[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10401-S10402]
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.


                           Amendment No. 1825

(Purpose: To ensure equal opportunity and merit selection in the award 
                         of Federal contracts)

  Mr. GRAMM. I hate to bring this debate to a close, but let me send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration, and I 
ask that the complete amendment be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments will be set aside. The 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1825.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, since I have the floor, I lost the floor at 
the discretion of the Chair, and I do not wish to delay this matter a 
great deal, but I do think that the discussion that has taken place 
between the majority leader, the minority leader, and others----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking to object to the 
reading being dispensed with?
  Mr. EXON. I believe I was recognized by the Chair in my own right, 
was I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the reading of the 
amendment to proceed.
  The Chair recognized the Senator from Nebraska on the assumption that 
he might request the reading not proceed. But if the Senator does not 
rise for that purpose----
  Mr. EXON. Would the Chair kindly explain the rules to the Senator? I 
believe the rules say that when an amendment is offered, if the Chair 
chooses to recognize someone else, that is within the authority of the 
Chair. Is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, if the amendment has been 
read in its entirety. The amendment was being read when the Senator 
from Nebraska sought recognition. Recognition is often sought for the 
purposes of 

[[Page S10402]]
asking unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with, and the 
Senator from Nebraska was recognized with that in mind.
  Mr. EXON. I certainly want to abide by the rules of the Senate, and 
after the amendment has been read I will seek recognition again and let 
the Chair make the ruling that the Chair thinks is proper at that 
particular time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF CONTRACT AWARDS BASED ON 
                   RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR GENDER.

       (a) Prohibition.--For fiscal year 1996, none of the funds 
     made available by this Act may be used by any unit of the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government to award any 
     Federal contract, or to require or encourage the award of any 
     subcontract, if such award is based, in whole or in part, on 
     the race, color, national origin, or gender of the contractor 
     or subcontractor.
       (b) Outreach and Recruitment Activities.--This section does 
     not limit the availability of funds for technical assistance, 
     advertising, counseling, or other outreach and recruitment 
     activities that are designed to increase the number of 
     contractors or subcontractors to be considered for any 
     contract or subcontract opportunity with the Federal 
     Government, except to the extent that the award resulting 
     from such activities is based, in whole or in part, on the 
     race, color, national origin, or gender of the contractor or 
     subcontractor.
       (c) Historically Black Colleges and Universities.--This 
     section does not limit the availability of funds for 
     activities that benefit an institution that is a historically 
     Black college or university on the basis that the institution 
     is a historically Black college or university.
       (d) Existing and Future Court Orders.--This section does 
     not prohibit or limit the availability of funds to implement 
     a--
       (1) court order or consent decree issued before the date of 
     enactment of this Act; or
       (2) court order or consent decree that--
       (A) is issued on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (B) provides a remedy based on a finding of discrimination 
     by a person to whom the order applies.
       (e) Existing Contracts and Subcontracts.--This section does 
     not apply with respect to any contract or subcontract entered 
     into before the date of the enactment of this Act, including 
     any option exercised under such contract or subcontract 
     before or after such date of enactment.
       (f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``historically Black college or university'' means a part B 
     institution, as defined in section 322(2) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)).

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority manager of 
the bill, who has precedence over all other Senators when there is a 
combination of Senators seeking recognition.


                Amendment No. 1826 to Amendment No. 1825

  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I send to the desk an 
amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Ms. Moseley-Braun and Mr. Cohen, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1826 to amendment No. 1825.

  The amendment is as follows:
       In lieu of the text proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program for the selection of Federal 
     Government contractors when such program results in the award 
     of Federal contracts to unqualified persons, in reverse 
     discrimination, or in quotas, or is inconsistent with the 
     decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Adarand 
     Constructors, Inc. v. Pena on June 12, 1995.''
     

                          ____________________