Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maine for his very eloquent remarks and support. I hope all our colleagues had the opportunity to hear what he had to say. I yield as much time as she needs to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I sit here tonight and I think about the words ``affirmative action,'' and I listened to the words on the floor. I wonder sometimes if we have all grown up in the same country because I grew up in a country that said you have equal opportunity, an equal chance and an equal ability in this life to get a good education, to get a good job and make it in this country. Mr. President, that is what the affirmative action program means to this Senator from the State of Washington who stands here tonight on the floor of the Senate as one of eight women in this body. Mr. President, when I hear the words ``quotas,'' ``reverse discrimination,'' ``preferences for unqualified individuals,'' I am astounded because that is not what I see in affirmative action today. And I think it is a twisting of the debate to try and make people think this program is about something that it is not about. This program is about giving people an ability to make it in a country where we care about all individuals, no matter who they are or where they come from or what they look like. And I think that is a particularly important agenda to retain in this country. It certainly is one I want for my children and my grandchildren who will follow me. The amendment that I have put forward says quite clearly that no Federal funds can go to any affirmative action program that results in quotas, in reverse discrimination, or in the hiring of unqualified persons. The amendment makes it very clear to the agency that its affirmative action programs must be completely consistent with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Adarand case that affirmative action programs could be justified only if they served a compelling interest and were narrowly tailored. The amendment recognizes that the battle against discrimination in America has not yet been won. And I invite all of you to go out into our schools, to go out into our institutes of higher education, to go out into the workplace and see that it is not yet won for women and for minorities. And affirmative action programs are very important to winning that battle. Mr. President, as I listen to the amendment that comes before us--and I heard my colleague from Texas say he was going to offer this amendment on every appropriations bill--I wonder how much money he is talking about and who he is going after. I did not have time, of course, to put this into a chart that all of you could see. Frankly, I thought I would save the Senate money because that is what we are trying to do. So I did not make a chart. But I will share with you what I have on this. The total awards that are given in Government contracting, prime contracts, is $160 billion. Of that, $1.9 billion--$1.9 billion--out of $160 billion go to women-owned business awards. That is who we are targeting in the underlying amendment. That is who--$1.9 billion out of $160 billion. A very small amount, $6.1 billion to small disadvantaged business awards. A total of about $8 billion out of $160 billion--$160 billion--$8 billion going to small disadvantaged business and women-owned business. That is who we are targeting in the underlying amendment. It seems very clear to me that it is a good goal in this country to assure that disadvantaged people, that people who do not have the same opportunities, are given the ability to move ahead in the workplace. And I urge my colleagues to defeat the Gramm amendment and to vote for the Murray amendment. That is a positive way to move in affirmative action in this Nation. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maine how much time he would need?

Mrs. MURRAY. I would be willing to yield 10 minutes from my side to the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, I will not object. I would just like to know how much time would be left then on both sides?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY

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 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.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I, too, will not object to accepting this amendment. Let me just add, I concur with the manager of the amendment, Senator Mack, who I think has done an outstanding job working with the different departments. The Sergeant at Arms did come back with a 14.5- percent cut. They are definitely going to be looking at how they can do that in the coming months when we will see the effect of that. It is, I think, difficult for us to micromanage them from this point, but I am willing to accept this amendment. Let me at this point say, in doing so, I also want to send my compliments to our current elevator operators, whom I think many of us do not take the time to say ``thank you'' to so often. They are always kind and courteous and efficient. I appreciate the fact that they find me in the crowds. I know that is not a problem that some of the other Members have. But they are always here, they are always smiling, they are on time. I think oftentimes when we have amendments like that, it is seen as a slam on some people who are doing a very efficient job, and, I think, one that we do not say ``thank you'' for, often enough. So let me take this opportunity to thank them for the job that they do for all of us. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I compliment the Senator on his amendment that comes before us today and for his perseverance on this critically important topic of campaign finance reform. Let me just say that I agree with you. We need more people running for office in this country. We need the best and the brightest. It is indeed a sad note that people decide not to run, not to be here, simply because the daunting task of raising millions of dollars overwhelms them. That is not, to me, what this country is about or what democracy is about. Until we reform the campaign finance laws and level the playing field, we are not going to get back to a point that allows everyone to be here and to speak out on the important issues of the day. I commend the Senator for the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the words of the Senator from West Virginia on his sense-of-the-Senate resolution and am also willing to accept the amendment on the grounds that I see it as the precursor to having a hearing on this so that all sides can be aired. I would want to make sure that we were not precluding anyone's ability to be in the Press Gallery with this kind of amendment. I think those kinds of questions and answers can be gathered. I understand that is what this amendment is trying to attain and with that would not object to it.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in support of the H.R. 1854, the fiscal year 1996 Legislative branch appropriation bill. I note that this is not the first year in which the committee has made the effort to constrain the spending of the legislative branch. As Senator Mack stated last year in his opening floor remarks on the fiscal year 1995 legislative branch appropriation bill, ``This is the fourth year in a row now that we have held funding at or below the previous year's levels in real dollars.'' Mr. President, that means that this is the fifth year in a row that the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported a bill in which we have held funding at or below the previous year's levels--in fact, this year the committee-reported bill is over $200 million below the level enacted for fiscal year 1995. The chairman has provided in his remarks a detailed explanation of all of the recommendations contained in the committee-reported bill. Without repeating those details, I would simply direct all members to a summary table on pages 65 and 66 of the committee report for the two titles of the bill. For title I, congressional operations, the committee recommends a total of a little over $1.5 billion. That is a reduction of $126 million below the fiscal year 1995 appropriated level and $275 million below the total budget estimates for fiscal year 1996 for congressional operations. Title II of the bill, as shown on page 66 of the report, provides funding for other agencies for which the committee recommends a total of $686 million. In total, as is depicted in the summary table, the bill as reported by the full committee provides $2.1 billion, a reduction of just over $200 million below the fiscal year 1995 enacted bill and a reduction of $427 million below the budget estimates for fiscal year 1996. There are a number of differences between the House-passed bill and the committee's recommendations, several of which I would now like to address. First, for the Architect of the Capitol, the House bill did not fund the operations of the Flag Office. The Senate Appropriations Committee chose, instead, to continue that office but with the cost of this operation fully covered by the prices charged to the public for the flags themselves. For certain security functions of the Architect of the Capitol, the House bill recommended the transfer of staff from the Architect of the Capitol to the Capitol Police. The Senate committee-reported bill disagrees with that recommendation and has left that security function within the Office of the Architect. The committee-reported bill does not agree with the House recommendation that the Botanic Garden be transferred to the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the House provided $7 million for the renovation of the Conservatory and capped the total project at $21 million. The Senate committee-reported bill has deleted all funding for that purpose. Finally, Mr. President, for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the House-passed bill included a floor amendment which provided for the continuation of the functions of the OTA within the Congressional Research Service at a level of $15 million. H.R. 1854, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, includes a total of just over $6 million for the OTA. This amount will allow for the orderly completion and distribution of approximately 30 reports which the OTA is currently undertaking and a maximum of 17 employees is provided for closing the Office. In addition, from within the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996, $150,000 is recommended to remain available until September 30, 1997, to provide for unemployment claims that may arise. I would note, however, that during the committee markup of the bill, an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, which I supported, would have provided $15 million for the OTA--the cost of which was offset by a 1.08-percent reduction of the salaries and expenses of certain of the congressional support agencies. That amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 11-13. I believe that the OTA provides a valuable service for the Congress on a bipartisan basis and I will have more to say during this debate about the OTA in support of an amendment which I anticipate may be offered to overturn the committee's recommendation. In conclusion, I again compliment the very able chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Mack. I have learned a lot during my first year as ranking member of this subcommittee, and I am pleased that we have been able to do our share in carefully examining the expenditures of the legislative branch to ensure that they are cost-effective and, where possible, we have recommended reductions in keeping with our overall efforts to reduce Federal spending.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the invaluable contributions that Dana Duzan, outgoing president of the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (ASCLS), has made to the clinical laboratory science profession. In her leadership role with the Society, Ms. Duzan has dedicated herself to promoting the clinical laboratory profession and helping guarantee that the public has access to quality laboratory services. She has strengthened ASCLS's tradition of proactive involvement in government affairs and led the Society in its efforts to ensure that health care reform measures recognize laboratory testing as an integral part of health care delivery. During her tenure, ASCLS worked to maintain the integrity of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and protect the laboratory and the public from potentially damaging reform measures such as co-insurance and competitive bidding. And in her efforts to promote the interests of the laboratory profession, she has remained an undaunted champion of patient interests, believing that all Americans have the right to quality, accessible laboratory services. Ms. Duzan's leadership style reflects the team approach she takes in managing the hematology laboratory at the Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane, WA. Her dedication to coalition building can be seen in ASCLS's involvement with a variety of colleague health care organizations, in the Society's commitment to bringing the clinical laboratory industry together as a united front, and in ASCLS's unique partnership with industry leaders. As president of the Society, Ms. Duzan has worked to further the mission of the Society, including promoting high standards of practice in the workplace, advocating professional autonomy, ensuring professional competence, supporting continuing education, and enhancing the public's understanding and respect for the profession and its practitioners. In conclusion, Ms. Duzan's love of science, her tireless service to ASCLS and the laboratory profession, and her dedication to making laboratory services available to all make her an inspiration to her professional peers. She is to be commended for her valuable contributions and personal commitment to her work.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator from California will let me ask another question, certainly she sat with me throughout the budget debate and listened to our colleagues say sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are not binding, and I assume she feels as I do, and I will ask the Senator, will the Senator be able to go back to her friends diagnosed with breast cancer or to women in her State and say, ``Don't worry, we have taken care of you with a sense of the Senate that is not binding?''

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague.

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from California yield on that question?

Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Senator yield?

Mrs. MURRAY. I want to make sure I understand the process here because I am very concerned about the 46,000 women every year who die because of breast cancer. Friends of mine, friends of yours, and relatives want to make sure that we have in place the best possible assurance that when those women have a mammogram it will be safe and it will be accurate. If the current bill passes as written, there is a real concern that the rules and regulations that are going to go into effect can be challenged, that they will not be put into place. Is that correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. So the underlying amendment will assure those regulations will go into place after October and women can have a mammogram and know that there is a degree of assurance of accuracy in it that does not exist today. Is that correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. On that point, would the Senator from California agree that if the sense of the Senate passes, there is no way to go home and assure our mothers and sisters and our daughters that they are going to have safe, accurate mammograms?

Mrs. MURRAY. The second-degree amendment placed on the desk by Senator Dole is simply a sense of the Senate, is that correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator has asked a critical question, why would somebody be willing to stand out here on their feet and speak over and over until they are given an up-or-down vote on a very simple amendment. It is because of the women we know--personal friends and personal relatives who have died from breast cancer because it was not detected early. One out of nine women today will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Nine out of ten women will survive if it is detected early. I am determined to make sure that on my watch on this floor of this Senate that I will not allow any of those women to go undetected. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to see that that occurs. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Is this the first sense-of-the-Senate that we have dealt with as well?