Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

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 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. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MACK. Then at this point, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. MACK. I ask the Senator from South Carolina how much additional time he would need?

Mr. MACK. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the recognition of Senator Dole at 5 p.m. be postponed for 15 minutes.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado has gained a tremendous reputation over the years for his efforts to reduce Federal spending, and I compliment him on that. I was interested in his comments about having ``every confidence that Members can push the buttons on the automatic elevators.'' That was an unquestioned level of confidence. It has been a long time since I have heard that level of confidence in our colleagues. But I accept that comment. I would say to the Senator, I am prepared to accept the amendment but it does, in fact, go counter to the approach that the committee has taken with respect to reducing the expenditures of the Federal Government, particularly the Congress, the legislative branch. We had a very significant request, if you will, or directive given to us, to reduce the legislative branch budget by over $200 million, which, in fact, we have accomplished with about $41,000 to spare. We accomplished that, however, not by having the committee try to find every item throughout the legislative branch that any of us, or either of us, thought was important to cut. I will say to my friend and colleague that I think it is more important that we give a direction, or a directive, to the individuals responsible for the various functions of the legislative branch, indicating to them what we think they should do as far as a total is concerned, and ask them to, in essence, make the best judgment about how to reach that goal. I believe with our having taken that approach, we have been successful in our effort. The Sergeant at Arms was given a directive of a reduction of 12.5 percent. The Sergeant at Arms came back with a little bit over 14 percent, and should be complimented for that achievement. But as I indicated a moment ago, even though I have a different approach in bringing about significant reductions to the legislative branch, I am prepared to accept the amendment. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I further ask that once the motion to table is made, the amendment be laid aside until 2:30 in order to consider other amendments.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes on the pending amendment, No. 1803, to be followed by 20 minutes for debate prior to a motion to table under the control of Senator McCain, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, Senator Dole or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Feingold amendment, and that no further amendments be in order prior to the motion to table.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. I object.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MACK. I object, Mr. President.

Mr. MACK. That is correct. I just say to the Senator that there probably will be an amendment proposed later in the morning, or in the early afternoon, to restore the Office of Technology Assessment. Again, we did take the direction from both the early resolution by our conference but also the budget resolution that said, if we are going to meet this target, we are going to have to make not only reductions, but we are going to have to eliminate some of the agencies, and we have done that. I thank the Senator for his help on that.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I do believe that several of the points that the Senator from West Virginia made during his comments with respect to the amendment were, in fact, on target, specifically the issue as to the power of the press in choosing what to cover. There is a tendency for us in public life to hear--and I guess from time to time believe--that we have been inaccurately quoted. My own experience is that has not really been a problem. The issue which I think is important--the issue which I think the publishers of newspapers have said themselves--is that the power of the press is really to choose what to cover and what not to cover. My point for making this is that the individuals who are members of the Press Gallery in the Senate, frankly, and from my perspective, are not the ones that determine what is going to be covered and what is not. So I think that frankly there will have to be a complete hearing on the issue to make a determination about whether the Senate in fact should move on this concept. But at this point, as I said a moment ago, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia because it is the beginning, not the end, and it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that will begin the process for a complete hearing on the matter. As I understand it, it is a sense-of-the- Senate resolution that in essence calls for a separate Senate resolution to be offered in the future during the 104th Congress that would in essence call for the Rules Committee to begin the process of complete hearings on the issue.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 1996 legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 1854, to the Senate. Simply put, with this bill the Congress leads the way in fulfilling our commitment to reduce the size, scope, and cost of the Federal Government. But, of equal importance to keeping our promise to the American people in reducing the size and cost of Congress is making these reductions in a thoughtful and responsible manner. The bill we present today does not compromise the legislative and oversight responsibilities of Congress. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to describe the approach the committee took in arriving at these funding levels. This past January, I sent a letter to each of the Senate officers and legislative branch support agencies asking them to undergo a serious programmatic review of each of their activities and services they provide to Congress. In doing so, they were asked to take a long and hard look at their core missions and statutory responsibilities. They were asked to explore ways of using technologies to make their operations more efficient and productive. They were asked to explore opportunities for consolidation and restructuring of their functions and services. Following their top to bottom review, the results were incorporated into new budget justifications which were presented in hearings before the subcommittee. I am deeply appreciative to each of the Senate officers and agency heads. I want to thank in particular the former Secretary of the Senate, Ms. Sheila Burke and her successor, Mr. Kelly Johnston, and the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Howard O. Greene, for their cooperation. These offices met, and even exceeded their goals of reducing their budgets by 12.5 percent. Without their commitment and the dedication of their respective staffs the committee would not have been able to produce the legislation that the Senate considers today. Mr. President, as any member of the committee will tell you, these decisions were not easy. But, we have, in great measure, accomplished what we set out to do, respond to the clear and unmistakable message sent by the American people last November--change the way we do business here in Washington, reduce spending, and bring runaway spending in control and balance the Federal budget. I would like to summarize the highlights of the bill: The total funding for the legislative branch appropriation is $2,190,380,000, a reduction of just over $200 million or 8.45 percent below the fiscal year 1995 level. For the funding of the operations of the Senate the committee's recommendation is $426.9 million a $33.7 million reduction. In addition, the committee rescinds $63.5 million of unobligated funds from previous years. Within the Senate accounts the funding for committees reflects a 15- percent reduction. As I have already mentioned, the funding for the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and Sergeant at Arms are reduced by 12.5 percent. Again, I want to reiterate or make the point that these reductions are from this year's level. This is not some reduction from some arbitrary, inflated baseline. These are reductions from this year's expenditures. Mr. President, in last years bill the Senate passed into law a ban on unsolicited mass mailing which has resulted in tens of millions of dollars in savings to the taxpayer. Again, this year the committee freezes official mail cost at $11 million. The statutory allowances for Senator's offices are not reduced. The recommended funding for Members' office salaries and expenses should be sufficient to cover fiscal year 1996 expenditures. Mr. President, S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, which was passed into law early this year, mandates that Congress comply with the very same employment and labor laws that private businesses must comply with. And, just like businesses all around the country, there is a cost to compliance. This bill includes $2.5 million appropriation for the establishment of the new Office of Compliance. This is a new joint item with the House. Each Member should be aware that the costs associated with the Congressional Accountability Act will require future increases in expenditures. The committee has included report language that directs the offices of the Senate to make regular reports to the committee regarding issues of compliance and associated costs. As to the major support agencies of Congress: the Library of Congress has level funding compared to fiscal year 1995, with the exception of $3 million increase for the National Digital Library Program. I want to commend the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, for his efforts in strengthening the Library and the services it provides to the Nation. The digital library effort is one of several forward thinking programs initiated by the Library of Congress which will insure the Library's position as one of our leading institutions. We have included a $2.6 million increase for the Congressional Budget Office so that it may perform studies mandated by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. The GAO is reduced 15 percent from fiscal year 1995 levels and we have included an advance appropriation for fiscal year 1997 which will result in a two year reduction of 25 percent. The Office of Technology Assessment is eliminated in the bill. The committee has included termination costs in fiscal year 1996 which total $3.6 million. Mr. President, each Member of the Senate should know that this bill complies with the specifics of the Senate budget resolution which provides a dramatic and necessary outline for balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002. The budget resolution specifies the reductions to the General Accounting Office and the elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment. In regards to the two year 25 percent reduction in the funding for the General Accounting Office, I want to thank Senator Roth, chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, and his staff for their cooperation in identifying and recommending needed changes at GAO. With their assistance, I am confident that the GAO will be able to perform its core statutory mission. Also, I want to thank the Comptroller General, Charles Bowsher, for his help. He will tell you that the funding levels will be difficult and will force structural changes, but he is committed to making the General Accounting Office the model for the rest of the Federal Government in productivity and efficiency as we continue to restructure and downsize the Federal Government. Mr. President, I expect an amendment to be offered that restores funding for the Office of Technology Assessment. I know that there are Members who feel strongly about this issue and we will debate the merits should it be offered. I must point out to the Members of the Senate that the Senate budget resolution specifies the elimination of OTA, and quite frankly, the services and information that OTA provides can be obtained from a great variety of sources that do not require a $21 million dollars expenditure. Mr. President, while this bill accomplishes our stated goal of reducing Congressional spending by $200 million, much more needs to be done in the coming year. While the office of the Architect of the Capitol is reduced by 10 percent in title I of this bill, the Congress will undertake a much more thorough review of its structure and organization by way of a Joint House-Senate Leadership Taskforce. The taskforce will, with the assistance of the Architect of the Capitol, identify services and operations that could be more cost efficiently performed by outside contractors. The committee report also directs the Government Printing Office to initiate a study to analyze the structure and services of the Superintendent of Documents and the Federal Depository Library Program; the program which assures the American people ready and dependable access to government information. While the committee would have preferred to make more substantial changes to the structure and funding of the Architect of the Capitol and the Government Printing Office, we clearly need more information before making these decision. Finally, I want to thank our ranking member, Senator Murray, as well as the other members of the subcommittee, for their hard work and cooperation in crafting this measure. Additionally, this year's bill builds upon the years of hard work and dedication of Senator Reid, our former chairman. Senator Reid extended a great deal of time and cooperation to me as ranking member, and I thank him for that. Mr. President, I would yield the floor to our ranking member and floor manager, Senator Murray, for any statement she would wish to make.