[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  THE SO-CALLED ``WHITEWATER MATTER''

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, earlier today the distinguished 
Republican leader made another in a series of speeches on the Senate 
floor regarding the so-called ``Whitewater matter,'' and I feel 
constrained to respond.
  Mr. President and Members of the Senate, President Clinton has acted 
to address questions which have arisen about the so-called Whitewater 
matter. He has taken the necessary steps to assure that there will not 
be even the appearance of interference in the investigation by anyone 
in the Whitewater matter.
  I was pleased to learn of the President's decision to name Lloyd 
Cutler as the new White House counsel. Mr. Cutler has brought 
experience in Government and in the law. He is a man of unquestioned 
integrity. He will serve the President and the Nation well.
  The investigation is a serious matter. It is being conducted by a 
serious man, a special counsel. Robert Fiske is a man of unquestioned 
ability as a prosecutor. Mr. Fiske is a lifelong Republican. He was 
named as special counsel pursuant to a request led by Republican 
Members of Congress for the appointment of the special counsel. His 
appointment was applauded by virtually all in this body. The junior 
Senator from New York, for example, stated: ``Bob Fiske is uniquely 
qualified for this position. He is a man of uncompromising integrity. 
He will unearth the truth for the American people.''
  Mr. President and Members of the Senate, there is only one way that 
Mr. Fiske will not be able to unearth the truth for the American 
people. And that is if Congress now conducts a separate inquiry which 
will undermine Mr. Fiske's investigation and make it impossible for him 
to unearth the very truth which our Republican colleagues have said he 
will in fact unearth.
  We need to allow Mr. Fiske to do his job. When Republican Senators 
called for the appointment of the special counsel, they said, if a 
special counsel is appointed, there will be no second-guessing. And, 
yet, within minutes after Mr. Fiske was appointed as special counsel, 
the second-guessing began, and it continues to this day with requests 
for immediate hearings in Congress even in the face of Mr. Fiske's 
stated opposition to such hearings. In a letter he clearly and 
eloquently set forth the complications which would follow were those 
hearings to be held. And yet despite his warning, our Republican 
colleagues continue to demand that there be congressional hearings, 
risking fatal damage to the investigation which has begun by the 
special counsel.
  This demand for immediate hearings is clear evidence that the purpose 
is purely political. This is partisan politics at its worst, the sole 
purpose being to embarrass the President and to score political points.
  Why is that so? President Clinton is moving forward on an important 
domestic agenda on health care, welfare reform, crime, and campaign 
finance reform. As a result, our Republican colleagues have been left 
with no real issues. They now seize upon Whitewater in a blatantly 
partisan effort to embarrass and weaken the President. I do not think 
the American people have been fooled, and we cannot allow their 
partisan effort to cause us to take actions which would undermine the 
investigation by the special counsel.
  Early this week Mr. Fiske wrote the chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate Banking Committee requesting that, and I quote Mr. Fiske:

       * * *committee not conduct any hearings in the areas 
     covered by the grand jury's ongoing investigation, both in 
     order to avoid compromising that investigation and in order 
     to further the public interest in preserving fairness, 
     thoroughness, and confidentiality of the grand jury process.

  Mr. Fiske went on to say, and again I quote:

       We are doing everything possible to conduct and conclude as 
     expeditiously as possible a complete, thorough, and impartial 
     investigation. Inquiry into the underlying events surrounding 
     MGS&L, Whitewater and CMS by a congressional committee would 
     impose a severe risk to the integrity of our investigation.

  Mr. President, Congress has an important oversight responsibility. It 
must be met, and it will be met. But it should be met at a time and 
under conditions which will not undermine and defeat the special 
counsel's investigation.
  In January of this year, Judge Lawrence Walsh, the Independent 
Counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation, stated, and I now quote Judge 
Walsh:

       I think the views of some of those in the congressional 
     committees that there was a possibility of concurrent 
     activity that the Congress could investigate on television 
     and that the criminal prosecution could also go on was just 
     proved to be wrong, and I think the lesson is very clear, as 
     we spelled out in the report. Congress has control. It's a 
     political decision as to which is more important, but it 
     can't have both. If it wants to proceed with a joint 
     committee or a special committee or have--to compel testimony 
     by granting immunity, it has to realize that the odds are 
     very strong that it's going to kill any resulting criminal 
     prosecution.

  In his final report to the court on the Iran-Contra investigation, 
Judge Walsh wrote, and again I quote:

       Congress should be aware of the fact that future immunity 
     grants, at least in such highly publicized cases, will likely 
     rule out criminal prosecution.

  The report continues:

       Congressional action that precludes, or makes it impossible 
     to sustain, a prosecution has more serious consequences than 
     simply one less conviction. There is a significant inequity 
     when more peripheral players are convicted while central 
     figures in a criminal enterprise escape punishment. And 
     perhaps more fundamentally, the failure to punish 
     governmental lawbreakers feeds the perception that public 
     officials are not wholly accountable for their actions.

  Mr. President, a serious investigation conducted by a serious man, 
with full and independent authority, is now underway. We should let 
that investigation continue and let the chips fall where they may. If 
there has been any wrongdoing, I am convinced Mr. Fiske will determine 
that, and there will follow appropriate prosecution and punishment, as 
there should be. If there has been no wrongdoing, I am confident he 
will say that in his report to the court.
  We should not now be taking any steps which make his task impossible 
or anymore difficult. We must get on with the issues that the American 
people care deeply about. We cannot allow the political tactics and the 
political agenda of some in the minority to obstruct the President's 
agenda for America: Health care reform, job creation, crime control, 
welfare reform and, most importantly, continued economic growth.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the 
distinguished majority leader. I do not wish to engage in controversy 
with him over this matter, but I would like to have printed in the 
Record comments by the New York Times in their lead editorial this 
morning.
  The New York Times is not known as being substantially supportive of 
Republican efforts in the past, and they have seen fit to comment on 
this issue in ways that I think are instructive and are appropriate at 
this point.
  I will submit the entire editorial and ask that it be printed in the 
Record, but if I might, first, I would like to read a few paragraphs 
from it that I think are appropriate here.
  The Times says:

       A potentially destructive battle over how best to 
     investigate the Whitewater affair has erupted between 
     Republicans who are pressing for congressional hearings and 
     the independent counsel, Robert Fiske, who is pursuing a 
     criminal investigation.

  That is the subject the majority leader just outlined for us on the 
floor.
  The Times goes on to make the majority leader's case in the first 
sentence.
  It says:

       Mr. Fiske fears that a rogue Congress could foul up his 
     work--which it could if it plunges ahead with abandon.

  Then the Times makes a case that I think we must pay attention to:

       But Congress has a clear right to ask questions about 
     Government regulation of the savings and loan mess in 
     Arkansas and, even more urgently, about whether the recently 
     disclosed White House meetings with bank regulators 
     represented an attempt to obstruct justice.

  The concluding paragraphs of the editorial summarized the issue very 
well, from my point of view.
  It says:

       Like most prosecutors, Mr. Fiske seeks complete control of 
     the case. But he ignores the fact that similar congressional 
     hearings in the past have produced significant new 
     information that has ended up helping prosecutors to make 
     their case. Indeed, Mr. Leach notes, it was questioning by 
     Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York at a recent hearing that 
     led to the disclosure of the White House meetings and 
     prompted Mr. Fiske to expand his investigation to include 
     them. So, too, congressional Watergate hearings brought out 
     the existence of crucial White House Tapes.
       There should be room for give here by both sides. Mr. Leach 
     and D'Amato should grant Mr. Fiske a headstart, probably 
     measured in weeks.

  May I repeat that: The New York Times is suggesting that we give Mr. 
Fiske a headstart in his investigation, but that it should be measured 
in weeks.
  Then the Times goes on to conclude:

       But Mr. Fiske cannot reasonably expect Congress to put off 
     its hearings indefinitely, especially when the history of 
     such hearings does not support his worst fears.

  That is the end of the editorial.
  I ask unanimous consent the editorial be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     How to Investigate Whitewater

       A potentially destructive battle over how best to 
     investigate the Whitewater affair has erupted between 
     Republicans who are pressing for Congressional hearings and 
     the independent counsel, Robert Fiske, who is pursuing a 
     criminal investigation.
       Mr. Fiske fears that a rogue Congress could foul up his 
     work--which it could if it plunges ahead with abandon. But 
     Congress has a clear right to ask questions about government 
     regulation of the savings and loan mess in Arkansas and, even 
     more urgently, about whether the recently disclosed White 
     House meetings with bank regulators represented an attempt to 
     obstruct justice.
       The challenge now is for both sides to figure out a way for 
     Congress to conduct legitimate inquires without impeding a 
     thorough and fair criminal investigation.
       The White House and many Democrats complain that 
     Republicans are merely out to embarrass the President and 
     Mrs. Clinton. That is surely true of some--but the public has 
     a right to know whether the White House is abusing its power.
       Mr. Fiske concedes that Republicans like Representative Jim 
     Leach are correct to insist on Congress's oversight 
     responsibility. Even so, he fears that any hearings ``would 
     pose a severe risk'' to his inquiry. That exaggerates the 
     danger, so long as Congress refrains from granting key 
     witnesses immunity--a problem that ultimately doomed Iran-
     contra prosecutions. The Republicans have already said they 
     would not offer immunity.
       Mr. Fiske is on stronger ground when he argues that 
     Congressional hearings could lead to ``tailored'' testimony 
     from witnesses who might adjust their stories after gaining 
     access to documents or testimony before Congress. That risk, 
     however, can be minimized if Congress agrees to delay its 
     hearings and give Mr. Fiske time to interview the major 
     players, especially those in the White House and the Treasury 
     Department. In any case, the risk is not sufficient to 
     justify asking Congress to abandon its oversight role until 
     the end of an investigation of uncertain length.
       Like most prosecutors, Mr. Fiske seeks complete control of 
     the case. But he ignores the fact that similar Congressional 
     hearings in the past have produced significant new 
     information that has ended up helping prosecutors to make 
     their case. Indeed, Mr. Leach notes, it was questioning by 
     Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York at a recent hearing that 
     led to the disclosure of the White House meetings and 
     prompted Mr. Fiske to expand his investigation to include 
     them. So, too, Congressional Watergate hearings brought out 
     the existence of crucial White House tapes.
       There should be room for give here by both sides. Mr. Leach 
     and Mr. D'Amato should grant Mr. Fiske a head start, probably 
     measured in weeks. But Mr. Fiske cannot reasonably expect 
     Congress to put off its hearings indefinitely, especially 
     when the history of such hearings does not support his worst 
     fears.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest that this is an appropriate 
counterpoint to the presentation made by the majority leader.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending Cochran amendment and also the pending Danforth amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1485

 (Purpose: To provide the Congress and executive branch agencies with 
   timely statements of the potential regulatory impacts, including 
economic and employment impacts, of Federal legislation and regulations 
        upon the private sector and State and local governments)

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

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself, Mr. 
     Reid, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. McCain, Mr. Burns, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
     Bennett, Mr. Danforth, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. 
     Boren, proposes an amendment numbered 1485.

  Mr. NICKLES. 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:

       At the end of the subtitle, add the following:

     SEC.   . ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Economic and Employment Impact Act''.
       (b) Findings and Purposes.--
       (1) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (A) compliance with Federal regulations is estimated to 
     cost the private sector and State and local government as 
     much as $850,000,000,000 a year;
       (B) excessive Federal regulation and mandates increase the 
     cost of doing business and thus hinder economic growth and 
     employment opportunities;
       (C) State and local governments are forced to absorb the 
     cost of unfunded Federal mandates; and
       (D) in addition to budget and deficit estimates, Congress 
     and the executive branch decision makers need to be aware of 
     regulatory cost impacts of proposed Federal actions on the 
     private sector and State, local, and tribal governments.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (A) to ensure that the people of United States are fully 
     apprised of the impact of Federal legislative and regulatory 
     activity on economic growth and employment;
       (B) to require both the Congress and the executive branch 
     to acknowledge and to take responsibility for the fiscal and 
     economic effects of legislative and regulatory actions and 
     activities.
       (C) to provide a means to ensure that congressional and 
     executive branch action are focused on enhancing economic 
     growth and providing increased job opportunities for the 
     people of United States; and
       (D) to protect against congressional or executive branch 
     actions which hinder economic growth or eliminate jobs for 
     the people of United States.
       (c) Economic and Employment Impact Statements for 
     Legislation.--
       (1) Preparation.--The Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office (referred to as the ``Director'') shall prepare an 
     economic and employment impact statement, as described in 
     paragraph (2), to accompany each bill or joint resolution 
     reported by any committee (except the Committee on 
     Appropriations) of the House or Representatives or the Senate 
     or considered on the floor of either House.
       (2) Contents.--The economic and employment impact statement 
     required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
       (A) An estimate of the numbers of individuals and 
     businesses who would be regulated by the bill or joint 
     resolution and a determination of the groups and classes of 
     such individuals and businesses;
       (B) A determination of the economic impact of such 
     regulation on individuals, consumers, and businesses 
     affected.
       (C)(i) An estimate of the costs which would be incurred by 
     the private sector in carrying out or complying with such 
     bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in which it is to 
     become effective, and in each of the 4 fiscal years following 
     such fiscal year, together with the basis for each such 
     estimate.
       (ii) Estimates required by this subparagraph shall include 
     specific data on costs imposed on groups and classes of 
     individuals and businesses, including small business and 
     consumers, and employment impacts on those individuals and 
     businesses.
       (D) An estimate of the costs that would be incurred by 
     State and local governments, which shall include--
       (i) the estimates required by section 403 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (ii) an evaluation of the extent of the costs of the 
     Federal mandates arising from such bill or joint resolution 
     in comparison with funding assistance provided by the Federal 
     Government to address the costs of complying with such 
     mandates.
       (3) Report not available.--If compliance with the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) is impracticable, the Director 
     shall submit a statement setting forth the reasons for 
     noncompliance.
       (4) Statement to accompany committee reports.--The economic 
     and employment impact statement required by this subsection 
     shall accompany each bill or joint resolution reported or 
     otherwise considered on the floor of either House. Such 
     statement shall be printed in the committee report upon 
     timely submission to the committee. If not timely filed or 
     otherwise unavailable for publication in the committee 
     report, the economic and regulatory statement shall be 
     published in the Congressional Record not less than 2 
     calendar days prior to any floor consideration of a bill 
     or joint resolution subject to the provisions of this 
     subsection by either House.
       (5) Committee statements optional.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect 
     the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, regarding preparation of an 
     evaluation of regulatory impact.
       (d) Economic and Employment Impact Statement for Executive 
     Branch Regulations.--
       (1) Preparation.--Each Federal department or executive 
     branch agency shall prepare an economic and employment impact 
     statement, as described in paragraph (2), to accompany 
     regulatory actions.
       (2) Contents.--The economic and employment impact statement 
     required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
       (A) An estimate of the numbers of individuals and 
     businesses who would be regulated by the regulatory action 
     and a determination of the groups and classes of such 
     individuals and businesses.
       (B) A determination of the economic impact of such 
     regulation on individuals, consumers, and businesses 
     affected.
       (C)(i) An estimate of the costs which would be incurred by 
     the private sector in carrying out or complying with such 
     regulatory action in the fiscal year in which it is to become 
     effective and in each of the 4 fiscal years following such 
     fiscal year, together with the basis for each such estimate;
       (ii) The estimate required by this subparagraph shall 
     include specific data on costs on groups and classes of 
     individuals and businesses, including small business and 
     consumers, and employment impacts on those individuals and 
     businesses.
       (D) An estimate of the costs that would be incurred by 
     State and local governments, which shall include--
       (i) an estimate of cost which would be incurred by State 
     and local governments in carrying out or complying with the 
     regulatory action in the fiscal year in which it is to become 
     effective and in each of the 4 fiscal years following such 
     fiscal year, together with the basis for such estimate;
       (ii) a comparison of the estimates of costs described in 
     clause (i), with any available estimates of costs made by any 
     Federal or State agency;
       (iii) if the agency determines that the regulatory action 
     is likely to result in annual cost to State and local 
     governments of $200,000,000 or more, or is likely to have 
     exceptional fiscal consequences for a geographic region or a 
     particular level of government, a statement by the agency 
     detailing such results or consequences; and
       (iv) an evaluation of the extent of the costs of the 
     Federal mandates arising from the regulatory action in 
     comparison with funding assistance provided by the Federal 
     Government to address the costs of complying with such 
     mandates.
       (4) Report not available.--If compliance with the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) is impracticable, the agency or 
     department shall submit a statement setting forth the reasons 
     for noncompliance.
       (5) Statement to accompany federal regulatory actions.--The 
     economic and employment impact statement with respect to a 
     regulatory action required by this subsection shall be 
     published in the Federal Register together with the 
     publication of such regulatory action. If the regulatory 
     action is not published in the Federal Register, the economic 
     and employment impact statement shall be made available to 
     the public in a timely manner.
       (6) Definition of ``regulatory action''.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term ``regulatory action'' means any 
     substantive action by a Federal agency (required to be or 
     customarily published in the Federal Register) that 
     promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a 
     final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, 
     advance notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of proposed 
     rulemaking, interim final rules, and final rules and 
     regulations.
       (e) Provision for National Security Emergency Waiver.--
       (1) Congressional economic impact statements.--The Congress 
     may waive the requirements of subsection (c) at any time in 
     which a declaration of war is in effect, or in response to a 
     national security emergency at the request of the President.
       (2) Executive regulations economic impact statements.--The 
     President may waive the requirements of subsection (d) at any 
     time in which a declaration of war is in effect, or in 
     response to a national security emergency as determined by 
     the President in consultation with Congress.
       (f) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment I sent to the desk today is 
on behalf of myself and Senator Reid, Senator McCain, Senator 
Murkowski, Senator Burns, Senator Helms, Senator Bennett, Senator 
Danforth, Senator Domenici, Senator Grassley, and Senator Boren.
  Mr. President, this amendment is germane and is about 
competitiveness. I think when we talk about competitiveness, we must 
not miss the point and the fact that the Government can do a great deal 
of harm through overzealous regulation. One way to alleviate this 
problem is to give policymakers the tools necessary to evaluate the 
proposed policy on its economic and regulatory impact.
  That is why, today, Senator Reid and myself are offering the Economic 
Employment Act as an amendment to Senate bill 4, the National 
Competitiveness Act.
  The economic and employment impact statement was reintroduced at the 
beginning of Congress as a freestanding legislation and was offered as 
an amendment to the EPA Cabinet bill last year, and it received 48 
votes. We have all been here before, and we know the escalating cost of 
regulation is a serious problem. The administration has acknowledged 
that it is a problem. The national performance review estimated private 
sector compliance costs to be at least $430 billion per year--9 percent 
of our gross domestic product.
  The premier paper on the cost of Federal regulation, entitled the 
``Cost of Regulation,'' was prepared for the GSA Regulatory Information 
Service Center by Thomas Hopkins in August 1992. This analysis 
estimated that the Federal regulation cost to the private sector and 
State and local governments was $581 billion, or $5,934 per household, 
in 1993.
  It should be noted that the $5,934 per household is in addition to 
$11,881 in taxes paid per household, for a total Federal burden of 
$17,816 per household.
  Other economists estimate the private sector and State and local 
compliance burden to be as high as $860 billion per year. It is time 
for Congress and the regulators to have better information on the cost 
of new legislation and regulation, and to be accountable to 
individuals, consumers, businesses, and State and local governments for 
those costs.
  Modifications to the amendment offered last spring have been made to 
address some of the concerns that were raised during the debate.
  This modified economic and employment impact act would require that 
bills and joint resolutions reported out of committee, except for the 
Appropriations Committees, considered by Congress be accompanied by an 
economic and employment impact statement.
  The statements will contain the positive and negative effect on 
individuals, consumers, businesses, and State and local governments.
  Further, it would require that regulatory actions issued by the 
executive branch agencies also be accompanied by such a statement.
  This amendment addresses the concerns raised last year, including the 
duplication of Congressional Budget Office efforts, the requirement for 
two analyses, and holding up conference reports.
  In addition, we have addressed the concerns about change in the 
Senate rules by not making any changes to the standing rules of the 
Senate. This is in contrast, I might tell my colleague from South 
Carolina, to the legislation we had last year that did have changes to 
the rules of the Senate which raised a great deal of concern by Senator 
Byrd and others. We made no changes to the rules of the Senate.
  This amendment addresses duplication concerns by shifting the 
responsibility by providing the estimate from the Government Accounting 
Office to the Congressional Budget Office, who currently provides 
similar impact statements on legislation affecting State and local 
governments as required by section 403 of the Budget Act.
  The purpose of this amendment is to give the responsibility of 
providing the regulatory impact statement to an organization within the 
legislative branch which has the technical expertise to provide better 
and more consistent estimates than we have had in the past. Currently, 
each committee is asked under the rules to provide such estimates. 
Unfortunately, meaningful impact statements are rarely provided.
  This amendment complements the purpose of this bill, which is to 
promote industrial competitiveness and economic growth in the United 
States. U.S. businesses' greatest hindrance to growth right now is 
excessive regulation. The intent of this amendment is to establish a 
procedure to ensure better and more efficient regulation.
  The process this legislation establishes does not pass judgment on a 
bill or regulation as good or bad but simply provides complete 
information as Congress and the regulators consider legislation and 
regulations.
  Mr. President, in my opinion, this amendment is good government. 
Information on cost and benefits of regulation means better and more 
efficient regulation.
  Again, Mr. President, we had similar legislation introduced by 
Senator Reid and me last year. Some complaints were made because we 
were amending the Senate rules. We do not amend the Senate rules. Last 
year people made complaints and said: Wait a minute. You are using GAO 
instead of CBO. This year we are using CBO.
  So we have tried to make it simple. We have tried to make it plain. 
We do not amend the rules. Yet we do say before we consider really 
significant legislation that could have detrimental impact on the 
economy, that could have detrimental impact on individuals, that could 
have detrimental impact on businesses, we should know the costs. We 
should know how many people's jobs are at risk.
  Although there are private estimates we should have CBO which right 
now CBO does. The Congressional Budget Office does this for any 
legislation that would impact on State and local governments. We expand 
that to include individuals and businesses.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Coats as a 
cosponsor as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me ask a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I just resist further bureaucracy. The 
Senator says the CBO already does this with respect to States and he 
can see the result with respect to State and local governments. They 
are marching on Washington on account of unfunded liabilities. I hope 
that that will not happen now with the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will allow me to yield, the present law 
under the Budget Act, Section 403 says that economic impact statement 
should be compiled or made before legislation that affects State and 
local Governments.
  I would readily concur with my colleague that has not necessarily 
prevented us from passing legislation that has adverse impact on State 
and local governments.
  Anyway, we do have in present law under the Budget Act what they 
should do. This would expand that information service to at least be 
provided for legislation that would have some impact on individuals and 
on businesses as well.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as you can see in a flash, this again 
does not relate to the underlying S. 4 bill with respect to technology.
  Now we have pending with set-asides a Danforth amendment relative to 
Finance Committee tax credits, a Cochran amendment relative to 
pesticides, and now we have the Nickles amendment on economic impact 
statements.
  The story is told that of the Puerto Rican terrorists who came here 
some years back. They came in the railroad station and walked straight 
to the Capitol. The Senate was closest, so they went first to the 
Senate Chamber. They sat in the gallery, looked down and saw very 
little activity, and what activity there was was hard to understand. 
They thereupon went over to the more lively Chamber, the House of 
Representatives, and shot the place up.
  I hope the Americans watching right now do not have a similar 
reaction here because we have very little activity. What is going on 
here is totally out of the whole cloth, whether you're talking about an 
amendment to reduce pesticides regulation, an amendment relative to 
GATT treaty, or, in a minute, an amendment with respect to Whitewater. 
And, now, an amendment with respect to bureaucracy and the CBO reports. 
Next there will be an amendment to take this whole thing to the Finance 
Committee and ask them why they have not unconstitutionally passed a 
tax bill which under the Constitution, of course, should originate in 
the House of Representatives.
  Having said that, let me yield to my distinguished colleague from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________