[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10373-S10386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1803

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2:30 having arrived, by previous 
order, the question occurs on agreeing to the motion to lay on the 
table amendment No. 1803 offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Feingold]. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is absent 
because of attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware [Mr. Biden] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 313 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Biden
     Inouye
       
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1803) was 
rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1807 To Amendment No. 1803

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a perfecting amendment to the 
Feingold amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1807 to amendment No. 1803.

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

       Strike all after the word Sec. and insert the following: 
     ``It is the sense of the Senate that before the conclusion of 
     the 104th Congress, comprehensive welfare reform, food stamp 
     reform, Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, superfund reform, 
     wetlands reform, reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act, reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, 
     immigration reform, Davis-Bacon reform, State Department 
     reauthorization, Defense Department reauthorization, Bosnia 
     arms embargo, foreign aid reauthorization, fiscal year 1996 
     and 1997 Agriculture appropriations, Commerce, Justice, State 
     appropriations, Defense appropriations, District of Columbia 
     appropriations, Energy and Water Development appropriations, 
     Foreign Operations appropriations, Interior appropriations, 
     Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
     appropriations, Legislative Branch appropriations, Military 
     Construction appropriations, Transportation appropriations, 
     Treasury and Postal appropriations, and Veterans Affairs, 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     appropriations, reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, 
     reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, health care reform, comprehensive campaign 
     finance reform, job training reform, child support 
     enforcement reform, tax reform, and a ``Farm Bill'' should be 
     considered.

  Mr. DOLE. 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.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I had earlier offered a second-degree 

[[Page S10374]]
  amendment which listed a variety of issues that the new Republican 
majority feels should be addressed in this Congress. Then there was a 
motion made to table the underlying Feingold amendment, which was 
defeated.
  I point out there were 41 votes in favor of the motion to table, 
therefore against the Feingold amendment. I think it is reasonable to 
assume that, if there were an effort to force this Democratic agenda 
item onto this----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate will be 
in order.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think it is reasonable to assume, 
given the outcome of the Feingold sense-of-the-Senate resolution, that 
any effort to, essentially, muscle this Democratic agenda item onto the 
Republican Senate would likely be greeted with a filibuster. But of 
course that was just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I suppose people 
can read into it whatever they choose.
  The second-degree that the Republican leader has forwarded to the 
desk simply adds campaign finance to the whole litany of other issues. 
It listed a whole variety of things the Senate ought to be addressing 
and simply adds campaign finance to it. Those who feel campaign finance 
ought to be on the agenda of the 104th Congress surely ought to have no 
objection to the amendment now before us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1854, the 
legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  The bill, as reported provides $2.1 billion in new budget authority 
and $2 billion in outlays for the Congress and other legislative branch 
agencies, including the Library of Congress, the General Accounting 
Office, and the Government Printing Office, among others.
  When outlays from prior year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the bill totals $2.2 billion in budget authority 
and $2.3 billion in outlays. The bill is under the subcommittee's 
602(b) allocation by $38 million in budget authority and less than 
$500,000 in outlays.
  I want to commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the legislative branch subcommittee for producing a bill that is 
substantially within their 602(b) allocation.
  I am pleased that this bill incorporates most of the changes endorsed 
by the Republican Conference last December and achieves the goal of 
reducing legislative branch spending by $200 million from the 1995 
level. It is important that the Congress set an example for the rest of 
the country by cutting its own spending first.
  Another important feature of this bill is that it provides an 
increase of $2.6 million over the 1995 level for the Congressional 
Budget Office to enable that agency to meet the new requirements that 
were created in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act passed earlier this 
year.
  I urge the Senate to adopt this bill and to avoid offering amendment 
which would cause the subcommittee to violate its 602(b) allocation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table relating to spending totals be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                     LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUBCOMMITTEE                    
 [Spending totals--Senate-reported bill; fiscal year 1996 in millions of
                                dollars]                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Budget          
                      Category                        authority  Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed........................................  .........      206
  H.R. 1854, as reported to the Senate..............      2,130    1,981
  Scorekeeping adjustment...........................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
    Subtotal nondefense discretionary...............      2,130    2,188
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed........................................         92       92
  H.R. 1854, as reported to the Senate..............  .........  .......
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget Resolution assumptions....................         -2       -2
                                                     -------------------
      Subtotal mandatory............................         90       90
                                                     ===================
      Adjusted bill total...........................      2,220    2,278
                                                     ===================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
    Nondefense discreationary.......................      2,168    2,188
    Mandatory.......................................         90       90
                                                     -------------------
      Total allocation..............................      2,258    2,278
                                                     ===================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate Subcommittee                     
 602(b) allocation:                                                     
    Nondefense discretionary........................        -38       -0
    Mandatory.......................................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
      Total allocation..............................        -38       -0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1854, the legislative branch appropriations bill. I especially want to 
thank Senator Mack, the subcommittee chairman, for his commitment to 
fund the Congressional Budget Office at a level which will allow the 
CBO to carry out the duties given them under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995. The $2.6 million appropriation included in this 
bill for CBO provides the necessary funding and staffing to allow them 
to perform the cost estimates required under the Mandates Reform Act 
without inhibiting their ability to perform their primary 
responsibilities. As the committee report stated, failure to do so 
would create an unfunded mandate within the Congress itself.
  The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 passed both Houses of 
Congress with the support of more than 90 per- cent of the Members in 
each body and it deserves a commensurate level of fiscal support to 
fulfill its mission. It is important legislation that forms the 
cornerstone for the congressional reform that is taking place in the 
104th Congress. Senator Mack was an early cosponsor of my mandate 
relief legislation and he never waived from his commitment to see it 
enacted into law.
                      amendment no. 1804 withdrawn

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1804 be withdrawn and the vote occur at 4 p.m. on amendment No. 1807.
  So the amendment (No. 1804) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. That will accommodate one of our colleagues on the other 
side and also permit the Senator from South Carolina to proceed with 
his amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 1808

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to offer an amendment to 
the bill itself or to the pending amendment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If there is no objection, to the bill itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be temporarily set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for 
     himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Wellstone, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1808.
       Strike page 29, line 6, through page 30, line 20, and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:
       For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (Public 
     law 92-484), including official reception and representation 
     expenses (not to exceed $5,500 from the Trust Fund), 
     $15,000,000: Provided, That the Librarian of Congress shall 
     report to Congress within 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act with recommendations on how to 
     consolidate the duties and functions of the Office of 
     Technology Assessment, the General Accounting Office, and the 
     Government Printing Office into an Office of Congressional 
     Services within the Library of Congress by the year 2002: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, each of the following accounts is reduced by 1.12 
     percent from the amounts provided elsewhere in this Act: 
     ``salaries, Office of the Architect of the Capitol, Architect 
     of the Capitol''; ``Capitol buildings, Architect of the 
     Capitol''; ``Capitol grounds, Architect of the Capitol''; 
     ``Senate office buildings, Architect of the Capitol''; 
     ``Capitol power plant, Architect of the Capitol''; ``library 
     buildings and grounds, Architect of the Capitol''; and 
     ``salaries and expenses, Office of the Superintendent of 
     Documents, Government Printing Office'': Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     amounts provided elsewhere in this Act for ``salaries and 
     expenses, 

[[Page S10375]]
     General Accounting Office,'' are reduced by 1.92 percent.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just a 
moment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to my 
colleague from Wisconsin without losing the right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
South Carolina very much.
  I just want to briefly comment on what we just resolved with regard 
to the campaign finance reform issue.
  I am very gratified by the bipartisan vote, very strong vote, 
including 11 Members on the opposite side of the aisle, against tabling 
the sense-of-the-Senate resolution with regard to the issue of bringing 
up and considering campaign finance reform during the 104th Congress. 
It is one of the strongest bipartisan votes we have had on this floor 
during this 104th Congress.
  Now the majority leader has suggested that as a perfecting amendment. 
In addition to a number of items that were originally in the Mack 
substitute that did not include campaign finance reform, they have now 
offered to include in that list--for the first time--campaign finance 
reform. It is something that should be considered during the 104th 
Congress.
  Mr. President, this is precisely what we had hoped for, a vote by the 
Senate. I hope, given the fact that it is the majority leader's 
intention to support his own proposal, that we will have very, very 
strong bipartisan support to add that to the list.
  This is a shift from earlier in the day when the proposal by the 
Senator from Florida listed many important items but did not include--
in fact excluded--campaign finance reform.
  So we are extremely pleased that we will have the vote, another vote 
in addition to the other one that we had, with the vote which was very 
strong, to indicate that before we leave here in the 104th Congress on 
a bipartisan basis we should reform this terrible system.
  I again thank the Senator from South Carolina for his courtesy.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished colleague. I 
thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment is one to retain the Office of 
Technology Assessment. It first occurred over on the House side. The 
bill came out of the committee abolishing the Office of Technology 
Assessment but on the floor the House added $15 million for its 
continuance, taking it out of the hide of the Library of Congress.
  On yesterday, Mr. President, at the full appropriations committee 
markup, I offered an amendment. I was not quite prepared then, and I 
should be better prepared at this moment. Yesterday, I was not quite 
prepared because I wanted to present the amendment without cutting the 
Library of Congress. The fact of the matter is we had a very close 
vote, and if I had had the proxies of absent Members, this amendment 
would not be necessary today. It would have been adopted in committee 
and on the bill at the moment.
  Be that as it may, Mr. President, I have now clarified the provisions 
of this $15 million. The President's budget for the Office of 
Technology Assessment is some $22 million, and this continues OTA but 
levels a 30-percent cut, at a level of $15 million, to be obtained from 
a 1.12-percent cut from the various legislative accounts--the Office of 
the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Building, Capitol Grounds, 
Senate office buildings, the Capitol Power Plant, the salaries and 
expenses of the Superintendent of Documents, the Government Printing 
Office, and a 1.92-percent cut out of the GAO. We thought, twofold; 
one, we could make that a little over 1-percent cut across the board, 
obtain the $15 million, keep OTA in harness, and otherwise, Mr. 
President, have a study recommendation made by the distinguished 
colleague from Alaska, who is no longer but served with distinction as 
the chairman of the Office of Technology Assessment. His suggestion was 
that we have a study on how best to consolidate the various legislative 
or congressional services within this segment of the budget and save 
money.
  There is no question that this amendment not only saves OTA, but it 
saves money. It is bipartisan. I offer this amendment for myself, Mr. 
Hatch, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Wellstone, and others who support this legislation. We have now solved 
the problem relative to the Library of Congress; Dr. Billington--and he 
is a good friend and an outstanding librarian--has been doing his 
homework.
  Mr. President, I do not have charts or prepared statements. I agreed 
to limit my comments without charts so let me get right to the heart of 
the matter.
  Back in the Nixon administration, they abolished the Office of 
Science Adviser, and at that particular time the various committees 
were crowding in saying we have to learn about this, we have to know 
about that. We always referred it to the Office of Science Adviser. We 
could depend on it; it had credibility.
  They said, let us get together in a bipartisan fashion, which we did, 
with alternating between the House and the Senate as chairman, 
alternating between Democrats and Republicans. We have had quite a 
successful administration at the Office of Technology Assessment.
  One way it saves us money is by having these distinguished boards, 
advisory panels, counseling the Office of Technology Assessment. They 
are comprised of college presidents, heads of the science departments 
from the institutes of technology, and others around the country who 
give outstanding assistance free of charge, counseling on the various 
technological questions.
  If we go right to it, I think one of the principal objections is that 
the needs for these studies will not go away. If each committee crowds 
in on the technological needs for information from the General 
Accounting Office, obviously the General Accounting Office will go out 
and hire all of these people and meet themselves coming around the 
corner having in all probability expended more money.
  Now, what is wrong? This crowd--and I guess I am in on it, too, 
because I get frustrated on figuring out where you try to save money. I 
have been through the exercise of freezes, the cuts of Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings, a value-added tax allocated to the deficit and all the other 
attempts made to get us in the black. Unfortunately, in today's 
political climate, individual chairmen come around and say, ``Well, I 
have got to eliminate something.'' And more or less, if this amendment 
passes, it would take away a Brownie point from their political resume.
  It is easy to go campaign next year and say, ``I am for economy, and 
I got rid of the Office of Technology Assessment. That is saving $15 
million.'' Come on. Two nights ago ABC reported on a particular 
misguided missile, $4 billion. You never heard this crowd that is 
fussing about $15 million--we took almost 2 hours in the Appropriations 
Committee trying to save $15 million or trying to sustain the need to 
know of the Members of this Congress. But they do not talk about that 
$4 billion.
  Now, that is where the Congress ought to really be working. Do not 
come around here to get a Brownie point on a political resume about how 
we saved and got rid of the Office of Technology Assessment. That is 
good in the 20-second bite. They will not just say how much they saved 
and everything else of that kind. But instead they cry in frustration, 
``Well, if we can't cut this, where can we cut?"
  I can give them a list. I voted this morning against the space 
station. I was former chairman of Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. I do not like to vote against the space station, but I 
am trying to maintain the space program. And you see, you learn from 
experience. They came forward with the space station at $8 billion. The 
next thing you know it was at $17 billion. The next thing you know it 
was $30 billion. We have had four revisions of cutting it back until 
all I think we are going to get is the booster or the thruster up in 
space and we'll call it a station before we get through.
  Now they have a new angle--that it is a matter of comity with the 
Soviets and everything else. Fine business. If we were fat, rich, and 
happy, a space station could well be in order. But we are broke. This 
Congress and Government around here for 15 years now has been spending 
on an average of $200 billion more than we are taking in. So we 

[[Page S10376]]
are not paying our way, and we have to not just cut; we have to forgo.
  Another one, AmeriCorps. I believe in voluntarism, but I expect it. 
We had it when we had Hurricane Hugo. I stood in the rain that weekend, 
and we counted up volunteers from 38 States that had come around to 
help us. The first plane that landed in Hurricane Andrew or whatever it 
was down there at Homestead was our plane that carried generators, 
clean water, and personnel. We had Spanish-speaking police officers, 
and you saw them at Hurricane Andrew in the recovery. No cost to 
Florida, we sent them down from Charleston.
  The people of America believe in volunteering, and they will continue 
to work to help their neighborhoods. Oh, it is good to say on your 
resume I believe in voluntarism and I voted for AmeriCorps. But 
instead, I withheld my vote. So I have been saving the money.
  So do not come around here saying, ``Oh, if we cannot get rid of 
this.'' You are not getting rid of it. The need is there. What you are 
doing is eliminating the most economical approach, the most 
technologically adept approach to this technological need.
  Now, that is the best statement I can make. I note that some of the 
other Senators want to talk, but I can mention some of the examples of 
where we save the Government not just millions but billions.
  The distinguished Senator from Alaska, I do not know whether he can 
approach the floor. On yesterday, we talked about the spectrum auction, 
and that came out of the Office of Technology Assessment. And we put it 
up, and in the last 2 years now we have brought to the Government $12 
billion--not $15 million, $12 billion--from those auctions. So here is 
a money-making entity.
  Those who are frustrated and say, ``If I cannot cut this, where can I 
cut?'' I cannot understand those who are committed to ignorance.
 We are trying to find out. We are trying to learn. We, who have been 
dealing with the Office of Technology Assessment, study very closely 
and look at their particular commitments. We just do not take anything 
and everything.

  In fact, all of the requests made are bipartisan. They come from the 
chairmen and the ranking members of the committees themselves. We get 
way more requests than we respond to and cannot take on each and every 
question that would come. So it comes with a real need from the 
Congress itself. OTA has responded. It has done a professional job. 
There is no criticism in this debate about the quality of work.
  I am not going to try to overwhelm you and bring all the studies and 
everything else. But we can get into a few of them. I am pleased--I 
have checked this amendment through with our distinguished ranking 
member, the Senator from Washington, and I will be glad to adjust it.
  Do not tell me that we can give everything to GAO; we know GAO can do 
it. That is not true. I worked closely for years as chairman of the 
Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee, working with Elmer Staats and 
everything else. What we had to do was cut out all the term papers that 
were being made for high school graduates and everything over there. 
They will take on anything to keep the work going. Let us not do that. 
Let us keep the Office of Technology Assessment at an economical price 
and continue it and not abolish it in the political urge to get rid of 
something here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is no one in the Senate I have more 
respect for than the junior Senator from the State of South Carolina. 
But having said that, I am not sure who would have won in the 
Appropriations Committee if all the proxies had been given. That is 
something we do not know. The fact of the matter is, this amendment was 
brought up before the Appropriations Committee in an effort to remove 
this, and that amendment lost.
  Mr. President, I, for 6 years, served as chairman in the Legislative 
Branch Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. And we went 
through some very rough times. In prior years, there was quite a bit of 
money to pass around in the legislative branch. There came a time when 
there had been cutbacks in Washington generally, and no place has it 
been focused more than in the legislative branch. So for my friend from 
South Carolina to talk about going into the black box where all these 
secret things are, or the A-12, we all know that we cannot do that here 
today. We are bound by what is in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee 
of Appropriations. That is all we can deal with. We cannot deal with A-
12's, space stations, or black box matters. We have to deal with what 
we have in this very tiny little Appropriations subcommittee.
  And what we have is the fact that we have to cut $200 million from 
this subcommittee. This amendment will cut approximately--this--what 
has been done on the subcommittee level takes approximately $22 
million. It is a tremendous step forward to arriving at the goals we 
have to meet.
  Mr. President, the Office of Technology Assessment is a luxury. It is 
something that would be nice to have if we had lots of money like we 
used to have. But we do not have the money that we used to have, and we 
have to look someplace to make cuts. The amendment offered in the 
Appropriations Committee took the money from the Library of Congress. 
Well, it is obvious that that has not sold very well. And now, there is 
an across-the-board cut, cutting things like the General Accounting 
Office.
  Mr. President, if there has been one entity that has been hit hard in 
the legislative branch for the past 6 years, it has been the General 
Accounting Office. Last year, the General Accounting Office was hit 
with $69 million in cuts. This next year, it is $45 million in cuts. It 
has been cut back about 25 percent, and that is a significant cut for 
the watchdog of Congress. The General Accounting Office has saved this 
country billions and billions and billions of dollars. And they are now 
cut back to the point where they have significantly cut back on the 
work that they can do, the requests that we make to them that they can 
meet. The Office of Technology Assessment did 50 major reports last 
year, 50 major reports for $22 million. Now, Mr. President, CRS, where 
the money was originally to be taken, an example of a different 
workload, CRS did 11,000 reports last year.
  The work the OTA does can be done by other agencies. I have had the 
OTA do work for me. They do fine work. But we do not have the ability 
to have in our garage three Cadillacs. We have to start cutting back 
until we wind up with maybe two Chevrolets, or I should say a Ford and 
a Chevrolet, or maybe a Ford and a Chrysler, however you want to 
combine it. But, Mr. President, we cannot have three luxury automobiles 
anymore. All we can have is the General Accounting Office and all we 
can have is the Congressional Research Service, which the congressional 
staff depends on around here to meet the requests of constituents at 
home and Members of the Senate. Our staffs depend on the Congressional 
Research Service. They did not depend on the Office of Technology 
Assessment.
  Now, Mr. President, I say that the work of the OTA can be done by 
other agencies. The General Accounting Office can do their work. They 
are not a bunch of accountants. They have scientists there. They call 
in scientific panels all the time. We have been told in this debate 
that they have distinguished boards, advisory panels. Well, that is not 
hard to copy. That is not hard to do. The General Accounting Office 
does the same thing.
  It is interesting to note, in one of the most scientific matters we 
have had before this body in a decade, namely, the superconducting 
super collider, we did not see a word from the Office of Technology 
Assessment on the superconducting super collider--one of the most 
scientific measures brought before this body in the last decade. OTA 
did not write a report on it.
  I repeat the words of the Senator from South Carolina: If we cannot 
cut funding for this agency, then we cannot cut funding for anything. 
If this is not fat and something that we do not need, then there is not 
anything we can do--$22 million in this very tiny little subcommittee.
  The proposed amendment attempts to keep OTA alive. We do not kill 
things around here; we just kind of choke them to death. What we are 

[[Page S10377]]
going to wind up doing with all these budget cuts is having a 
significant number of entities, none of which work very well--OTA 
cutting at 25 percent. I respectfully submit to this body that the 
budgets in this Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee are 
stretched to the near breaking point.
  We have heard a lot about the Library of Congress and we should hear 
a lot about the Library of Congress. We have worked very hard to 
maintain the structure of the Library of Congress. The Senator from 
South Carolina indicated what they have done in the House is they said, 
``Well, we are not going to cut OTA. We will have the Library of 
Congress do it.'' What kind of way is that to do business; $16 million 
out of the Library's budget? That is what they are going to go to 
conference on. That is the House's position. That is not the way to run 
Government. It is certainly not the way to run a business.
  Mr. President, we cannot, in my opinion, having worked on this 
subcommittee for 6 years, continually cut these entities that make up 
this Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee: The General 
Accounting Office, cut to the very core. The Government Printing Office 
cut, cut. We have significant security needs. We are doing our best to 
maintain those. This amendment will take from that.
  I just do not think it is right that we have an entity that did 50 
reports last year--CRS did 11,000, the General Accounting Office did 
hundreds and hundreds of reports. We all recognize there is no agency 
that we depend on more than the Congressional Research Service.
  Mr. President, I respectfully submit, I repeat, that the time has 
come when we as Members of Congress have to make some decisions. We 
cannot have everything as we used to. We have to make some cuts. And we 
can only work with what we have. I repeat: We cannot go out and look at 
A-12 airplanes, black box matters. We cannot look at space stations. We 
can only look at what the law allows us to look at. That is this 
Appropriations subcommittee that deals with the things that run the 
legislative branch.
  I call upon my colleagues to defeat this amendment. In the gesture of 
what we are trying to do around here, to make a more efficient 
Government, to save money, we are going to have to eliminate programs, 
we are going to have to eliminate entities and agencies around here. 
That is the only way we can do it. We cannot keep everything and take a 
little bit here and a little bit there. We have to start making major 
decisions. This is a major decision. This involves almost $22 million a 
year.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak in support of the amendment of 
the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings. I am also expressing 
my support for preserving the Office of Technology Assessment. I am not 
here to make a case that it be preserved with a certain amount of 
dollars. I am not here to make a case that we maintain the status quo. 
I am not here to say that OTA can not function with less people. I am 
not even here to say that you ought to maintain the Office of 
Technology Assessment Board, and I am a member of that board.
  I am here to say that OTA ought to continue or at least its function 
as a congressional aid ought to be maintained. We need OTA because it 
provides information so that we can identify existing and probable 
impacts of technological application. The application of technology 
impacts upon a lot of public policy that we make in the Congress of the 
United States.
  We need to have a great deal of confidence in the information that is 
available for changes in public policy or the creation of public 
policy.
  Before I ever came to Congress, Congress saw the need for this sort 
of information. By statute, OTA must secure unbiased information 
regarding the impact of technological application.
  OTA is one of the few truly neutral sources of information for the 
Congress. In a very real sense, OTA is our source of objective counsel 
when it comes to science and technology and its interaction with public 
policy decision making.
  There are plenty of places for information in this town, but so many 
of these sources of information come from the private sector--and there 
is nothing wrong with the private sector; there is nothing wrong with 
organizations protecting their own interests, even if it is in the area 
of science and technology. But if we do not have an unbiased source of 
information, then we have to rely on organizations with a stake in 
keeping alive programs that benefit their interests.
  Special interests can fund research, that goes without saying. But it 
seems to me that Congress ought to have an independent source of 
information representing all interests in science and technology. 
Pretty much the same way that the subcommittee has made a determination 
that a lot of other agencies that it funds ought to exist because of 
their independence. The General Accounting Office is an example. The 
subcommittee this year decided that the General Accounting Office 
should get less money next year than this year and it that it ought to 
be streamlined and have staff reductions. But that respected 
organization is being maintained because the subcommittee felt that a 
postaudit agent, that is responsible to the Congress, should continue 
to exist.
  It is not any different for science and technology. We ought to have 
an independent source of information, unbiased, not tied to any special 
interest. The information that OTA provides comes to us and we use it 
to determine public policy that has a scientific or technological 
basis.
  It goes without saying that except for a few professionals here and 
there, like a medical doctor or an engineer, there are not very many 
Members of Congress who are experts in technical and scientific issues. 
Of course, we have our personal staff and we have committee staff. But 
our committee staffs lack the time and the expertise to do in-depth 
analysis of these issues. OTA can do that.
  Congress is not made up of a wide range of professional backgrounds. 
Two-thirds of the Senators are lawyers. Half the House of 
Representatives, I believe, is made up from the profession of law.
  As I remind you so often, there are only a few of us in this Congress 
who are farmers. But I would not rely on my judgment on highly 
technical and highly scientific agriculture issues the same way that I 
can rely upon OTA when they do studies in these areas that are so 
essential to agriculture. It puts me in a much better position, and my 
colleagues in a much better position, to make decisions on agricultural 
policy based on science and technological based information.
  Neither the Federal Government nor the private sector can do analysis 
geared to the particular interests of congressional committees. OTA can 
do just that. And it is the smallest and the least expensive 
congressional agency.
  OTA is intimately interfaced with Congress through its bipartisan 
Technology Assessment Board. I am a member of that board and know 
something about the operation of it. The board does not need to exist 
just because I am a member of it.
  It does not matter whether Chuck Grassley is a member of that board 
or not; you can eliminate the Board, if you want, but still keep OTA's 
function. There might be better ways to get the job done than the way 
it was originally set up.
  OTA works closely with Congress through its bipartisan Technology 
Assessment Board. The Board is equally made up of Democrats and 
Republicans. I have served on this board since 1987 and I can certify 
the Board ensures compliance with statutory and procedural requirements 
for each OTA project. This is a unique governance for oversight 
purposes. Other agencies--like GAO--do not have this special bipartisan 
group overseeing their operation.
  I want to assure all my colleagues that OTA resources are carefully 
managed in this bipartisan way, and I can certify that the OTA board 
carefully screens for--and most importantly, does not allow duplicate 
work. Projects are not self-generated; they are initiated at the 
request of congressional committees. The committees that have 

[[Page S10378]]
requested the most studies are the Senate Commerce, Science and 
Transportation; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee; Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee; Senate Agricultural, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee; 
Senate Armed Services Committee; Senate Finance Committee; Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee; and the Senate Committee on Indian 
affairs.
  A few of my colleagues have said that the GAO can do the work that 
OTA currently does. I disagree. I do not show any disrespect for the 
General Accounting Office in regard to that. In fact, I have been a 
requester of help from the General Accounting Office and they do a good 
job. But the General Accounting Office is not equipped to do the highly 
technical and scientific work that is done by OTA.
  Let me explain the backgrounds of the staff of the particular 
agencies. The General Accounting Office's staff, process, and 
traditions are primarily those of an audit and program evaluation unit. 
Only four percent of the GAO staff have Ph.D's, and few of these 
doctorates are in science and engineering. In contrast, 58 percent of 
OTA's staff has Ph.D's in these areas, and half of those hold degrees 
in hard sciences. The GAO has relied on prior or concurrent work of the 
OTA for scientific and technical aspects of the study.
  It seems to me that speaks more to the point raised about what GAO 
can do and not do in this area than anything I can say. GAO relies on 
OTA for highly scientific and technological information.
  As we continue moving into a highly technical world, we must ensure 
that we know how public policy impacts future trends and the reverse of 
that. OTA provides a very high level of expertise to help us understand 
these trends, while balancing the views of opponents and proponents of 
various courses of action.
  OTA translates modern technical material for legislative and 
oversight purposes and gives us a heads up on important but complicated 
science and technology issues in areas like space, defense, and energy.
  OTA's studies on energy crops, for example, are particularly 
important for farm States such as mine. Their study on the ``Potential 
Environmental Impact of Bioenergy Crops'' showed that energy crops, 
such as switch grass, could have net environmental benefits, rebutting 
the concerns of certain environmentalists.
  This study and other studies they have done are going to be very 
helpful as we debate the farm bill and as we look for new crops to 
maintain the viability of the farm community. As the domestic supplies 
of oil and gas diminish and dependence upon foreign sources continues 
to increase, we will be looking for new ways, even beyond ethanol, for 
instance, to use farm products to fuel our machines and vehicles. That 
is also an issue regarding the energy independence of our country, for 
national security purposes. OTA is doing very good work on renewable 
bioenergy fuels for transportation which can help us address our 
economic issues in rural America.
  In addition, OTA helps the Congress make decisions that save the U.S. 
Government money.
  I have some examples of where OTA actually helped us save money. 
OTA's study of the Social Security Administration plan to purchase 
computers saved $368 million. OTA's cautions--a while back now, I might 
say--about the Synthetic Fuel Corporation helped to secure $60 billion 
of savings.
  Let me explain that to you. Many thought that it would take $80 
billion to do the work of the Synthetic Fuel Corporation. OTA testified 
that $80 billion was an overestimate. In the final analysis, Congress 
put up only $20 billion for the Synthetic Fuel Corporation. This saved 
the taxpayers $60 billion.
  OTA's studies of preventive services for Medicare have assisted 
legislative decisions for the past 15 years. Studies of pneumonia 
vaccines and pap smears that showed Medicare would save money by paying 
for these medical services for the elderly, and Medicare patients would 
save money. Both proposals passed as legislation.
  OTA's work on nuclear power plants has played a central role in 
eliminating poorly conceived and burdensome regulations on the U.S. 
power industry.
  I urge you to look very closely at the amount of money that is being 
spent on OTA. I urge you to look very closely at whether the number of 
people employed is the right number. I urge you to look at the 
administrative setup. I even urge you to consider abolishing the board 
of the Office of Technology Assessment, if you want. But I also urge 
you to look at the product of the OTA, and you will come to the same 
conclusions in 1995 that Congress came to when it was set up: that we 
need independent sources of information, particularly in science and 
technology, which we did not have and we will not have after this day 
if this is abolished.
  I firmly believe, Mr. President, that OTA offers a unique and 
essential service for Congress, and I am very impressed with OTA's 
credible analyses of the developments in technology and related public 
policy issues. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that 
preserves the functions of the Office of Technology Assessment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, ``What's Good from Government.'' Now there 
is a topic you do not see often these days. Yet on May 15, 1994, this 
was the title of an article that appeared in Library Journal discussing 
the sixty-three finest government publications in 1993. Out of the 20 
selected federal government publications that were honored, three of 
these reports were issued by the congressional Office of Technology 
Assessment, including one called, ``Proliferation of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction: Assessing the Risks.''
  Here is what Keay Davidson, a reviewer in the San Francisco Chronicle 
had to say about the report on April 7, 1995:

       For years, OTA has generated some of the most readable and 
     useful reports imaginable about US research and its impact on 
     social, political, military and economic policy. I always 
     look forward to its reports, which are extraordinarily clear, 
     thoughtful and well-illustrated--extraordinary considering 
     that they come from a government agency. When's the last time 
     you actually enjoyed reading a government document? Not long 
     ago I was on a plane flight, completely absorbed by an OTA 
     report on US efforts to control nuclear weapons and other 
     ``technologies of mass destruction.''

  The distinguished journal, Foreign Affairs reviewed another report in 
a recent series of OTA studies on nonproliferation and came to the 
following conclusion: ``The Office of Technology Assessment does some 
of the best writing on security-related technical issues in the United 
States, as evidenced by this excellent volume.''
  Of course, this is not the first time that OTA has been recognized 
for excellence. The June 1989 issue of Washington Monthly featured a 
story on OTA, holding it up as a model for the rest of the government--
over a picture of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, and 
the Capitol, the cover of this journal declared, ``At Last! A 
Government Agency That Works.'' Indeed, in the last 4 years, 24 OTA 
reports have been selected in national competitions as among the best 
government publications nationwide, even worldwide.
  None of this acclaim surprises me. OTA has had a long and 
distinguished track record of publishing informative studies on 
nonproliferation issues. In 1977, OTA issued a 270-page book on Nuclear 
Proliferation and Safeguards that is still valuable reading. In a 
hearing on April 4, 1977, of the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear 
Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs, I called this study a ``landmark document'' that ``will make a 
substantial contribution to everyone's understanding of this highly 
complex and emotionally charged issue.''
  Highly complex indeed--I can say without doubt that halting the 
global spread of weapons of mass destruction is one of the most vexing 
problems that either the Executive or Congress has had to confront in 
modern times. The political and diplomatic problems of addressing this 
threat are bad enough. But the technological aspects of this problem 
are so complex that many public officials and citizens around the 
country have just given up--they need help to sort out the issues, 
weigh the stakes, and outline courses of action.
  The OTA has responded to this need in a manner which brings credit 
not just to the agency, but to our system of government: I am proud 
that the U.S. Congress recognized the need for such 

[[Page S10379]]
an agency 23 years ago. My purpose today, however, is to praise OTA for 
the specific work over the last few years on the subject of weapons 
proliferation. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate and the House, 
even those who have called OTA ``a luxury we cannot afford,'' to sample 
some of the following reports on weapons proliferation issues.
  First, ``Nuclear Safeguards and the International Atomic Energy 
Agency'' OTA-ISS-615, June 1995, 147 pages (released this month; also 
available in a 22-page summary).
  This report reviews the origins of the IAEA, describes its safeguards 
system in terms that non-specialists can easily understand, discusses 
numerous options for strengthening the IAEA safeguards system, and 
outlines other possible initiatives to strengthen the global nuclear 
nonproliferation regime.
  Second, ``Proliferation and the Former Soviet Union''; OTA-ISS-605, 
September 1994, 92 pages.
  This report is essential reading for all who are concerned about twin 
problems of ``loose nukes'' and the ``brain drain'' following the 
breakup of the Soviet Union. The report documents specific problems 
with respect to weaknesses in national systems of nuclear accounting, 
controls over exports, and the ability to police borders.
  Third, ``Export Controls and Nonproliferation Policy''; OTA-ISS-596, 
May 1994, 82 pages.
  Here the OTA addresses the contributions and limitations of export 
controls as a tool of nonproliferation policy. The study offers 
insights and technical details about the export licensing process, in 
particular measures to make this process more efficient and effective 
in achieving nonproliferation objectives.
  Fourth, ``Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction''; OTA-
BP-ISC-115, December 1993, 263 pages.
  This report is a basic primer about the fabrication and effects of 
weapons of mass destruction. It is essential reading for anybody both 
for those who have official responsibilities to tackle this problem, 
and those who are simply curious about what all the fuss is about 
concerning these deadly weapons.
  Fifth, ``Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the 
Risks''; OTA-ISC-559, August 1993, 123 pages.
  I have already discussed this award-winning above. If a reader has no 
background on proliferation issues and wants to read just one report 
for the clearest possible introduction to the subject, this is the 
report to read.
  Sixth, ``The Chemical Weapons Convention: Effects on the U.S. 
Chemical Industry''; OTA-BP-ISC-106, August 1993, 69 pages.
  The Senate will take up ratification of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention later this year. An important topic in this process will be 
the costs to US industry from complying with this Convention. Given 
that the treaty will cover controls over chemicals that are either 
produced or used throughout the nation, this study should be of great 
interest indeed.
  If the publication of six major studies in less than two years is not 
enough to illustrate the productivity of this agency, critics might 
consider that OTA is well underway on yet another report in this 
series, this time on assessing US responses to proliferation after it 
has occurred.
  Congress established OTA in 1972 after determining that, although the 
applications of technology are ``increasingly extensive, pervasive, and 
critical in their impact,'' no Executive or Legislative branch agencies 
were capable of providing Congress with ``adequate and timely 
information, independently developed, relating to [their] potential 
impact.'' In its 23 years, OTA has filled that need--and in an age when 
cost/benefit analyses will figure so prominently in evaluating Federal 
actions, I can think of no more greater need in Congress than for the 
types of skills and services that OTA offers today.
  This is why the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the 
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine have 
warned that closing OTA will diminish the quality of advice to 
Congress. Representing the interests of over 240,000 electrical 
engineers nationwide, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers calls OTA a ``highly regarded and respected institution'' 
that serves as an ``irreplaceable asset'' to Congress. The world's 
largest scientific organization, the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, says that abolishing OTA would be a ``strategic 
error for Congress'' that would seriously harm the national interest.
  OTA does not only prepare formal high-quality reports--Congress has 
repeatedly drawn upon the agency's in-house expertise to provide short-
notice testimony, briefings, and replies to congressional questions on 
many high technology subjects on the policy agenda. Following the nerve 
gas attacks in Tokyo and the bombing of the federal building in 
Oklahoma City, for example, OTA staff were able to respond both 
promptly and comprehensively to repeated congressional questions.
  To whom will Congress turn if the next explosion in an American city 
involves a weapon of mass destruction? Though the Executive can 
occasionally be helpful in providing information, there is no 
substitute for Congress having an independent, bipartisan source of 
expertise on exactly such technically-complex issues. I can assure my 
colleagues, I know where I would like to turn in the years ahead, to 
the Office of Technology Assessment.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting OTA for having performed 
its mission with dignity and professional excellence. This is not an 
agency Congress can do without.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I am in support of the effort to preserve 
the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA, on whose 
board I currently sit, has been of profound and indispensable use to 
the Congress in the carrying out of its function of an independent 
source of complex, unbiased analysis of the technology issues facing 
our country today. I firmly believe that it would be short-sighted and 
unwise for us to eliminate entirely this agency, even as we strive to 
effectuate budget savings with the Legislative Branch.
  The OTA was created in 1972 as a result of a far-sighted, bipartisan 
effort led by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations then ranking 
Member, Senator Clifford Chase of New Jersey. It evolved from the need 
to have objective, expert analysis to assist the Congress in assessing 
the potential effects of a nuclear war on the United States. Again in 
the late 1970's, the OTA conducted a more comprehensive and detailed 
study on the same issue. These two studies were among the first 
comprehensive unclassified efforts to provide realistic assessments of 
just what nuclear war might mean for the citizens of this and other 
country's. They proved to be extremely valuable in helping inform the 
Congress as we developed national policy in this area.
  Since those studies, the OTA has proved itself time and again in 
hundreds of studies across the board spectrum of technology assessment. 
Throughout its tenure, it has become recognized around the world of its 
cogent, professional, and unbiased work. It would be foolhardy to 
shelve that expertise now in a blind effort to simply slash budgets.
  I am thankful that under the amendment, another revered and 
invaluable congressional institution, the Library of Congress, will not 
be subject to budget cuts in order to spare the OTA. Both of these 
organization have an exemplary record of in their service to the 
Congress and I am glad that a mean has been found to adequately 
preserve the functions of both.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in this effort to 
preserve a scaled-back OTA and in doing so, insure that the Congress 
will continue to be able to make informed, reasoned decisions regarding 
the complex technology issues that it will inevitably face in the 
future.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are in an interesting time. I say that 
reminded me of the old Chinese curse, ``May you live in interesting 
times.'' I have been through this kind of time in my private life, and 
I would like to share with you some observations there, as I then 
addressed the question of what to do about the Office of Technology 
Assessment.
  I remember visiting with a CEO of a fairly large corporation, and he 
told me 

[[Page S10380]]
of a very difficult experience that he had just been through in his 
company. He said, ``I have just gone through the whole company, looked 
at everything, and ended up cutting back here, cutting back there, 
leaving a lot of blood on the floor, if you will, as I have had to 
clean up the company. And then I said to all of the employees who 
survived this exercise, this is it, this is as deep as we are going to 
cut, and you can all relax now because you have passed the test, and we 
have seen to it that everything that is excess, everything that is 
wasteful has been taken care of.''
  Then, he said to me, ``I quietly in my own office went to my 
calendar, flipped the pages forward about 3 years, and wrote down, `Do 
it again,' because I realized no matter how zealous we were in trying 
to keep from getting duplication and creating redundant services and 
getting too fat, no matter how hard we worked at it, in about 3 years 
time in our company we would suddenly wake up and discover we had too 
many people doing the same thing, and I would have this same kind of 
circumstance again.''
  We do not do that in the Federal Government. That is, we do not go 3 
years ahead and write down, ``Do it again.'' Instead, once something 
gets started, it continues, regardless of whether or not it has 
outlived its usefulness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a previous order to vote at 4 o'clock.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1807

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Under a previous order, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment numbered 1807, offered by the 
majority leader, to the amendment numbered 1803. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 314 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--8

     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Dodd
     Hollings
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Sarbanes
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Inouye
      
  So the amendment (No. 1807) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 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. MOYNIHAN. Mr. 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. 1808

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise simply for the purpose of 
expressing the appreciation of this Senator--and I think I can speak 
for the Joint Committee on the Library--that the proposal pending by 
the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina will not affect 
the Library of Congress. It has taken very severe budget cuts and 
budget freezes over the years. Its world function, its national role, 
and its indispensable service to the U.S. Congress would be in jeopardy 
were more to take place.
  Our distinguished Librarian, Dr. James Billington, has made this 
clear in forceful, in cogent, and in concise terms. His argument has 
clearly prevailed.
  I want to express my appreciation to the Senator for this purpose, 
and to state just incidentally my agreement--I am sure most of us will 
also agree that the Office of Technology Assessment has an important 
role. It has been here a quarter century. It was established for a role 
and it ought to continue. I simply want to make those comments.
  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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just indicate what I am doing here.
  I am trying to determine whether or not we will go to S. 343, which 
is regulatory reform, which I had a right to do under the order. That 
is why I do not want to get bogged down with some other amendment 
because I need to give an hour or so, or some advance notice to the 
minority leader, Senator Daschle. Then there would be 1 hour of debate 
and then there would be a vote on cloture on S. 343.
  Following that, we would, if cloture is not invoked, either move on 
to something else, or I assume somehow we get back to this bill, which 
I thought would take 2 hours. We started at 10 o'clock.
  I want to accommodate the Senator if I can. Does he want to speak for 
10 minutes or 15 minutes?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Less than that. I know the Senator from Utah was 
addressing this issue as well. I am more than glad to either proceed or 
wait until after the Senator from Utah, and then at a time that the 
leader wants to gain control of the floor to make a request, I would 
withhold.
  Mr. DOLE. If I could request that I be recognized at 5 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. But I understood from the Senator from Florida that the 
Senator from Utah was in the middle of a statement. I will be glad to 
wait until after he concludes.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor, but before doing so, I ask 
unanimous consent that when the Senator from Utah concludes, I might be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
  It is true I was in the middle of a statement when the regular order 
intervened and we had the vote. I do not have much more to say, but I 
was in the middle of making the point that every organization 
inevitably ends up growing more than it really needs to. There is an 
inertia--it is almost organic--in organizations that says we start 
this, which is a good thing, and it grows a little, and then we start 
another, which is a good thing, and it grows a little. And just like a 
plant, organizations need to be pruned back every once in a while. I 
have done it in my business. I know there are others here who have 
business experiences who have had to do this. 

[[Page S10381]]

  As we address this OTA circumstance, it is my feeling that this is 
what we have here. OTA in my belief has been a good agency. It has done 
good work. I hear the Senators talk about its work, and I agree. If you 
look at just the OTA, you would come to the conclusion that it deserves 
to remain.
  At the same time, Mr. President, that OTA was doing its work, the 
Library of Congress was building a capacity to deal with technology 
issues. At the same time, the GAO was looking into many issues that 
were the same kinds of issues as OTA. And as we looked at this within 
the committee, I came to the conclusion that we have simply 
proliferated capacity in this area throughout the Government, that it 
is time to prune the bush.
  Now, I am sorry personally for those who are connected with OTA that 
they are the ones who have felt the pruning shears and that the 
function will be transferred, if we continue with the actions 
recommended by the subcommittee, to other agencies. This is always a 
wrench for the individuals involved, and they say, with some degree of 
fairness, ``Why me? I have done a good job. I have done what the 
Congress has asked me to do. I have produced a report that is of sound 
value. Why are you cutting back on me?''
  Those of us who are in this position must look at the entire 
Government, not just one agency at a time. When we do that, we have to 
say to those who are feeling the effect of the pruning shears, if it 
were not you, it would have to be someone else because there is 
redundancy here.
  We have the responsibility in the overall budget circumstance to do 
as the CEO I was referring to in my beginning remarks, go through and 
clean out the duplication and sharpen up the organization.
  I realize this is not an exact analogy, but nonetheless it 
illustrates the point. I read a column recently where the columnist was 
talking about a television station that went off the air because of 
financial difficulties. They did not want to lose their license, so 
they said we in fact will keep broadcasting a signal while we work out 
our financial difficulties. They put on the air the picture of fish, 
tropical fish, and broadcast that 24 hours a day to keep their place. 
When they solved their problems financially, and they could go back to 
regular programming, they took the fish off the air and put on the 
regular programming. And what happened, Mr. President? They were 
deluged with phone calls complaining about the fact that they had 
canceled the fish.
  It seems that once something gets started, it develops a constituency 
regardless of whether or not there are other options.
  Now, I am not, as I say, suggesting in any way that the OTA is simply 
broadcasting of the fish, but they have developed a constituency that 
is appropriately calling for their preservation in an atmosphere when 
there are other facilities capable of doing this.
  So painful as it is, Mr. President, difficult as it is to explain to 
the individuals who are doing a good job, I have come to the conclusion 
that as a total Government we have the capacity elsewhere to do what we 
have been doing in the OTA. It has become redundant because of what we 
have funded in the Library of Congress and in the General Accounting 
Office, and I support the subcommittee's report that says this is the 
place we shall prune.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know that there are other Members who 
want to speak, so I shall not take much time.
  Mr. President, I wish to just review for the Senate where we are on 
this issue of OTA. The issue no longer is the size of the budget. That 
issue has been basically agreed to. So this is not something that is in 
addition. This is not something that we are adding. The total amounts 
in terms of the budget have effectively been agreed to and that really 
is not before the Senate.
  The issue that is before the Senate is whether we are going to retain 
the capability of OTA to deal with technological issues which can be 
helpful to the Congress and to the American people generally. That is 
only the issue.
  So we have to evaluate now whether that can be done with the existing 
agencies, the Congressional Research Service, or other agencies, or 
whether it is best to try to hold together the capability that has been 
developed in OTA, to be able to give advice, counsel, and judgment to 
the Congress on matters of technology that we are going to face in 
terms of the future.
  That is basically the issue. Now, I say to my good friend from Utah, 
the fact is we have had the expression of the American Academy of 
Sciences, the Institutes of Medicine, American Academy of Energy, and 
science advisers to Republican and Democrat Presidents alike. All are 
in agreement that this function ought to be maintained. They had an 
opportunity to say no, let us separate out OTA and let it go to CRS or 
let it go to other agencies; we do not believe that it will really make 
much difference in the ability of Congress to get this information.
  They were asked that very question, and the most important, 
prestigious institutes that deal with the most complex issues of 
technology and new technology and advanced technology have recognized 
and respected OTA for being the center of excellence for technology, to 
advise us in the Congress and Senate.
  So if the issue of the budget is out of the way, we have to ask 
ourselves what is in the best interests really of the Congress 
generally, the House and the Senate, and even the executive and the 
public because these studies are made available to the public, and what 
is really the best way to do it, because you have to face the fact that 
we in the Congress are going to be faced with these technology issues 
into the future of this country--increasing technology, cutting edge 
technology, technology that is going to be at the heart of the American 
economy after the turn of the century and in many respects is there 
even now.
  I can see in my own State with biotechnology, telecommunications, 
fiber optics, the wide range of new kinds of technology. And the 
question is, how does that impact the lives of the American people? And 
how will it affect that?
  We do have a resource that is special, that has been recognized, not 
just by Members of Congress, but by the most prestigious, important and 
significant institutes that are dealing with these issues, that have 
made their judgment. And so whether it has been in those institutes or 
whether it is the CEO's of the top companies in this country that are 
devoting the greatest amount of their own resources in terms of 
technology that respect this expertise, whether it is the former 
science advisers under Republicans and Democrats alike, they have all 
come virtually to this conclusion: It is important to maintain OTA as 
an institute. Where it is going to sit and within the various framework 
of existing agencies is a matter of administration. And I think that 
could be worked out by reasonable individuals in the course of the 
conference with the House of Representatives.
  But what we should not lose is that capability, that capacity, that 
kind of integrity which has been of value to this Congress on issues 
involving DNA, on new technologies in education, on the issues of 
polygraph. Their recommendations that they made to the Congress were 
later taken and put into law by Senator Hatch and myself. On instance 
after instance so many areas of important technology, OTA has been 
there. I have agreed with some of their conclusions, differed with 
others. I think every Member of the Congress realizes it really 
represents an extraordinary degree of knowledge and awareness and 
background and experience and really the best in terms of bringing 
evaluations of technology. It is an asset that we cannot afford to 
lose. And I hope very much that the amendment will be accepted.
  I strongly support the amendment to maintain the Office of Technology 
Assessment as a valuable and needed arm of Congress.
  OTA was created 23 years ago by the Technology Assessment Act of 
1972. In the years since then, OTA has become a world-renowned source 
of information and analysis on current technology issues. It plays an 
invaluable role in helping Congress assess and apply scientific and 
technological advances for the benefit of the American people. 

[[Page S10382]]

  OTA's budget is currently $22 million. Clearly, OTA is prepared to 
tighten its belt substantially along with the rest of the Federal 
Government. In fact, under the able leadership of Dr. Roger Herdman, 
OTA has already taken major cost-cutting measures on its own 
initiative.
  But regrettably, the bill before us proposes to eliminate this needed 
and unique agency.
  Each year, OTA prepares dozens of formal assessments, background 
papers and case studies on subjects ranging from adolescent health to 
nuclear disarmament. OTA's well-researched and carefully reasoned 
reports are must-reading in the committees of Congress that address 
scientific issues, and in the executive branch and private industry as 
well.
  OTA enjoys the full support of the scientific community. The American 
Association for the Advancement of Science has called it:

       Unique and highly respected ... [a] model for legislative 
     bodies around the world ... Its demise would have serious 
     negative impacts on Congress' ability to do its job well, and 
     on the national interest.

  The prospect that OTA might be abolished has also brought expressions 
of alarm from the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of 
Medicine, and the National Academy of Engineering. It would be 
difficult to find any serious scientific organization that is not 
deeply concerned about the impact of this proposal on the quality of 
technology-related legislation.
  The chief executive officers of Monsanto, Eastman Kodak, and many 
other Fortune 500 companies have expressed support for the agency. 
Science advisers to Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have 
endorsed OTA's preservation. These are not the reviews one would expect 
for an irrelevant or superfluous or unneeded organization. The experts 
outside the beltway know that modest funding for OTA is a wise 
investment for Congress and an excellent bargain for the Nation.
  OTA's large impact on the legislative process is out of proportion to 
its relatively small size. Let me offer just a few examples:
  In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress debated a bill 
promoting technologies to help prevent terrorism and enhancing the 
ability of law enforcement agencies to apprehend those who commit such 
crimes. OTA had already laid the groundwork for this discussion. In 
July 1991 and in January 1992, OTA issued a pair of reports that 
evaluate technology for bomb detection and target hardening, airline 
passenger profiling, and other antiterrorism strategies. Not only were 
these reports helpful to those drafting counterterrorism legislation, 
but within days of the Oklahoma City bombing, OTA staff conducted 
indepth briefings on the subjects for Members of Congress and their 
staffs.
  During the floor debate on medical malpractice 2 months ago, OTA's 
landmark studies on medical negligence and defensive medicine seemed to 
be in the hands of every Member. Senators Kyl, McConnell, and others 
made much of OTA's conclusion that ``the one reform consistently shown 
to reduce malpractice cost indicators is caps on damages.'' I was on 
the other side of that debate, but I had no cause to challenge OTA's 
credibility or impartiality.
  OTA's study in the 1980's on polygraph testing is also a landmark 
document. It is recognized as the definitive review of scientific 
research on this topic. The report was used and cited extensively by 
the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, then chaired by 
Senator Hatch, during the legislative process that led to enactment of 
the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. That bill was signed into law by 
President Reagan in 1988.
  OTA has been in the forefront of efforts to evaluate the cost 
effectiveness of medical technologies. It produced the first report 
documenting the health and economic benefits of vaccinating the elderly 
against influenza. Based directly on these findings, Congress included 
coverage for these vaccinations in Medicare, a step that has prevented 
thousands of deaths and saved millions of dollars that Medicare would 
otherwise have spent on hospital costs.
  On the other hand, OTA documented in 1989 that cholesterol screening 
of the elderly would not be cost effective. That report was a major 
factor in the decision not to cover this screening under Medicare, 
saving the program substantial amounts.
  In the late 1970's research on recombinant DNA was considered 
potentially dangerous and had aroused widespread public concern. More 
than a dozen bills had been introduced in Congress to halt genetic 
research. But OTA's 1981 analysis, ``Impacts of Applied Genetics,'' 
helped to convince key Members of Congress of the economic potential of 
this emerging science. Today, biotechnology has expanded the boundaries 
of medicine, agriculture and commerce. The United States leads the 
world in this field, and OTA deserves a share of the credit.
  In its report, ``Building Future Security: Strategies for 
Restructuring the U.S. Defense Industry,'' OTA conducted a 
comprehensive analysis of defense technology and the Nation's 
industrial base. It proposed a major restructuring of the military 
industrial complex, in order to maintain defense capabilities during 
the transition to the post-cold-war economy, while meeting pressing 
domestic needs. The report has greatly assisted deliberations on this 
subject in both the legislative and executive branches.
  There are many other fields in which OTA's influence has been 
substantiated. Its work on computer technology in the classroom has 
helped to shape important legislation on education. Over a period of 
many years, OTA has been deeply involved in Congress' evaluation of the 
Clean Air Act. When the Exxon Valdez disaster occurred off the coast of 
Alaska in 1989, OTA's suggestions on maritime precautions were 
incorporated in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
  These are just a few examples of timely and incisive OTA reports that 
have improved the quality of legislation.
  Some contend that OTA's work can be handled by other congressional 
support agencies. I have the utmost respect for the Congressional 
Research Service and the General Accounting Office, but neither agency 
is equipped to take on the exceptionally challenging and specialized 
tasks of OTA. Although CRS and GAO existed 23 years ago, we recognized 
the need at that time for a smaller but expert agency with the specific 
mission of advising Congress on science and technology. That need is 
even greater today. It would be a tragic mistake to drain the reservoir 
of expertise that OTA has developed over the past 23 years, and try to 
reinvent it in some other congressional support agency.
  Let's be clear. This is not a budgetary issue. The amendment proposes 
no new expenditure of funds, only that a very small portion of the 
money already allotted for the support agencies under this bill be used 
to preserve OTA. The sole question now is structural--whether we should 
keep OTA's expertise intact and centralized, or whether we should 
disperse OTA's responsibilities among the other support agencies and 
suffer the consequences.
  One way or another, the work of technology assessment must go 
forward. It is simply a matter of common sense to keep intact the one 
agency that already knows how to do this job and meet the needs of 
Congress in this highly specialized field. Breaking up OTA in the name 
of streamlining Congress makes no sense.
  It should also be emphasized that this amendment involves no cut in 
funds for the Library of Congress. The concerns of Library supporters 
have been completely addressed--the Library will not be cut.
  In the years ahead, as we move into the 21st century, there will be 
even greater need to rely on OTA for impartial assessment of 
technology-related policies. The world of science and its impact on 
public policy are becoming more complex, not less. Technology is 
central to every aspect of American life, from biotechnology to law 
enforcement, from agriculture to education. It would be a serious 
mistake to limit our ability as a legislature to evaluate and respond 
to the scientific and technological challenges facing Congress, the 
Administration, and the Nation.
  The Office of Technology Assessment has performed the task we 
assigned to it superbly. It continues to serve an indispensable role. 
It should bear its fair share of the current budget crisis--but it 
should not be abolished.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
 
[[Page S10383]]

  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah,
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to my colleague from 
Massachusetts. As everybody in this body knows, we do not always agree. 
In fact, there are some that think we disagree quite often.
  But I have to say he is right on this issue. I have watched what OTA 
has done for the whole time I have been in the Congress. And I have to 
tell you, if you are going to shift that burden to CRS or some other 
support group, you are going to spend more money than you spend on OTA 
and you are not going to have the congressional benefits that come to 
Congress as a whole that you get from OTA. As a matter of fact, we have 
all kinds of Ph.D.'s at OTA. Over half, 58 percent of OTA staff hold 
doctorates. And all of the support people that are volunteers from 
outside are the greatest scientists in the world--at least from this 
country--who also support OTA. And that is a benefit you cannot 
quantify because if we had to pay for all that what it is really worth, 
we could not afford to pay for it.
  So there is a lot to this. I do not think we should make the mistake 
of cutting OTA yet. I am the first to admit that we have to make 
cutbacks here. I think OTA has to suffer its fair share. So I am not 
arguing for 100 percent of OTA's budget. I wish we could because I 
think it is working over the long run, because this is the one arm of 
Congress that does give us, to the best of their ability, unbiased, 
scientific and technical expertise that we could not otherwise get 
where most everybody has confidence in what they do.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Hollings to 
restore some funding for the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA] 
during the next fiscal year.
  Mr. President, my support for this amendment should not be confused 
with a failure to recognize the very difficult task the Legislative 
Branch Subcommittee is faced with this year in making its share of 
budget reductions. There is no question that Congress must contribute 
its share to deficit reduction, especially in light of the budget 
resolution we have just passed. I commend the managers of this bill on 
what they have been able to bring to the floor.
  However, I am concerned about one of the rationales used to justify 
the elimination of OTA. I do not agree that there is no longer a need 
for OTA. On the contrary, I believe that Congress' need for technical 
scientific analysis will increase.
  As our economy becomes increasingly complex and technologically 
oriented, Congress will require, more than ever, an ability to 
effectively analyze technology in making policy decisions. The question 
is, Mr. President, can another support agency do the work for which OTA 
has become recognized? Some of our colleagues believe the answer is a 
simple yes.
  I respectfully disagree.
  Fifty-eight percent of OTA's staff hold Ph.D., half of which are in 
the hard sciences. No other agency can make this claim. Nor can any 
other agency make the claim that it has the ability to call upon a 
network of in excess of 5,000 technical experts from all over the 
country who provide the best information available on science- and 
technology-related topics. Nor is there the level of scrutiny and 
review placed upon any other support agency from the time a request is 
made to the time the product is officially released in final form.
  The product expected from OTA and the type of review that this small, 
specialized agency is mandated to undergo produces what I believe 
everyone in this body would agree is desirable: thorough, objective, 
and accurate analysis.
  Relying on other, existing agencies to fulfill this mission asks 
these organizations, whose specialty is a highly specific quick 
turnaround study, to expand capability to do more comprehensive 
assessments in areas for which they may not even have in-house 
expertise.
  Let me state this another way: The primary mission of OTA is not to 
do studies for immediate use by the Congress. OTA's charter is to be 
more forward-looking, more comprehensive, and more technical.
  With fewer than 5 percent of Congress' membership having technical 
training, we cannot afford not to have this capability. Needless to 
say, I would not be making this argument if the proposal were for a 
legal research office.
  This brings me to the budget implications of this amendment. And, let 
me state strongly for the record that I absolutely agree that 
reductions have to be made everywhere. I do not advocate that OTA be 
restored to 100 percent of its current level. OTA, like all other 
federally funded agencies and programs has to absorb its share of the 
necessary reductions.
  My distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, has 
done an excellent job in finding the necessary offsets so as not to 
disrupt the overall budgetary outlays already contained in this bill 
and in the budget resolution. He has gone the extra mile to make sure 
that these offsets are germane, that they are fair, that they are 
cognizant of the concerns that have been expressed by the affected 
agencies whose budgets will further be reduced by this amendment.
  But I have to say, for example, under the House proposal, the 
Congressional Research Service would be required to provide the entire 
$15 million outlay for the continuance of OTA's functions, a burden 
that is understandably quite overwhelming and, quite frankly, unfair to 
the Library of Congress. CRS's burden under the House proposal takes on 
added significance when you know time has been taken to ensure that the 
structural changes required by the provision will maintain the 
integrity of both support agencies.
  In contrast, the Hollings amendment not only maintains OTA's 
independence, but it does not require any additional budget outlays be 
taken from the Library of Congress, as stipulated in the chairman's 
mark. This provision also eliminates the additional need to make the 
House-required structural adjustments that would create an even greater 
burden upon the Library of Congress.
  Now, we recognize the reality that the structural adjustments will be 
necessary as overall budget outlays shrink over the next several years. 
The Hollings amendment stipulates that the Library of Congress undergo 
an evaluation of how the services of GAO, OTA, GPO, and CRS can be 
consolidated by the year 2002. This is a responsible approach under the 
circumstances. That will allow us time to ensure that the services 
provided by OTA can be most effectively maintained over the long term 
while recognizing that inevitable structural and budgetary changes will 
continue to be necessary for the years to come.
  All I can say is that, as a conservative who believes that we have to 
cut back, who believes we need to reach that balanced budget by the 
year 2002, having served with OTA and understanding the interworkings 
of OTA and having watched what they have done for all the 19 years I 
have been in the Congress, I have to say it would be a tragedy for us 
to cut it out completely. And I do not think you could find any other 
area of Government that will provide the services that we need that OTA 
provides. And Heaven knows, in this very complex world, this complex 
present time, we in Congress have got to have that kind of equity at 
our beck and call. OTA has provided it for us. And I hope that folks 
will vote for the Hollings amendment.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I commend Senator Hollings for his 
leadership on this amendment, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor.
  I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to support this important 
measure.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I served on the Office of Technology 
Assessment Board from January of 1974 to January 1992. Since it was 
established, OTA has completed 721 studies to date. During the period I 
was there, 18 years, I obtained board approval for four studies that 
addressed Alaska's needs.
  For instance, we had one study that addressed our rural village 
sanitation problem in Alaska. We had another that addressed the 
technical feasibility of transporting some of our very abundant fresh 
water from Alaska to California, which had been suggested to alleviate 
water shortages there. It did not prove to be economically feasible. 

[[Page S10384]]
 We had another one concerning the technological considerations of 
generating power in very remote arctic villages. And another was the 
review of oil production challenges in an arctic environment.
  There were three others that touched my State in that period of time. 
One addressed the Exxon Valdez disaster; one for oil and gas 
development in deep water, and in arctic waters in particular; and 
another one, addressing nuclear waste in the former Soviet Union. They 
were not particularly at my request, but I did support them.
  I want the Senate to know that in my time on this board I became 
convinced that this is a shared staff. And I have often referred here 
on the floor of the Senate to the benefits derived from this shared 
staff in the Office of Technology Assessment. Not only do we share 
staff, but by virtue of the professional staff we have in the Office of 
Technology Assessment, they attract onto Washington boards and panels 
the leading experts of our Nation, if not the world, in the development 
of new technology.
  I think that without this OTA, what will happen is--and now I am 
speaking in my role as the chairman of the Rules Committee--that we 
will face increasing demands from individual committees for funds to 
hire people to do the same thing that the OTA does. The only difference 
is we will have, as we did before OTA, several committees exploring the 
same subject with people who are not the experts of the country and 
without the basic experience of the OTA in framing the issues for 
review by Congress.
  As I came over here today, I picked up from the edge of my desk some 
of the OTA reports that I have reviewed over the years. This is 
``Critical Connections, Communications for the Future, A Summary,'' 
prepared for the Congress in January 1990. It addressed, as my friend 
from South Carolina mentioned, the frequency spectrum problem. It was 
this summary that got me thinking about frequency spectrums. And for 
three Congresses, I asked Congress to change the policy of dealing with 
the spectrum that the FCC has under its jurisdiction in our airwaves.
  They used to have a policy of having a lottery when a block of 
frequencies from the spectrum was available. It was announced, and 
people filed an application. It was literally a lottery. There was a 
drawing. And for $20 you got a slice of the spectrum that could be 
worth anything from nothing to $1 billion.
  I felt that this summary would convince anybody that this system of 
disposing of a very valuable commodity, if maintained in the future, 
was wrong. It led to, as the Senator from South Carolina has stated, 
action finally in 1993 by the Congress. Last year we received $12 
billion for the sale of units of the spectrum. We have OTA to thank. At 
least the people who have paid any attention to what is done with OTA's 
work understand where the credit belongs.
  Here is another one, March 1992, ``Global Standards, Building Blocks 
for the Future.'' I keep that on my desk and find it interesting.
  ``Finding a Balance: Computer Software, Intellectual Property and the 
Challenge of Technological Change.''
  They have another one that I keep and I think other Senators might be 
interested in it. It is dated June 1993: ``Advanced Network 
Technology.''
  They went into another background paper at our request: 
``Accessibility and Integrity of Network Information Collections.'' 
That was later in 1993.
  Incidentally, one of OTA's members referred me to this. It was a 
cover story of the fall issue of Up Link. Anyone who wants to catch up 
with what we are talking about should read ``Digitally Speaking,'' a 
very interesting article.
  All I am telling you is, Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, 
that this entity has led us to become aware of and become interested in 
and to try to utilize developing technology to meet the needs of the 
United States. I know of no other way we can get that except through 
shared staff.
  The House has access to OTA. The Senate has access to it. We have 
equal representation on this body, Republicans and Democrats, and we 
always have, since its inception, without regard to which party 
controlled the House or the Senate.
  Now we face a challenge to the very existence of OTA, and I am 
compelled to rise and say I think that OTA is a misguided target. I do 
believe, as the Senator from Utah said, we can make reductions in the 
expenditures by OTA. We have made a 15-percent reduction in the staffs 
of every committee in the Senate. There is no reason why we could not 
make a 15-percent reduction in OTA, and that was the intent.
  But now we face a question of obliteration of the OTA. I want to tell 
the Senate that I believe the studies that I have seen by OTA have been 
at the request of a Senate committee or a House committee or by 
individual Senators, but none of them goes through without approval of 
the OTA board. None of them go through without a majority of the vote 
of three Members of each party from each House.
  This is a very restrained board in terms of committing money of the 
United States. I have not agreed with some of the studies, and the 
record will show I voted against some of them. I voted against some of 
them because I did not think they involved the assessment of 
technology. They involved trying to pursue the application of 
technology. But if we keep to the subject and restrict the OTA to what 
it was intended to do, it is one of the most valuable entities I have 
found in the Senate to get access to material that is current about 
technology.
  We are entering an era now of technology expanding at an explosive 
rate, the likes of which the world has never seen. We are going to see 
developments--and I saw Amo sitting here a while ago, our good friend 
Mr. Houghton from the House. Talk to him sometime about fiber optics 
and how it came about that we have that concept now in the world.
  We are looking at technology. We are at the edge of a precipice, Mr. 
President. The precipice is one that we can fall down into a chasm or 
we can analyze the way to get across that chasm into a future that is 
so bright you can hardly imagine it.
  I was talking to some of my interns today, and they asked me about 
what we are going to do in my State when the oil runs out, what happens 
to our State, supported primarily by oil revenues. I remarked to them 
about Mr. Houghton's company. Who would have thought in the days gone 
by we would take grains of sand from a beach and turn it into the most 
capable means of conveyance of communications known to man.
  When it comes down to it, we have used technology in this country to 
stay ahead militarily, to stay ahead economically, to meet the needs of 
our people, and yet here we are about ready to do away with the one 
entity in the Congress that tries to collate and analyze and deliver to 
Members of Congress credible, timely reports on the development of 
technology.
  I believe, more than most people realize, that we are changing the 
course of history in this Congress, but this is not one of the 
hallmarks of that change. This entity ought to be out in the forefront 
of that change, and it will not be unless it is properly funded and 
maintained. I support this amendment.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the recognition 
of Senator Dole at 5 p.m. be postponed for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of retaining the Office 
of Technology Assessment. I support the agency and hope that my 
colleagues will consider it favorably.
  OTA is a unique and valuable asset of the Congress. For many years it 
was also unique to the United States; but within the past few years, it 
has been used as a model by many democratic nations for establishing 
their own technology assessment organizations.
  OTA is a small agency with 143 permanent employees and an annual 
budget of $22 million. The agency analyzes science and technology 
issues in depth for the Congress. It provides Congress with objective, 
nonpartisan reports and offers options for Members in dealing with 
related public policy issues. Its 

[[Page S10385]]
studies are initiated by full committees of the Senate and/or House and 
are approved by the Technology Assessment Board, TAB, which oversees 
the agency. That Board consists of six Senators and six 
Representatives, equally divided by party.
  OTA is a first rate scientific organization. Its retention has been 
supported by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, the American Physical Society, Dr. 
Sally Ride, and a host of important companies, such as TRW.
  OTA is unique on the Hill because of the bipartisan Technology 
Assessment Board. No other support agency has such a mechanism to 
ensure balance between the interests of both Houses and of both 
parties. This structure is instrumental in keeping the work objective 
and balanced, as well as acting as a priority-setting mechanism for the 
work that is conducted, ensuring that it has broad interest. It enables 
Congress to leverage OTA's limited resources to greatest effect.
  OTA works almost entirely on a bipartisan basis, doing major projects 
requested by both chairmen and ranking minority members. Since 1980, 79 
percent of OTA reports have been requested on a bipartisan basis.
  OTA is unique to the Hill in that no such bipartisan organization 
could exist in the executive branch. For many years, the party holding 
the majority in Congress did not control the White House. That is again 
the case. Many of us find OTA's independent, bipartisan analysis very 
helpful under these circumstances; we do not have to rely on the 
information and analysis supplied by the executive agencies. 
Furthermore, over the years, OTA has developed an excellent working 
relationship with executive agencies--based in part on their 
bipartisanship, in part on their impartiality, and in part on their 
professionalism. No other congressional entity elicits this type of 
cooperation from Federal agencies.
  I want to illustrate this with an anecdote. A few years ago the 
National Institute of Justice at the Justice Department was at odds 
with industry over standards and testing for police body armor, known 
as bullet-proof vests. They consulted with Republican and Democratic 
staffs of the Senate Judiciary Committee to try to break the impasse,
 but the committee realized it was dealing with technical issues beyond 
its depth. Finally, the NIJ suggested--and the committee readily 
concurred--that the problem should be turned to OTA. OTA's reputation 
for impartiality would give it the credibility to solve the problem, 
which it did.

  OTA leverages its core staff by making extensive use of outside 
advisory groups, workshops, contractors, reviewers, drawn from both 
Government and the private sector, here and abroad. Unlike many other 
agencies, the OTA process ensures that OTA gets extensive input from 
outside the beltway. Every year, over 5,000 experts help us better 
understand the complex issues that we need to understand to legislate 
effectively. But unlike some executive agencies or institutes like the 
National Academy of Science, OTA does not impanel groups that get 
together to deliver wisdom while the staff merely writes what they say.
  In OTA assessments, it is the staff that writes the reports. They 
listen to advice, get outside review, and eventually pass products 
through the TAB to certify that they are unbiased. Outside experts and 
stakeholders do not write the reports. They provide guidance and advice 
and collective expertise often well beyond OTA's. But OTA staff filters 
and assimilates this, uses it in conducting analyses, and seeks further 
review.
  OTA's work differs from other congressional support agencies because 
its work is based only in the science and technology area; the 
information is not readily available for look-up in the immediate 
scientific literature; it is not an audit of a current issue or a 
project of costs. The indepth process and review of the issues is 
unique only to OTA, and the scientific and technological expertise of 
OTA's staff facilitates this approach. With the budget reductions other 
congressional support agencies are making, it is unrealistic to assume 
they could pick up OTA's work.
  I come from a region that understands that high technology is the 
area of the future that will provide us the jobs and information that 
we need. That is what OTA is all about. It does not get information 
from here. It goes all the way across the Nation to my State to help 
establish the policies and procedures we need in this Senate. It has 
been highly reliable, and I think it would be a grave mistake for this 
Congress to lose it.
  I did hear one of my colleagues say that we need to consolidate. Who 
would not agree in this time of budget cuts? But I remind my colleagues 
that in the Hollings amendment he requires the Librarian of Congress to 
report to Congress within 120 days on how they could consolidate the 
OTA, GPO, and GAO. I think that amendment looks to their 
recommendations, which I think is reliable. We need the agencies to 
tell us how they can be efficient and reach those goals. I remind my 
colleagues, also, that I have heard some say, ``If we cannot cut here, 
where can we cut?''
  This bill in front of us cuts $200 million. It shows where 
effectively we can cut. I remind everyone that OTA is cut by 25 percent 
in this amendment. This is a very important agency to me. I hope we do 
not lose it this year, because I think we will see what the future 
brings us, and that technology and science is even more critical in the 
years to come.
  Mr. MACK. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe until 5:15, which is approximately 
10 or 11 minutes.
  Mr. MACK. I ask the Senator from South Carolina how much additional 
time he would need?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. As the distinguished Senator from Florida knows, I do 
not need very much time. I am trying to respond to a request that we 
have on this side to vote around 5:45. Is that agreeable?
  Mr. MACK. I must say to the Senator that I was under the impression 
that he and I would be the last to speak on this issue, and I had asked 
for a delay of recognition of Senator Dole until 5:15, with the 
intention of having a vote at 5:15. I understand that it would be the 
intention of the Senator to delay his vote until 5:45.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I have a request on this side by the leader here.
  Mr. MACK. Then at this point, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this debate has gone on for some time now 
with respect to OTA. I will attempt to make my comments brief. While it 
was mentioned a moment ago that OTA is unique to the Hill, or to the 
Senate, it is not unique, though, in what has happened to it.
  The Office of Technology Assessment was begun, I believe, in 1972. 
The idea was that it would be a small cadre of individuals, to make 
some decisions, would gather information together as to what scientific 
and technical data is available and provide that to Members of the 
Congress.
  We now have an Office of Technology Assessment that has 203 people, 
with an expenditure of over $23 million annually. Again, those folks 
have said that we need a counterbalance to the administration. Well, it 
is interesting that the administration has something like just under $5 
million in its budget for its science advisor, with 39 people.
  Another point I will make is that I was called by a number of people 
asking me to reconsider the proposal to eliminate the Office of 
Technology Assessment. One of those individuals that called me said, 
``Frankly, after I found out what was going on at OTA, I thought it was 
a small cadre of individuals, a small tight-knit group that would get 
this information out to Members of the Congress, and I found they had 
$23 million for their budget.'' He said, ``That should not be.''
  There is a sense that if we eliminate OTA, somehow science and 
technology in America will come to a crashing halt. Again, earlier 
today we heard about the significance of a grain of sand, if you will. 
A grain of sand has 

[[Page S10386]]
turned out to be a very significant item on this planet, which is, in 
essence, responsible for the computer. Is it not interesting that the 
computers we deal with today, somehow or another, magically occurred 
without the Office of Technology Assessment in the Congress of the 
United States?
  During our committee hearings, we had testimony and review of a 
number of documents. Again, this is the Office of Technology 
Assessment. Here is a report entitled ``Understanding Estimates of 
National Health Expenditures Under Health Reform.''
  I make the claim that, frankly, that has very little to do with the 
Office of Technology Assessment.
  There is study after study where there is duplication, where we 
basically--when I say duplication, I mean duplication in the sense of 
the outside, where we can turn to America and ask them for information 
that is available. We do not need to spend $23 million in a year in 
order to bring that about.
  Another point: I think that probably one of the most significant 
scientific debates or debates about technology that we have had in the 
Congress in years is the issue of the super collider. Interestingly 
enough, there was no report from OTA on the super collider, again, one 
of the most significant new technologies that the Congress was 
considering.
  There are those who say that now that we have the budget battle out 
of the way, this is really not an issue about whether we will cut $200 
million; it is a question of where.
  Mr. President, I refer to a chart behind me showing the history of 
GAO's full-time equivalent. We began the process in 1993 to reduce the 
staff and the size of GAO. It has gone from 5,150 down to 3,865 as 
proposed under this bill. It is going to go further as a result of what 
we do in 1997, and what is proposed in this bill as well. This 
amendment says we ought to go further.
  Chuck Bowsher, the Comptroller General of the United States, was not 
happy to learn that over a 2-year period we would reduce his budget by 
25 percent, but he worked with us. We asked him the best way to go 
about it, and we worked out a plan. We will cut $68 million from GAO 
this year. Now, with this amendment, GAO will be asked to cut an 
additional $7 million out of their budget.
  This is the wrong way to do it. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this amendment. This is only the beginning of the 
debate. Imagine, here it is, the first appropriations bill, we have 
suggested eliminating the OTA, an agency, in essence, which we believe 
is not necessary because we believe we can get the information from a 
whole series of sources. And we are hearing stories here on the floor 
of the Senate that basically say if we eliminate OTA, we will end the 
technology revolution in America. Mr. President, that is impossible 
because the technology revolution in America is driven in the private 
sector, not in Government. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand we are trying to terminate 
debate on this particular amendment and then the leader wishes a vote 
on another matter.
  Let me thank Members for the bipartisan support and the experts that 
we have heard in the debate, especially the distinguished ranking 
member of our committee, who has studied it closely. We made the cuts. 
We were using a $22 million figure. The distinguished chairman now of 
that subcommittee says it is $23 million, so now it amounts to more 
than a 30-percent cut that we are cutting the Office of Technology 
Assessment.
  When he talks of the number of employees, Mr. President, there are 
4,707 employees over there at GAO. I think we perhaps ought to 
consolidate it a little bit more.
  These arguments that we have heard out of the whole cloth, never have 
I heard that the Office of Technology Assessment never studied one of 
the greatest advancements in science and technology, the super 
collider. They certainly did not, because they have to be asked by 
these committees, and the committee chairmen were already in favor of 
it, and they did not want that study. Now, if we had that studied, and 
they asked, we would have had it, and we might have done away with the 
super collider a lot quicker, which perhaps the Senator from Florida 
and I and the Senator from Nevada and I agree on. It is $36 billion in 
research and studies and development over in the Pentagon--billions. 
The distinguished Senator from Nevada says we have to economize. But 
then the Senator from Utah says, ``Wait a minute. We have to look at 
the entire Government.''
  I do not know how to satisfy these arguments. We have worked to 
protect the Library of Congress in this amendment and hope that our 
colleagues will support us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Under the previous order, the 
hour of 5:15 having arrived, it is time to recognize the majority 
leader.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I move to table the Hollings amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. 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.
  Mr. DOLE. Before we start the vote, I will enter a unanimous-consent 
request. I am waiting for Senator Daschle. In that request will be 
that, regardless of the outcome of the cloture vote, notwithstanding 
rule XXII, immediately following the cloture vote, Senator Mack be 
recognized to move to table the Hollings amendment. He has done that. 
So the vote will occur on the motion to table the amendment No. 1808.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the unanimous-consent 
agreement just propounded by the majority leader would then require two 
recorded votes beginning at 6:15.
  Mr. DOLE. I did not propound it. I wanted to wait until the Senator 
was on the floor.

                          ____________________