending, the 
current financial crisis, and global climate change.
  The Office of Compliance is funded at $4.4 million, an increase of 8 
percent above current year to cover inflationary changes and to allow 
the Office to hire an Occupational Safety and Health Program 
supervisor.
  Last, but not least, the Open World Leadership Office is funded at 
$14.4 million, which is a 4-percent increase over the current year.
  I believe the bill before the Senate is sound, prudent, and fiscally 
responsible. Taking into account the calculations I have given, it is a 
2.4-percent increase over the current with those calculations. I 
encourage my colleagues to support its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in support of 
the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. The 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Nelson, and I have worked 
collaboratively in this process of putting the bill together. I thank 
him for that. I think we had some real substance in our hearings and 
spent the time, the energy, and the focus we needed on these matters 
regarding this particular appropriation.
  When combined with the House items, the bill before us totals $4.7 
billion, and while this is an increase of 5 percent over the current 
year, the bill we reported out of the committee represented less than a 
3-percent increase over fiscal year 2009, as the chairman has said--in 
fact, 2.4 percent. I would argue for those who say we need to keep our 
appropriations bills within the range of inflation, we are probably 
there at a 2.4-percent increase.
  We cannot, within this body, control the amounts the other body may 
provide for its own operations, but the amounts for the Senate and the 
other legislative branch agencies that are controlled in this bill are 
controlled very closely, especially when we compare this with the 
average 15 percent increase that was requested by the legislative 
branch agencies. I think we worked very hard to take the requests that 
came before the committee and really pared them down to what was 
appropriate, what was needed, what was necessary.
  Both Senator Nelson and I are new to the Appropriations Committee. I 
am very pleased we were able to have these very good and substantive 
hearings with all of the legislative branch agencies. We discussed the 
wide range of issues and challenges before the legislative branch. We 
worked well together and have been consistent in our efforts to 
eliminate unnecessary spending, tighten our belts, and help ensure that 
the legislative branch is a model for the rest of the government. We 
believed we needed to set a good standard. If we stay on schedule, we 
will be able to get this bill enacted prior to the beginning of the 
fiscal year. It is a good start to the appropriations process.
  I would like to highlight just a few areas, adding on to what the 
chairman has mentioned.
  First, with respect to the Architect of the Capitol, the bill funds 
those projects that address the most serious risks to safety and 
health, such as repairs within the utility tunnels that underlie the 
Capitol Complex and projects that remedy deferred maintenance in our 
buildings. If we don't address the maintenance backlogs, the price 
tags, we know, will just increase down the road.
  The bill continues the Architect of the Capitol's efforts to improve 
energy efficiency, with over $14 million in funding designated for this 
purpose.
  Within the Library of Congress, we managed to include funding to 
begin to update the agency's information technology infrastructure. For 
about a decade now, there have been no increases to IT within the 
Library of Congress. Yet most of the users of the Library are virtual 
users. This was the highest priority of our Librarian of Congress, Mr. 
Billington. This investment will ensure that millions of people who 
access the Library through its Web site will be able to find what it is 
they are looking for.
  Similarly, within GPO, we funded the final increment for updating 
GPO's--this is the Government Printing Office--Web site to ensure 
government publications can be easily accessed and searched.
  Also, the bill provides the final increment of funding to complete 
the merger of the Library of Congress Police into the Capitol Police. 
This project was initiated by Senator Bennett when he was chairman of 
the subcommittee and has been promoted by each of the successive chairs 
and ranking members to improve security of the Capitol Complex.
  Finally, there is a directive in the bill for a report by the 
Government Accountability Office of a study of Capitol Police staffing 
and overtime. Senator Nelson and I both share the concern that we 
right-size the Capitol Police and we control overtime spending. We 
recognize security is absolutely paramount, but effective management of 
the agency is equally as important.
  I thank Senator Nelson for his efforts and those of his staff and my 
staff in putting this bill together. I also thank the full committee 
chairman, Senator Inouye, and the ranking member, Senator Cochran, for 
getting us to the floor today.

[[Page 16224]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, today the Senate begins its 
consideration of our annual spending bills. We start with the 
legislative branch appropriations bill. I am pleased to announce to my 
colleagues that as of this moment, the Appropriations Committee has 
reported out four appropriations bills. It may please you to know, 
Madam President, that all of these bills--Legislative, Homeland 
Security, Commerce, and Interior--passed the committee unanimously and 
all of the bills represent a bipartisan approach.
  We start with the legislative branch appropriations bill not because 
we want to take care of ourselves, but because it is the only bill so 
far which has been passed by the House and marked up by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee.
  Without unanimous agreement, the Senate can only act on those 
appropriations bills which have already been approved by the House. 
While we begin today with the legislative bill, we are confident that 
several bills will soon follow. We are optimistic that the Homeland 
Security bill will pass the House this week and be available for 
consideration before we adjourn for the recess. Later this week the 
Committee on Appropriations will meet to consider two additional 
appropriations bills and we expect to meet in early July to prepare 
another five bills. Over the next several weeks we expect to have many 
bills debated and hopefully passed by the Senate so that we can begin 
final conference deliberations on these critically important measures.
  The bill before the Senate, as prepared by our Legislative 
Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Nelson of Nebraska and his ranking 
member Senator Murkowski of Alaska provides $3.1 billion for the 
operations of the Congressional Branch, excluding amounts specifically 
requested for the House of Representatives. It represents a 3-percent 
increase over the amounts provided in FY 2009, but it is nearly 10 
percent below the amount requested.
  Our colleagues should thank Senators Nelson and Murkowski for 
completing their hard work on this bill. Because of the change in 
administration, the committee has had the details of the President's 
request for less than 2 months. Yet our colleagues, who have only 
assumed their subcommittee leadership positions this year, have already 
completed their review and prepared this measure.
  The bill was marked up by the committee last week and approved on a 
unanimous vote. It is a tribute to our two managers that this bill was 
passed by the committee without a single amendment.
  For those of our colleagues who focus on the small part of the 
Appropriations bills which are earmarks, I would note there is only one 
earmark in this bill.
  Many critics and pundits constantly overstate the controversy over 
earmarks, but here in the bill which provides the essential support for 
our legislative branch, we include only one earmark.
  As we begin our process to provide for our Nation's spending it is 
important to remember why we are engaged in this annual exercise.
  As the Framers of our Constitution recognized it is critically 
important to our democracy to ensure that the people's representatives 
in the Congress are the ones who determine how taxpayer money should be 
expended.
  While the Congress relies on the expertise of the executive branch to 
develop programs and to construct spending plans, it is our 
responsibility to determine which of these programs and plans is right 
for the American people. We were elected to represent our States. One 
way in which we carry out our responsibilities is by determining our 
Nation's budget.
  Included in this process is the relatively small amount of funding 
that are included in direct response to our constituents' petitions. In 
the fiscal year 2010 bills that the Appropriations Committee will 
recommend to this body we will reduce our spending on non-project based 
earmarks by 50 percent compared to amounts for these program in fiscal 
year 2006.
  To understand the importance of our willingness to curtail this type 
of spending, I would note that this means a reduction of more than $8 
billion in earmarks.
  Chairman Obey and I have agreed that, as long as he and I are 
Chairmen, the total of non-project based earmarks in appropriations 
bills will not exceed 1 percent of the total discretionary funding 
appropriated by the committee in any fiscal year.
  What this means is that this year and in future years we will 
allocate 99 percent of the funds in the budget for national programs 
and programs which are included in the president's request, and only 1 
percent, really less than 1 percent, for programs that are included in 
direct response to the needs of our States, cities, towns and the 
constituents whom we represent.
  It is essential that the Congress maintain its control over Federal 
spending. While it may not always be politically popular to challenge 
the authority of Presidents in determining the spending priorities for 
the country, it is how we safeguard the democratic traditions of this 
Nation.
  The day that we cede this authority to the White House is the day 
when we create a monarchy. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
and a member of this body for more than 46 years, I have no intention 
to allow that to occur.
  As the Senate reviews this and the other spending bills which will 
soon follow, I urge it to be mindful of the importance of this task.
  The bill before this body deserves the support of every Member of 
this body. It provides for the essential services to fulfill the 
functions of our legislative branch.
  It is a clean bill free of unnecessary legislative riders. It is $300 
million below the amount requested and within the funding allocation 
provided to the subcommittee. I strongly recommend its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                   Motion to Commit With Instructions

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have a motion to commit with 
instructions at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Vitter moves to commit the bill H.R. 2918 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the Senate making the following changes.
       (1) Amend the amounts appropriated in the bill so as to 
     report back a bill with an aggregate level of appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2010 not more than the level enacted for 
     fiscal year 2009, while not reducing appropriations necessary 
     for the security of the United States Capitol complex.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will outline my motion to commit 
shortly. First, by way of introduction, let me say how disappointed and 
frustrated I am that another amendment I had proposed for this bill was 
consistently blocked out all of this week, and no vote, no 
consideration was allowed by the distinguished majority leader. That 
amendment, which had been filed some time ago, which I worked hard to 
get before this body, would have passed again, a repeal of the 
automatic pay raise provision for Members of the Senate and Members of 
the U.S. House currently in the law.
  We are in the midst of a very serious recession. American families 
all around the country are really hurting. Many have been laid off, 
lost their jobs through investment losses and the stock market. Many 
others are scared to death about their future. Yet all of us as Members 
of Congress live under this system where we get an automatic pay raise 
virtually every year, a pay raise on autopilot without any need for a 
proposal or a bill to be offered, to be filed, to be debated or voted 
on. That really is a very offensive system to millions of American 
families, particularly so during this serious recession.
  I am very sorry the majority leader felt the need to work at every 
turn to block out any consideration of this amendment and certainly any 
vote on this amendment. We have a unanimous consent agreement on this 
bill before us. It contains amendments that are not germane to the 
bill. It contains amendments that have points of order

[[Page 16225]]

against them. There is no legitimate way the majority leader can 
distinguish my amendment from those, except that he didn't want to deal 
with the issue.
  We already have dealt with it by passing a stand-alone bill through 
the Senate. But, of course, to require the House to deal with it, we 
need to effectively attach it to another must-pass bill. So that 
remains my goal, and my effort will continue. I wish to assure and 
reassure the majority leader that effort will continue and we will be 
talking about this more in the future.
  With regard to my motion to commit with instructions, it has a very 
similar theme because this motion to commit would simply send this 
appropriations bill back to the committee and ask that they restyle it 
so that it does not spend any more money than we spent on legislative 
appropriations for the last fiscal year. That would constitute about a 
$76 million cut. That is not a huge amount of money in Washington 
terms, but I think it would be the beginning of a huge and an important 
and an appropriate statement by this body.
  Again, as I said, American families are hurting all over the country. 
There have been layoffs, job losses; there have been tremendous 
investment losses; people's savings have been whittled away, down to 
nearly nothing in some cases. People who had retired, counting on a 
certain future have seen that future disappear in front of their eyes. 
They don't have the luxury, particularly now, this year, in this 
recession, of any percentage increase--many of them. Many of those 
American families are dealing with a huge income decrease. Wouldn't it 
be reasonable and appropriate for us collectively to say we are going 
to live by the same dollar amount as we did last year? Consider that 
amount last year was an 11-percent increase from the year before, so 
that amount Congress passed last year was an 11-percent increase--about 
triple the rate of inflation--done in the middle of this serious 
recession. That was a significant increase last year. Shouldn't we 
temper that? Shouldn't we make a statement that we are going to live 
with the same dollar amount as last year?
  I also note that under the exact language of my amendment, No. 1, we 
would give maximum flexibility to the Appropriations Committee about 
how they would find those modest savings of $76 million, and No. 2, the 
one thing we would protect, the one thing we would tell them not to 
touch is spending which is essential for security of the Capitol 
Complex. There would be no chance--not that it would be the desire of 
the Appropriations Committee--there would be no possibility of 
sacrificing anything to do with security of the Capitol Complex.
  This is a pretty simple and a pretty basic suggestion. I think it is 
a pretty commonsense one. American families are struggling with the 
worst recession since World War II. Millions of American families have 
one or more members who have lost their jobs. Those families have seen 
their incomes go down enormously. Tens of millions of other Americans 
have seen life savings cut in half. Folks in retirement or near 
retirement have seen that whole picture change before their eyes. So 
there are plenty of Americans who are not dealing with an increase from 
last year, they are dealing with a huge decrease. How about we say on a 
bipartisan basis: OK, our legislative budget got an 11-percent increase 
last year even as this recession was underway.
  So this year, we are going to get a zero percent increase. This year 
we are simply going to live with the same dollars as we lived with for 
the legislative branch last year. This is simple, straightforward, but 
I think important. Again, we would do this by giving the committee 
maximum flexibility in terms of finding those savings, and we would do 
it by protecting the security of the Capitol complex.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this important symbol and this 
important statement as families hurt all around our country.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the 
Vitter amendment to fund the legislative branch agencies at current 
year levels, which would result in a reduction actually of $101 million 
below the level that Senator Murkowski and I have proposed in the bill 
we are considering.
  The fiscal year 2010 bill reflects, as I have mentioned and said, 
only a 2.4-percent increase over fiscal year 2009 spending when you 
take GAO's stimulus funding into account.
  When we started drafting this bill, the budget request we received 
sought a 15-percent increase over fiscal year 2009. From the outset, my 
ranking member and I have been committed to holding this bill to the 
lowest possible funding level, and to lead by example in being good 
stewards of the taxpayers' money.
  My intention was to hold this bill at the rate of inflation, if we 
could, and it frankly pained me to even have to go as far as 2.4 
percent over current year. But the reality is there are expenses in the 
legislative branch that we are responsible for.
  As a former Governor, I am used to hearing individuals assert the 
desire to make budget cuts without actually offering any specifics. So 
I am used to what we are seeing here tonight. I say to my colleague, if 
he has specific suggestions about what types of cuts would be prudent--
he has told us what not to cut, but if he has some specific suggestions 
about the types of cuts, I would be happy to talk about them. Speaking 
in generalities will not get the job done. I can appreciate the desire 
to keep spending restrained. However, if the Senator wishes to make 
specific suggestions of the $100 million cuts that he is, in fact, 
proposing, I would welcome it, as I would have welcomed hearing any of 
the Senator's suggestions during the weeks and months it took to create 
this bill.
  As a matter of fact, I have visited with my colleague Senator Johanns 
about the increases in this budget this year, and have suggested to him 
that if there are other areas we should cut, then we would take his 
thoughts into consideration and make any adjustments that would make 
sense.
  But, to my knowledge, I have not received any note of concern from 
the Senator, the sponsor of this amendment, about any of the items 
included in this bill while it was being created. We are all concerned 
about fiscal responsibility.
  Let's talk a little bit about this bill and what this amendment would 
mean. We now have a fully operating Visitor Center here in the Capitol 
that costs money to operate and to secure, recently completed. There 
are still costs associated with bringing it up and into the running 
process. The Visitor Center has provided increased amenities for our 
constituents when they make the trip to Washington to visit. But it 
does cost money.
  I have already outlined the bill in my opening statements, so I will 
not go through all of that again.
  This is the first time through this process as chairman of the 
Legislative Branch Subcommittee, and I must say I was honored when 
Chairman Inouye tasked me with the enormous responsibility.
  This committee funds the agencies Congress relies on to provide them 
with timely information pertaining to the oversight of the Federal 
Government. For example, last year the Government Accountability 
Office, the GAO, as it is referred to, received over 1,200 
congressional requests and testified at over 300 congressional 
hearings. Their work produced hundreds of improvements in government 
operations and produced significant financial savings for the American 
taxpayer.
  The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, also funded in this bill, 
actually received emergency funding in the supplemental that passed 
last week to further strengthen their workforce, allowing for timelier 
production of analyses for congressional offices.
  I do not know how a spending freeze can be proposed to an agency that 
desperately needed this kind of help to do their job here so we can do 
our jobs here in Congress.
  It does not make sense. I know for a fact that my colleagues depend 
on the

[[Page 16226]]

CBO, that office, perhaps now more than ever before, for analysis 
related to health care costs, energy, and the current financial crisis.
  The agencies funded in this legislative branch work for Congress. 
Quite simply, if you reduce their funding, you will reduce the service 
we receive here in Congress at an important time when we are facing 
important legislation. So we are a little spoiled here. But that is 
because of the great service we are used to receiving from the 
Government Printing Office to the Congressional Research Service to the 
Capitol Police who maintain our security, and the security of those who 
are in our buildings and on our grounds. These are agencies and staff 
that also support Congress. That is their mission. I think we owe it to 
them to at least to fund the cost-of-living increase for these 
dedicated public servants. The vote will determine whether you think 
your staff deserves a cost-of-living adjustment in 2010, and whether 
you think our Capitol Police deserve to be paid overtime with the long 
hours they work, risking life and limb to keep us and the thousands of 
Americans who visit here each year safe in the Capitol complex.
  Every elevator operator, every construction worker, every plumber, 
every electrician, every maintenance person, every parking lot 
attendant, virtually every employee you encounter here in the Capitol 
complex, including staff present here today, is paid from this 
appropriations bill.
  I could go on and I could go on. But I have to admit, I did not 
realize what a lot of those folks did until I started working on this 
bill. But now I do.
  It is my responsibility, and the responsibility as well of the 
ranking member, to do what we think is right by these employees and 
these agencies.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion.
  How much time does the Senator need in response?
  Mr. VITTER. I might need an additional 3 minutes to wrap up.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. In summary, let me try to clarify and rebut a few points. 
First, to say that this bill is a 2.4-percent increase over last year's 
is complete fiction, because that assumes the stimulus into last year's 
number. In fact, last year's number, because of the stimulus--and the 
stimulus was a one-time bill, not a normal fiscal year bill.
  No. 2, last year's bill, as I mentioned, was an 11-percent increase 
over the previous year, three times the rate of inflation.
  No. 3, I wanted to give the committee maximum flexibility in making 
this modest cut. But there are plenty of suggestions I would have. I 
would be happy to offer specifics. I will offer one right now. The Open 
World Leadership Center Trust Fund, $14.5 million. That would be almost 
a quarter of the savings I am asking for. That is a program to bring 
governmental officials from Russia and Eastern European republics to 
tour the United States. I am sure it is a nice idea, but I think there 
would be a lot of American families in the middle of this recession who 
would ask, is that essential? Is that core to what we are doing in 
government in very tough economic times? Do we actually need to do 
this?
  We can find those savings. That program alone is a quarter of the 
savings my motion to commit would require. We can find those savings 
clearly without touching Capitol Police overtime, without touching 
cost-of-living increases for employees.
  Finally, there are millions of American families who are not dealing 
with any increase this year in their incomes. They are dealing with a 
huge decrease. They are dealing with a huge decrease in savings. So 
can't we simply live with the same dollar amount as we did in the 
legislative branch last year? I think the huge majority of Americans 
would find that a very reasonable and a very modest goal.
  I yield the reminder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I move to table the Vitter 
motion and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I move to reconsider the 
vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________