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. tenh americans have seen life savings cut in half. folks in retirement, near retirement see that whole picture change before their eyes. so there are plenty of americans who aren't dealing with an increase from last year. they're dealing with a huge decrease. so how about we say on a bipartisan basis, okay, our legislative budget got an 11% increase last year, even as this recession was underway. so this year we're going to get a zero percent increase. this year we're simply going to live with the same dollars as we

lived with for the legislative branch last year. 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, madam president, to support this important symbol and this important statement as families hurt all around our country. and i yield any remainder -- excuse me. i reserve any remainder of my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: i rise in opposition to the vitter amendment to fund the legislative branch agencies at current levels which would result in a reduction actually of $101 million below the level that senator murkowski and i have proposed in the bill that we're considering.

the fy 2010 bill reflects, as i've mentioned and said, only a 2.4% increase over fy 2009 spending levels when you take g.a.o. stimulus funding into account. when we started drafting this bill, the budget request we received sought a 15% increase over fy 2009. from the outset, the 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 go as far as 2.4% over current year. but the reality is that there are expenses in the legislative branch that we're responsible for. as a former governor, i'm used to hearing individuals assert the desire to make budget cuts without actually offering any specifics. so i'm used to what we're seeing here tonight. so i will just say to my

colleague that if he has specific suggestions about what types of cuts, has told us was 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 won't get the job done. i can appreciate the desire to keep spending restrained. however, so if the senator would like to make specific suggestions over the $100 million cuts that he's in fact proposing, i 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 visited with my colleague, senator johanns, about the increase in in budget this year and have suggested to him that if there are other areas that we should cut, then we would take his thoughts into consideration and make any adjustments that would make sense. but to my knowledge, i haven't received any note of concern

from the senator about -- the sponsor of this amendment about any of the items included in this bill while it was being created. we're all concerned about fiscal responsibility. let's talk a little bit about what this amendment would really mean. we now have a fully operating visitors' center here in the capitol that costs money to operate and to secure. it was just recently completed and there are still costs associated with bringing it up into the running process. the visitors center provided increased amenities for our constituents when they make the trip to washington to visit, but it costs money. i've already outlined the bill in my opening statement, so i won't go through all of that again. this is the first time through this process, madam president, as chairman of the legislative branch -- and i must say i was honored when chairman inouye asked me with this enormous responsibility. this committee funds the

agencies that 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 g.a.o., as it's 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 c.b.o., also funded this bill, actually received emergency funding in the supplemental that passed recently -- last week -- to further strengthen their workforce, allowing for timelyer production of analyses for congressional offices. i don't know how these can be proposed to an agency that desperately needed this kind of help to do their job here so that we can do our jobs here in congress. it doesn't make sense. i know for a fact that my

colleagues depend on the c.b.o., that office now more than perhaps ever before for analyses related to health care costs, energy, and the current financial crisis. madam president, the agencies funded this legislative branch worked for congress. quite simply, if you reduce their funding, you'll reduce the service we receive here in congress at an important time when we're facing important legislation. now i'll be the first to admit that we're a little spoiled here, but that's because of the great service that we're used to receiving. from the government printing office to the congressional research office to the capitol police who maintain our security and the security of those are on our buildings -- in our buildings and on our grounds, these are agencies and staff that also support congress. that's their mission. i think we owe it to them to at least cost the living increase to these dedicated public

servants. the vote will determine whether or not you think your staff deserves a cost-of-living adjustment in 2010 and whether you think or not our capitol police deserve to be paid overtime for 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. madam president, 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 the 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 didn't realize what a lot of these folks did until i started working on this bill. but now i do, and it's my responsibility as the responsibilities as well as of the ranking member, to do what we think is right by these employees and these agencies. so, madam president, i respectfully urge my colleagues

to vote "no" on this, and i would move at this time -- do you have further comments? how much time might you need? mr. vitter: i just might need an additional three minutes to wrap up. mr. nelson: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i'll be brief. in summary, madam president, let me try to clarify and rebut a few points. first of all, to say this bill is a 2.4% increase over last year is a complete fiction because that assumes the stimulus into last year's number. that inflates last year's number because of the stimulus, and the stimulus was a onetime bill, not a normal fiscal year bill. number two, last year's bill, as i mentioned, was an 11% increase over the previous year, three times the rate of inflation. number three, i wanted to give the committee maximum flexibility in making this modest cut, but there are plenty

of suggestions i would have. and i'll be happy to offer specifics. i'll offer one right now. the open world leadership trust fund, $14.5 million. that would be almost a quarter of the savings i'm asking for. that is a program to bring governmental officials from russia and eastern european republics to tour the united states. i'm sure it's 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 really essential? is that really core to what we're doing in government, in very tough economic times? do we absolutely 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. and finally, madam president, i would just say there are millions of american families who aren't dealing with any increase this year in their income. they're dealing with a huge decrease. they're 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. and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: madam president, i move to table the vitter amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote: