[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]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 1480 to the pending bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, so 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished managers of 
the bill and specifically the distinguished Senators who cosponsored 
the amendment that dealt with the pesticide safety training and 
labeling requirements that was earlier debated and was the subject of a 
vote on a motion to table earlier today.
  The resolution of this issue is the passage of this bill which 
extends these compliance dates that were the subject of the debate, to 
January 1995. We appreciate very much the cooperation of all Senators 
and especially those who supported this initiative.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, obviously, I support my chairman 
from South Carolina and strongly oppose the Danforth amendment. I 
really feel very strongly about this, and I think the vote we are about 
to make is extremely important because it will be a vote on what I 
think is clearly a fundamental question on the future of America. I 
think the answer should lie in the fact that we need to both work to 
make the industrial R&D tax credit permanent, and do what is proposed 
in S. 4.
  As for this amendment--and I want my colleagues to hear this --I 
think it should be entitled ``let us give up amendment,'' or more to 
the point, ``let us go backward amendment.''
  This amendment makes a very blunt recommendation. This amendment 
calls for shutting down Government's most effective, targeted, forward-
looking programs that together have a very basic goal which, both sides 
of the aisle should share in common: that is to revitalize our Nation's 
technology base, to create jobs, and to do what is necessary to ensure 
the United States is the foremost manufacturing nation in the world. It 
is not a wildly bad thought.
  The senior Senator from Missouri offered this amendment to turn the 
lights out on these programs. The Senator from South Carolina and I are 
very strongly against that. He then goes on to ask the Finance 
Committee to ``consider using the equivalent amount to make permanent 
the research and development tax credit.'' In response, the Finance 
Committee has been working very hard to do exactly that. I serve on the 
Finance Committee with the Senator from Missouri, and we both have been 
working very hard to make the R&D tax credit permanent. But in fact, 
President Clinton proposed just exactly that in his historic deficit 
reduction package, and economic plan that he submitted last year.
  But as the Senator from Missouri might recall, the President did not 
get any help from the other side of the aisle. I am going to be 
fascinated by the number, and to see the number of Senators on the 
other side of the aisle who now hope to support the Senator from 
Missouri in terms of calling for the billions of dollars--at least $1.6 
billion a year--to make the research and development tax credit 
permanent. Because they sure did not give us much help last year when 
they had an opportunity to turn their rhetoric into actual results.
  This unwillingness to help us pass Federal budgets and deficit 
reduction plans makes it much harder to come up with the substantial 
amount of money needed to make this credit permanent. That is why we 
are only able to extend the credit to June 30, 1995.
  One final word from me: Industrial policy is a phrase which is used, 
and thrown out. It is a little bit like the Harry and Louise 
advertisements on health care funded by the insurance industry. It 
attempts to press one of those hot buttons, so that as soon as people 
hear the word ``industrial policy'' they will stop thinking logically. 
They just simply say, ``Gee. That must be bad, `industrial policy?'''
  Therefore, when a Senator uses that phrase, a Senator carries a 
responsibility to really mean what he says or what she says. The myth 
is that the administration is creating a new industrial policy for the 
United States and that industry opposes it. This is the myth which has 
been put out before. The Senator from Missouri has used this 8, 10, 12 
times tonight and presumably 8, 10, 12 times yesterday.
  The reality is that the administration is building on a very strong, 
well-established American tradition of public-private partnerships to 
invest in American technological competitiveness, an effort that 
American industry supports. I will in a moment say who they are. They 
support Government having a legitimate role, a discreet, controlled 
role in supporting industry research and development efforts, a 
tradition that has helped U.S. business take the lead in such fields as 
aeronautics. I believe I used my example about McDonnell Douglas, and 
then there is pharmaceuticals, and the most obvious example of course, 
is agriculture.
  Industry needs the programs of Senate bill 4 to create incentives for 
high-priority technology development activity that pose risk. That is 
why they need venture capital money.
  Why do they need the venture capital money? Because if you were 
Thomas Edison, you would have to go in to a venture capital company or 
to a bank and take an entire bank of lights from Shea Stadium, all 
brightly shining, to prove that you had a bulb that worked. Venture 
capital has dried up in this country. Banks will not lend venture 
capital. They want to know that it works before they will put any money 
in. You have to make a strong case that it will work. In other words, 
it is basic American entrepreneurial instinct.
  Industry strongly supports S. 4. They are correct. The Advanced 
Technology Coalition sent a letter to Senator Robert Dole signed by 32 
professional organizations, all of them related to business. Take the 
American Electronics Association. They said:

       We believe that our views have been heard by Congress, and 
     reflected in this bill. S. 4 will promote American 
     competitiveness and enhance the ability of the private sector 
     to create jobs in this country.

  American business supports S. 4. It is supported vehemently by the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the American Electronics 
Association, the National Society of Professional Engineers, Business 
Executives for National Security, the American Society of Engineering 
Studies, and I will not go on. It is a long, long list. American 
business wants this because they know that they cannot get the help now 
when they need it, and particularly on critical technologies.
  Myth: The Government is picking winners and losers. This claim has no 
validity. It is wrong. It is empty. It is a specious argument and not 
worthy to be argued.
  The reality was that the programs authorized by S. 4 are industry 
led, and industry funded; generic research and development industry to 
overcome basic technological problems; not funding competing commercial 
products. S. 4 contains no earmarks or special interest pork projects. 
All decisions are made by industry.
  It is beyond me that the Senator from Missouri would be against this 
bill. I do not know why he is. I think he has read the bill. I think he 
knows the substance. But I appeal to my colleagues who care about the 
future of the American worker, who are worried about the future of 
American technology, who are proud that our economy is beginning to 
come back, but understand that our technological underpinnings are 
still very weak indeed. I appeal to them to table this amendment.
  This is a very, very important vote, Madam President. This is a vote 
which will begin to show really where we stand on the future of 
America. Are we willing to stand up even to some of its more 
challenging aspects? Are we clear about technology? Are we clear where 
we are? Are we clear where our weaknesses are? Are we clear where 
solutions may lie? They lie in part in Senate bill 4. The bill should 
be passed, and therefore the amendment of the Senator from Missouri 
should be defeated by supporting the tabling motion of the chairman of 
the Commerce Committee.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I hope the appeal, the very, very 
effective appeal of my colleague from West Virginia, to vote to table 
is not a partisan vote.
  For the first time I heard from the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania who said he thought it perhaps could be on a party line. 
Here is the amendment. The amendment says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision in this act, the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated by this act shall not 
     be appropriated.

  I never heard of that. It will kill the bill. My friends who run this 
place are hardworking, and really professional. They smile too; ``* * * 
the amounts authorized to be appropriated * * * shall not be 
appropriated.''
  But rather the Committee on Finance of the Senate is directed to 
consider using the equivalent amount to make permanent the research and 
development tax credit, which is fine business with me. It cancels out 
any purity of stance, any integrity of antisubsidy position because you 
cannot be against subsidies while you are driving down these subsidies 
in the manner of research and development tax credits.
  If that is not a subsidy, I do not know what is. So in one breath we 
are hearing there are all kinds of monkeyshines going on. They are 
talking about all of this very pontifical ``I am against subsidies,'' 
but ending up by saying, ``Please, by gosh, give us a subsidy.'' I 
would like to hope that I am in a position like that of Sherlock Holmes 
and the dog that did not bark.
  We have the Republican Senator that did not put up a single 
amendment. We have been on this bill 3 days. We have had GATT agreement 
amendments, pesticide amendments, and we have had all kinds of funny 
amendments, like post office amendments. What were some of the other 
ones? I cannot remember. None of them had anything to do with the bill. 
Maybe that is the best compliment. The nearest to being factual, and 
yet mistakenly was not the fact, but let us say referring to the 
amendment as the distinguished Senator talked about ballooning the 
amounts, now that we have a balloon amount, and we got a diminished 
amount. That is a fact.
  This bill is less than what the Senator supported for the year 1995 
when we reported it out June of last year--$143 million less. And the 
amount he supported for 1995 is the $35 million that we project for 
1996. So the 2-year projection under this particular bill, if adopted, 
is still less than what the distinguished Senator supported. He talks 
about balloon. I have heard--and I have been trying to get around in 
the back, but I cannot hold the floor and at the same time listen 
around. But a while ago, I heard: What is wrong, Senator, with your 
bill is that on our side of the aisle, we think it is a bill for 
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to distribute moneys around and take the 
State of California politically.
  I never heard of such nonsense. Let us go to the items. National 
Science Foundation. How in the world can you do that? Go to the 
extension programs and peer review, or go to the laboratory. Does 
anybody ever use the Bureau of Standards laboratory over there to win 
the California election or any election? All of these programs are 
itemized under here, and how they could get that description going and 
then have one of the distinguished Senators come and say ``I guess we 
are going to vote on partisan basis,'' there is another debate going on 
in the back room totally unfounded and unfair.
  I could go through the eloquent support we got from the Republican 
Senators and the very suggestions not on just both sides of the aisle 
but over on the House side, come through and worked through almost a 
perfect bill with everybody getting into it and having their say and 
including their provisions and everything else of that kind, doing 
exactly what the Senator and many Republican Senators said.
  So I said just to Senator Danforth after all, in the task force study 
I put in there, I do not see the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
but the Senator from Colorado, the Senator from Maine, the Senator from 
New Mexico, the Senator from Utah, Senator Kassebaum from Kansas, 
Senator Lott from Mississippi, Senator Lugar from Indiana, Senator 
McCain from Arizona, Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, Senator John 
Warner. These are the things they recommended almost 2 years ago. They 
said: Look here, let us get going and get this defense conversion. Now 
that we are getting the conversion--and I have listed the programs--
yes, the moneys are over there to be administering them and still less 
before we got those conversion programs. When we voted that out, we did 
not have those conversion programs but, yes, now we do. But we have 
taken them and still cut the budget, as they say, less than what the 
Senator voted for. Yet, if he is in the confines of caucuses with 
colleagues talking about--and I do not attribute it to him. I do not 
know who said it, but I have had it reliably reported, because I have 
been talking around, that on the other side of the aisle there is some 
feel about Secretary Brown of Commerce running around with a bunch of 
goodies and plums and pork barrel to deal out and take the California 
election.
  I was astounded to hear that, because that is the one thing we have 
kept out of this bill and the administration of it. And in this whole 
program, you got no pork under Secretary Good, or Ms. Prabhakar, the 
Assistant Secretary in charge of this, who came over from Department of 
Defense as an expert professional and testified in all these 
committees. In fact, my colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, 
commented on it. He had her visit the facilities at Sandia 
Laboratories, and otherwise, in New Mexico, and she had a wonderful 
understanding not only of the potential, but how we could merge these 
programs and commercialize our technology.
  I have nothing but compliments. So you get all the compliments and 
votes and you get the report, and you come here, and after hearing 
about pesticides and treaties and post offices and all these other 
things, then you have your ranking member say ``Notwithstanding any 
other provision in this act, the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
shall not be appropriated.'' In other words, this is a move to kill the 
bill or, otherwise, the Committee on Finance to get out a permanent R&D 
tax credit. And then he is saying there is a new philosophy here. We 
have to get rid of these subsidies, and if we cannot get rid of them, 
they have to get subsidies.
  Obviously, that is what we have been doing. We have been subsidizing 
the aircraft industry. The distinguished Senator has supported that 
subsidy over the many years, coming out of the Department of Defense, 
over the many years that we have shown right in his own backyard where 
we had this year, right this minute, for the particular centers. I have 
the extension program. We had, in 1994, $40 million, I think it was, 
and $42 million just for McDonnell Douglas in a bid. These large 
companies are coming in proposing various research programs in the 
commercial area, both military and otherwise, and they are coming. Just 
a single program, where all our advanced technology, manufactured 
extension centers for all of industry, no one industry says come in 
just for me. That has to pertain, and that is why we have the National 
Academy of Engineering overseeing it, with peer review.
  It has to benefit all industries. I set that up along as a guidance 
with the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I said, you are right, 
and he has been a leader against pork barrel, and let us have peer 
review.
  So we went along and have defended it, and we have lost on it. I have 
described how my own textile industry tried to qualify under the 
advanced technology program and could not. They went out to Livermore 
and did not have peer review there. Energy has money, oh boy, and if 
you want to find some things that are not peer reviewed, go on over 
there. I tried to impress on Commerce that this was a wonderful program 
for the industry countrywide, particularly in my State, but 
countrywide. But they said it does not stand muster.
  Yet, at the same time, I am defending it over there at the 
appropriations level when colleagues came and said, ``I want to write 
in my particular extension center.'' Every one of the seven we have are 
all peer reviewed, on a competitive basis, and reviewed annually to see 
that they are keeping up, and the additional seven are going to be the 
same way. You have to go through that entire merit testing program. You 
take the suggestions. You take the support. You work for 3 years. And 
then, could it really be serious to come forward and say that 
notwithstanding any other provision in the act, the amounts authorized 
to be appropriated shall not be appropriated? In other words, let us 
not have a bill.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, one question I think to ask as we 
prepare to vote on this amendment is why make the R&D credit permanent? 
Why is it important to do that?
  The R&D credit had its origin in 1981, and ever since that time it 
has existed on a year-to-year or 2-to-3-year timeframe. We have never 
made it permanent, and the reason we have never made it permanent is 
that we have never had the money to make it permanent.
  We have had a number of hearings in the Senate Finance Committee in 
which business people have come before us and they have said that the 
R&D credit is very, very helpful to research-oriented businesses, but 
they have said that it really should be a permanent credit. The reason 
it should be a permanent credit is that businesses that invest in 
research invest over long periods of time. They do not make decisions 
on 1- or 2- or 3-year timeframes. They make decisions on 8-year-or-more 
timeframes. So they think that it would be very helpful to make the R&D 
credit a permanent credit.
  In addition to that, the various people in the Senate, on a 
bipartisan basis, have been working to improve the R&D credit so it 
would be more helpful to businesses that are research oriented.
  So my hope would be that the Finance Committee would address the R&D 
credit and that it would make it permanent.
  The reason it has not been made permanent in the past is that we have 
told ourselves we do not have the money to do it. We do not have the 
funds. So we keep it alive year to year.
  The President has taken the position very publicly that he would like 
to see a permanent R&D credit, but in his budget he has not provided 
the funding to do that.
  I do not know where the money is going to come from to make the R&D 
credit permanent unless we make it available. That is what I am 
suggesting: That we make the money available; that we provide a fund, 
in effect, by saying no, we are not going to create all of these new 
spending initiatives that are in this bill. But instead we are going to 
allocate this money, at least in the minds of the Senators who are 
here, to make the R&D credit permanent.
  If we do not do it, if we do not do it on this bill, then when are we 
going to do it? Are we going to keep just promising ourselves year 
after year that someday we will have a permanent R&D credit, but not 
now, because we do not have the funds now?
  So really we are not just voting on a negative here. We are voting on 
a positive. How do we feel about the R&D credit and how do we feel 
about a permanent R&D credit? How do we feel about really committing 
ourselves to the R&D credit as the way of encouraging research and 
development in the private sector in this country?
  Is the R&D credit the same kind of subsidy program that is contained 
in S. 4? The answer to that is no, and I would submit that the answer 
is no for two reasons. One is, in the mind at least of this Senator, 
there is a difference between a tax credit and a grant of money. People 
sometimes say, well, tax credits are tax expenditures; it should be 
treated just like an appropriations.
  I do not think the reluctance of the Federal Government to squeeze 
every last penny out of every taxpayer is the same as the subsidy by 
the Federal Government. But more important, I think, for the purpose of 
this debate, has to do with the degree of heavy handedness, of 
manipulation on the part of the Federal Government in dealing with the 
private sector in R&D.
  The R&D tax credit is the least directive way that we can encourage 
research and development because it is offered to all businesses that 
are involved in R&D. It is not something that picks winners and losers. 
The R&D tax credit is not designed, the mechanism does not exist for 
the purpose of selecting one industry versus another industry.
  Therefore, it is unlike S. 4. It is unlike S. 4. It does not have the 
mechanisms for specific decisionmaking in picking the winners and 
picking the losers and engaging in the industrial policy that is in S. 
4.
  So I really think that there are two questions that are posed by this 
amendment.
  The first question is, how do we feel about the R&D tax credit, and 
do we really want it to be permanent, or do we just say that in our 
speeches? Do we really want it to be permanent? Do we really want it to 
be effective?
  And the second question is, how do we feel about the role of 
Government and the intrusiveness of Government and Government's 
manipulation of spending decisions and priorities that otherwise would 
be set in the marketplace?
  It is the judgment of this Senator that the marketplace is a better 
mechanism for making economic decisions than the weight of the Federal 
dollar. I believe that the private sector can decide the new 
technologies better than we can in Washington, and that is the basic 
philosophical issue.
  Is it a philosophical question? Yes, it is. It is a broad basic 
fundamental policy issue dealing with the role and the scope of the 
Federal Government with respect to science, with respect to research, 
and with respect to the private sector.
  This amendment does not amend the Internal Revenue Code, but it 
clearly sets out a commitment on the part of the Senate, and it is a 
commitment which I believe the U.S. Senate should make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the R&D tax credit is not the subject 
of this bill at all. And if the Finance Committee reports it out, we 
will have a good debate and vote on it.
  Talking about this particular bill, yes, the research here is for the 
advanced technology research, this peer review.
  If you pass an R&D tax credit, I can have research to make better 
donuts, and development, and say, ``Whoopee,'' and write it off on my 
taxes. And if the IRS comes along, they have a hard time because I had 
them in there trying to mix up that dough differently, and I had 
research, R&D tax credits, for any and everything.
  Ours is particularly directed at advanced technology, and peer 
reviewed and merit tested on all the different programs. That is the 
big difference there. But that is not a red herring across the trail. 
He knows that. We cannot pass an R&D tax credit with an amendment. You 
cannot pass one if it was reported out of the Finance Committee. It 
would have to be initiated over on the House side, and then we can 
consider the House bill.
  So we have an unconstitutional amendment that is totally unnecessary. 
They can go ahead and do all they want done except for the fact he said 
get rid of all the appropriations; whatever is authorized, do not ever 
appropriate it. That really guts the bill.
  I cannot see it with the stands taken, and votes, and everything 
else. Something made him angry with the GATT agreement and 
negotiations, and he is using this bill to beat them up, to try to get 
their attention somehow. And that is not fair at all.
  You just do not do all of this work and get all the parties together 
on a well-considered bill that has been endorsed by more industrial 
groups than I could ever possibly imagine, by more labor groups than 
you can ever possibly imagine, all the leadership in technology, all 
the leadership on the Republican side of the aisle, for the conversion 
of the defense funds. We read in their report where they support this 
program. They voted for it. This is a unanimous bill.
  But now he says to forget about the bill because none of the funds 
authorized should be appropriated. You in good conscience just have to 
vote to table this amendment.
  I so move to table, and I think the hour has arrived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Madam 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. 1482

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 7:20 
having arrived, the question is on agreeing to the motion to table the 
Danforth amendment numbered 1482.
  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 Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Helms] is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--41

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Helms
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1482) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. 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. MITCHELL. Madam President, shortly, Senator Simpson will seek 
recognition to offer an amendment. It is a substitute amendment, a 
major amendment, that includes 12 different provisions, each of which I 
believe in and of itself represents a bill that has previously been 
introduced. Since it will take some time to--and, if I might add, each 
of the bills cover the jurisdiction of several different committees. I 
do not know exactly how many, whether there are 12 committees involved, 
but there are several committees of jurisdiction.
  Before we can reach an agreement with respect to the disposition of 
that amendment, the relevant committee chairmen will have to be 
notified to review the measure and make a determination as to whether 
they will oppose or support the particular provision and notify the 
manager, Senator Hollings, of their decision in that regard.
  It is not possible to proceed to completion of that measure this 
evening, and so what I have decided, following a discussion with 
Senator Simpson and Senator Hollings, is that it would be best if I now 
announce that there will be no further rollcall votes this evening; 
that Senator Simpson be recognized to offer his amendment; that there 
then be as much debate as the principals choose on this amendment this 
evening, and then we return to the bill at 9 a.m. tomorrow, in an 
effort to proceed with respect to this amendment. Hopefully later this 
evening, although it is obviously late to do this, and early in the 
morning the relevant committee chairmen would be notified, would come 
over, and we can at least continue the debate in the morning and 
hopefully begin the process of determining how best to deal with the 
amendment. It is impossible at this time, given the comprehensive scope 
of the amendment and the number of different provisions, number of 
bills which are included in this measure, to reach an agreement on 
precisely how much time it will take and how to dispose of them.
  Madam President, I will yield and invite Senator Simpson to correct 
me if I have misstated any aspect of his amendment or our discussion, 
and in any event to make any such comments as he may wish on the 
matter.


                           amendment no. 1485

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senate today adopted the Nickles 
amendment by voice vote. I rise to express my concerns with the Nickles 
amendment as currently drafted.
  The Nickles amendment would require all bills reported by a committee 
or considered on the floor to be accompanied by an economic and 
employment impact statement prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office. The statement would contain: An estimate of the numbers of 
individuals and businesses who would be regulated; a determination of 
the economic impact on individuals, consumers, and businesses; an 
estimate of the costs incurred by the private sector in complying with 
the bill, including specific estimates on groups and classes of 
individuals--including small business and consumers--and specific 
estimates on the employment impacts on those individuals and 
businesses; estimates of the costs imposed on State and local 
government as required under section 403 of the Budget Act; a 
comparison of the costs imposed on State and local governments with the 
Federal funding provided. Executive branch agencies would be required 
to prepare a similar statement with similar contents.
  With respect to its requirements for proposed legislation, there is 
much of Senator Nickles' proposal with which I agree. His proposal to 
have the Congressional Budget Office prepare the basic estimate of the 
numbers of individuals and businesses who would be regulated and a 
determination of the groups and classes of such individuals and 
businesses, and a determination of the economic impact of such 
regulation on the individuals, consumers, and businesses affected seems 
sound. Committees are already required to do this, and to the extent 
that CBO can give assistance in preparing these estimates, that would 
give them greater credibility. I also support requiring CBO to assess 
the impact on State and local governments, which CBO already does under 
section 403 of the Budget Act, and to have CBO compare these costs to 
the amount of Federal funding available to offset these costs. That is 
essentially what would be required by S. 563, which I have been pleased 
to cosponsor.
  The provision calling for specific evaluation of cost in the private 
sector, however, is extremely one-sided. I have generally supported the 
use of sound cost and benefit evaluations to inform our judgments and 
the judgments of regulators. But this amendment does not even purport 
to incorporate cost-benefit analysis. It focuses solely on costs. Costs 
are important, but they do not tell the whole story. If we are going to 
direct CBO to perform a cost analysis, it should at least be required 
to perform a benefit analysis of proposed legislation as well.
  With respect to using cost-benefit assessments in the rulemaking 
process, I prefer the direction taken by the President's Regulatory 
Management Executive Order 12866. That Executive order laid out in 
great detail the principles of cost/benefit analysis to be used in 
rulemaking activity. It mandates examination of costs and benefits, 
including qualitative assessments where appropriate, and it directs 
agencies to maximize net benefits. It directs agencies to impose the 
least burden on society consistent with meeting the regulatory 
objectives, and to take into account the cumulative burden on society. 
For any significant rulemaking--one with greater than $100 million 
estimated annual impact--the cost benefit analysis must be submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs. These submissions become part of the record and 
must be disclosed to the public once the regulatory action is published 
in the Federal Register.
  That Executive order was supported by NFIB, National Small Business 
United, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable in addition to 
Public Citizen and the Sierra Club. It was formulated after forging a 
consensus among a variety of affected groups. It represents a sound 
balance of the policy issues in this area.
  Mr. President, for these reasons, I have grave concerns regarding the 
soundness of the Nickles amendment. I have not taken the Senate's time 
today to air these concerns further because we need to complete work on 
this bill expeditiously. However, I reserve the right to examine these 
questions further at a later date.


                 s. 4, the national competitiveness act

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the pending 
measure and I urge its immediate adoption. I commend the chairman of 
the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, for bringing this bill to the 
floor. This bill helps to implement one of the key pillars of the 
Clinton administration economic agenda: to promote growth, and create 
jobs, through investments in research and technology.
  Mr. President, not too long ago we lived in a world of bipolar 
competition. For decades the United States and the Soviet Union squared 
off in a winner-take-all contest for military and diplomatic supremacy. 
Today the game has changed, and so have the players. Our chief 
competitors are no longer found in Russia, but in Europe, and Asia, and 
the Pacific rim. And the nature of the contest is no longer military, 
but economic.
  In many areas, I would point out, we are doing very well in this 
competition. American companies and American technologies have met the 
challenges of the international community and they have met that 
challenge well. Today the United States is a recognized leader in 
industries such as computers, aerospace, biotechnology, and many 
others.
  At the same time, however, there are ominous signs that the United 
States may be losing its edge. A 1991 report by the Office of 
Technology Assessment noted that the U.S. share of world exports had 
fallen from 14 percent in 1970 to 10 percent 16 years later. Even more 
disturbing, the report noted that average weekly wages in manufacturing 
in the United States have fallen from more than $380 in 1978 to roughly 
$340 in 1990, in inflation-adjusted figures. Moreover, numerous reports 
from the Commerce Department and the Department of Defense over the 
past several years indicate that in several critical technologies, the 
United States is losing ground to either Europe or Japan.
  The measure before us today represents the first step in finding a 
solution to this problem. If passed by this body and enacted into law, 
this bill would strengthen the cooperation between Government and 
industry in basic research and advanced manufacturing. It would do so 
by increasing the funding authorization levels for several Commerce 
Department programs that are playing a critical role in this effort.
  One such program is the Advanced Technology Program, a program run by 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] that provides 
matching grants to companies that pursue innovative research and 
development. This bill sets aside $475 million for this program in 
1995, more than twice the level for 1994. Another use of funds under 
this bill will be to expand the Manufacturing Technology Center 
program. Today in Japan there are nearly 200 Government-supported 
centers across the country, helping small- and medium-sized businesses 
gain access to the latest technologies. In the United States we 
currently have seven such centers. This bill will help us catch up.
  The programs we are funding under this bill have already had an 
important effect on many businesses in my State. For example, a 
cooperative effort involving NIST and the Johnson Gage Co. of 
Bloomfield, CT, helped to develop a flexible computer-integrated 
workstation for manufacturing high-precision fasteners for U.S. 
submarines. Development of this workstation has helped to reduce the 
average production time per fastener from 1\1/2\ hours to 20 minutes, 
with a defect rate approaching zero.
  Another cooperative effort led by NIST has involved two Connecticut 
companies--CADKEY, of Windsor, and CNC Software, of Tolland. These 
companies, working together with NIST, helped to develop a safe and 
aerodynamically superior helmet that was used by U.S. Olympic speed 
skiers. Many other Connecticut companies have participated in NIST-led 
research or have been the beneficiary of Commerce Department grants 
under the Advanced Technology Program.
  Mr. President, in Connecticut and across the country we have been 
talking about the need to diversify our economy--about reducing our 
dependence on defense expenditures and developing new technologies and 
new skills. The programs that we are authorizing today will help to do 
just that. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by 
my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles. I oppose this legislation 
because in its efforts to estimate the economic and employment impacts 
of Federal legislation and regulations, it would unduly impede the 
legislative process and impose an ill-considered set of requirements on 
Federal agencies.
  I believe that decisions about laws and regulations often have 
unintended or overlooked effects on the economy and employment. I also 
believe that Members of Congress, as well as agency rulemakers, need to 
more carefully consider the costs of policies and programs, not just 
the public purposes and benefits that they would hope to achieve. We do 
need to do a better job of balancing the costs and benefits of our 
decisions. On that point, I most certainly agree with the Senator from 
Oklahoma. My Committee on Governmental Affairs will be holding several 
hearings this year to discuss legislative solutions to the problems of 
regulatory and paperwork burdens on business, State and local 
governments, and the economy. This amendment should be debated then, 
along with related bills introduced by other Senators, and not be 
considered in such a hasty manner today.
  As to the substance of the amendment--I do not believe that the 
solution the Senator from Oklahoma offers is the correct one, or even 
that it is workable.
  First, the amendment creates a new layer in the legislative process. 
It would require CBO to establish and support a new review process--and 
with what appears to be no new resources. While I agree that committees 
could probably often do a better job of complying with Senate Rule 26, 
the answer is not simply to load another duty on CBO. And I must note 
that the amendment does not simply ask CBO to do what the committees do 
under rule 26. CBO would be required to do more. CBO would have to do 
detailed multiyear projections of costs imposed on ``groups and classes 
of individuals and businesses.'' I frankly do not know how CBO can do a 
credible job of this, particularly in any timeframe relevant to the 
ongoing legislative process.

  Even if CBO could somehow do this sort of analysis, the issue of the 
resources CBO would need is enough to oppose this amendment. The bill 
is silent on how much it would cost to properly implement. If every 
bill taken to the floor must undergo this CBO analysis to determine its 
cost impact as required by the Nickles amendment, then surely it would 
make sense for CBO to look at the Nickles amendment so that it can do 
its own estimate on what the amendment will cost CBO and the taxpayers 
of this country. To the best of my knowledge, CBO hasn't even had the 
opportunity to comment on this amendment. A year ago when originally 
offered, this amendment tasked GAO with the duties that would now be 
assigned to CBO. At that time, GAO said ``a very rough estimate of the 
resources involved would be that an organization of perhaps 200 people 
or more might be needed.'' Using GAO's projections, CBO would have to 
more than double its cost estimating staff to fully implement the 
Nickles amendment. Yet the amendment, provides CBO with no new 
resources to conduct these analyses.

  I also see nothing to show how CBO's analysis would reasonably fit 
into the legislative process. It is one thing to require an analysis of 
bills coming out of committee. The amendment, however, also requires 
such analysis of any bill or resolution considered by either House of 
Congress. As my colleagues will recall, this element of the amendment 
was a major reason for its defeat nearly a year ago. This requirement 
will severely limit our ability to legislate.
  If my colleagues want to impede the legislative process, this is the 
way to do it. If my colleagues want to create more gridlock, this is 
the way to do it. I, for one, will not. I will work to improve the 
quality of legislative analysis, but I will not be a party to a quick 
fix that will end up only slowing our decisionmaking to even a slower 
snail's pace. The solution, if one is needed, is to look to committees 
to more fully debate and investigate legislative proposals. The 
solution is not to regulate ourselves into gridlock.
  Second, the amendment would also extend the model of Senate Rule 26 
to the executive branch--the impact analysis requirements of the rule, 
plus additional cost estimate requirements. This make no sense to me at 
all. For the last 6 months, Federal agencies have been governed by a 
new regulatory review scheme. Executive Order 12866, issued in 
September of last year, replaced the regulatory review system of the 
last two administrations and was praised by virtually all groups, from 
the Sierra Club and public citizen to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 
the National Federation of Independent Business. With the addition of 
E.O. 12875, on improving the intergovernmental partnership, the Clinton 
administration has shown an impressive resolve to closely analyze the 
impact of proposed groups and all levels of government affected by 
Federal regulation.

  For over 12 years, Congress has resisted putting regulatory review 
into statute. There have been times I have thought it was needed, but 
now is certainly not the time to do it. To set the amendment's narrow 
rule 26 requirements into law sends a message to the executive branch 
and the American people. The message is that we are not serious about 
what we would require. We will not study the problem with the same care 
as did the administration and we will not carefully craft as 
comprehensive a solution. No, we will just slap on a set of Senate 
rules. That is not the way to legislate regulatory review. It does not 
create a balanced framework. It does not look at benefits as well as 
costs. It does not address benefits or costs that are indirect or hard 
to quantify. It does not address public accountability and sunshine. It 
does not ensure the faithful implementation of our laws.

  If my colleague from Oklahoma wants to work on improving the 
administration's regulatory review Executive orders and wants to 
consider placing them in statute, I will work with him. As I mentioned, 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, will soon have a 
second hearing on Federal mandates on States and local governments, and 
will thereafter have a hearing on regulatory burdens on business and 
the current state of Federal regulatory management. Such hearings would 
be the appropriate forum to consider these issues.
  That would be the way we should consider this amendment. Moving it 
today, on the floor, is not the way to do it.
  This amendment is being hastily considered and should be defeated.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record, following my 
remarks, a GAO statement and CBO letter regarding this issue.

 Statement by the GAO on the Economic and Employment Impact Act of 1992

       We have reviewed the draft bill entitled the ``Economic and 
     Employment Impact Act of 1992.'' We believe that for certain 
     very significant pieces of legislation--namely those that are 
     likely to (1) have large associated private sector costs or 
     (2) influence job creation rates measurably, the impact 
     studies envisioned, could be very appropriate. Nonetheless, 
     we have several cautions which we would like to raise:
       The application of this requirement to every bill, 
     resolution or report by any committee would be extremely 
     costly and time consuming, and could impede congressional 
     business. A very rough estimate of the resources involved 
     would be that an organization of perhaps 200 people or more 
     might be needed. CBO now uses approximately 80 staff years to 
     perform its costing responsibilities and related budget work. 
     Though that task is difficult in itself, the estimates 
     envisioned by this legislation are more complex and less 
     amenable to the application of standardized methods.
       Thus, given the state of the art in estimating the economic 
     effects envisioned by this legislation, it could force the 
     proliferation of the use of economic analysis techniques for 
     which there is no strong professional acceptance.
       Certain of the tasks envisioned such as state and local 
     impact, and 5 year federal costs would duplicate work now 
     being performed by the Congressional Budget Office.
       Many pieces of legislation would require months of data 
     collection and analysis to make the needed estimates, thus 
     raising the very strong possibility that important 
     legislation would be delayed. If applied to amendments 
     offered to legislation being considered on the floor, this 
     requirement would often be impossible to satisfy on a timely 
     basis.
       The impact on GAO's ability to meet its heavy congressional 
     workload could also be severe, exacerbating an already 
     significant shortfall in our ability to respond promptly to 
     the many individual committee requests we receive each year.
       Consequently, the need to make significant internal 
     realignments, the complexity of the task envisioned, and the 
     limited availability of GAO staff trained in economics and 
     related fields would result in a very long learning curve for 
     us, as we began recruiting, reassigning and training staff 
     and otherwise building the data bases and other 
     infrastructure necessary to perform the duties involved.
       Overall, we believe that given the current state of the art 
     in this form of economic analysis, and the already 
     significant demands on our resources, that a case-by-case 
     request for such analysis on significant legislation would be 
     preferable to mandating such analysis on every committee 
     action that met some predetermined threshold.
       Alternatively, if legislation is deemed necessary, it might 
     be written so as to encourage or require GAO (or another 
     agency) to begin building the capacity to do such analysis at 
     some point in the future. This would be more consistent with 
     our view that there currently exists neither the technology 
     nor an organization capable of supporting this legislative 
     requirement at present. Another possibility would be to hold 
     hearings on the feasibility of such legislation to improve 
     economic impact information in the legislative process.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 1993.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request for 
     information relating to the work the Congressional Budget 
     Office currently does with respect to estimating the costs of 
     federal legislation, including the potential economic impact, 
     and how this work would be affected if the proposed Amendment 
     Number 325 were adopted as part of S. 171, the Department of 
     the Environment Act of 1993.
       As required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974, CBO prepares five-year federal budget 
     cost estimates for virtually every public bill reported by 
     legislative committees in the House and the Senate. CBO also 
     prepares numerous cost estimates at committee request for use 
     in earlier stages of the legislative process. These cost 
     estimates are usually transmitted to the committees 
     responsible for the legislation by letter from the CBO 
     Director, and are usually included in the committee reports 
     accompanying legislative proposals. The number of cost 
     estimates prepared each year varies, depending on the amount 
     of legislation being considered and reported by legislative 
     committees. Over the last ten years, for example, the number 
     of bill cost estimates has ranged from 600 to 855, with an 
     average of about 700 per year.
       A large part of CBO's bill costing work in some years has 
     been for House and Senate committees receiving reconciliation 
     instructions in the annual budget resolution. Our tracking 
     system for bill cost estimates treats reconciliation 
     proposals as a few large bills. As a result, the numbers 
     given above significantly understate the true work load. In 
     years when a major reconciliation bill is being considered, 
     the work is equivalent to 100 or more individual bill cost 
     estimates.
       The CBO bill cost estimates have become an integral part of 
     the legislative process. Committees refer to them 
     increasingly at every stage of bill drafting, and they often 
     have an impact on the final shape of legislation. They have 
     this effect because they are used to determine whether the 
     committees are in compliance with the annual budget 
     resolutions and reconciliation instructions.
       In additional to cost estimates for bills reported by 
     legislative committees, CBO also provides the Appropriations 
     Committees with estimates of outlays and other budgetary 
     effects for all appropriations bills. These estimates are 
     prepared for each appropriation account and are transmitted 
     to the staffs of the committees largely in the form of 
     computer tabulations. CBO's estimates may be critical in 
     determining whether or not the appropriations legislation 
     complies with the annual budget resolution and with 
     statutory limits on discretionary appropriations.
       The State and Local Government Cost Estimate Act of 1981 
     temporarily expanded CBO's responsibilities for bill costing 
     by requiring that estimates be prepared for the cost that 
     state and local governments would incur as the result of 
     proposed federal legislation. The Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 made this 
     requirement permanent.
       CBO reviews as many bills as possible to identify their 
     potential impact on state and local governments, although the 
     requirement for state and local cost estimates is only for 
     bills that are likely to result in a total annual cost to 
     state and local governments of $200 million or more, or are 
     likely to have exceptional fiscal consequences for a 
     geographic region or a particular level of government. Since 
     each bill must be examined to determine whether there is a 
     significant cost to state and local governments, we routinely 
     include our cost assessment in our letters to committees 
     about the federal cost estimates for proposed legislation.
       Over the past ten years, we have prepared an average of 
     more than 600 state and local cost assessments each year. 
     Most of these assessments show no cost to state and local 
     governments; only a small number each year show costs that 
     exceed the $200 million threshold (less than 5 percent). 
     About 10 percent of our state and local cost assessments show 
     some cost below the $200 million threshold.
       Unlike our estimates of the cost impact of proposed 
     legislation on the federal budget, our estimates of state and 
     local costs have little or no impact on legislative outcomes. 
     With few exceptions, Congressional debates on proposed 
     legislation have not focused on CBO's state and local cost 
     estimates, possibly because these estimates are only 
     informational and do not represent any binding constraint on 
     the federal budget.
       Many legislative proposals have potential effects for 
     prices, employment, incomes, and other macroeconomic 
     variables. If these proposals are part of a deficit reduction 
     effort, such as a reconciliation bill, they could have 
     negative indirect effects on other categories of federal 
     revenues or outlays. For example, tax revenues could fall 
     with changes in corporate or personal incomes, and outlays 
     for unemployment compensation could rise as economic 
     adjustments occur.
       Indirect economic effects and their budget implications are 
     difficult to measure; economists often disagree on their size 
     or duration, and sometimes even on their direction. As a 
     practice, CBO believes that factoring secondary effects into 
     cost estimates would not increase the reliability of the 
     final estimate, despite the appearance of increased 
     precision. For purposes of reporting the costs of legislation 
     to the Congress, CBO's longstanding practice is to restrict 
     the estimates to the most direct budgetary effects.
       Nevertheless, CBO has done a number of analyses of the 
     potential economic impact of proposed legislation on business 
     and consumers in recent years, such as the possible 
     employment effects of changes in the minimum wage, the 
     economic consequences of reduced defense spending, and the 
     effects of proposed royalties and fees on the mining 
     industry.
       The process of estimating economic impacts, however, is 
     inherently difficult. Any analysis of legislation that would 
     result in new regulatory requirements, for example, can be 
     extremely uncertain and controversial and may depend 
     critically on how the new regulations would be administered. 
     Often, the latter consideration is unpredictable. In general, 
     such analyses are necessarily less precise than estimates of 
     the federal budget impact, or even than estimates of state 
     and local budget impacts. For example, the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 made 
     significant changes to federal regulation of banks. Some have 
     blamed that law for perceived shortages of business credit in 
     1992 and 1993. The validity of those misgivings will not be 
     known for a long time, if ever, and it is highly unlikely 
     that CBO, or any other group of analysts, would have been 
     able to produce credible estimates of such impacts when the 
     Congress was considering the bill.
       To prepare economic impact assessments for all legislative 
     proposals would be a costly undertaking, both in terms of the 
     staff resources needed to prepare the analyses and in terms 
     of time requirements. In addition, data could be costly to 
     obtain and verify. Many assessments could result in producing 
     flawed information that could be misleading.
       Furthermore, a requirement to prepare economic impact 
     assessments for bills reported from any committee could delay 
     the legislative process significantly. Combining this 
     requirement with the tight, unpredictable schedules that 
     committees often must follow would create conflicting 
     priorities for legislative action. Based on our cost 
     estimating experience, it is hard to be confident that 
     committees would have the flexibility or patience to 
     consistently tolerate the time required for good economic 
     impact analyses.
       The amendment proposed to S. 171 would require the General 
     Accounting Office to prepare economic and employment impact 
     statements for each bill, resolution, or conference report 
     reported by any committee of the House or Senate, including 
     the Appropriations Committees. These impact statement would 
     include the estimated impacts not only for consumers and 
     businesses, but also the fiscal impacts for affected state 
     and local governments and the revenue and outlay effects for 
     the federal government.
       These analytical requirements would duplicate the bill 
     costing work of the Congressional Budget Office, both for 
     federal cost impacts and for state and local government cost 
     estimates. If enacted, the Congress would be receiving cost 
     estimates from two different legislative support agencies. 
     The result would be confusion for committees and for Members 
     of Congress. The CBO federal cost estimates would be 
     controlling for budget resolutions and reconciliation 
     instructions, but the GAO could easily produce different 
     estimates for the same proposals. Committees and Members 
     naturally would want to know why there were differences, 
     and additional time would be required to sort out the 
     reasons for any differences.
       Cost estimates and economic impact analyses depend on 
     specific economic assumptions. The budget process gives the 
     Congress the opportunity to review these assumptions during 
     the consideration of the annual budget resolution. With the 
     adoption of the resolution, the Congress ratifies the 
     economic baseline for cost estimates and economic impact 
     assessments. There is no requirement in the proposed 
     amendment for the General Accounting Office to use the same 
     set of economic assumptions as used by CBO. The amendment 
     would require GAO to duplicate the bill costing work of the 
     CBO without giving the Congress the opportunity to review the 
     economic basis for these estimates. Even if GAO and CBO used 
     the same economic assumptions, estimating differences are 
     sure to result because analysts in the two agencies probably 
     would not make the same programmatic assumptions or use the 
     same estimating models.
       As written, the proposed amendment could mandate a great 
     deal of work by the General Accounting Office that might not 
     meet the needs or expectations of committees and Members of 
     Congress. It would require additional resources during a time 
     when Legislative Branch funding is under heavy constraints. 
     An alternative approach would be for CBO to work with the 
     Budget Committees and the bipartisan leadership to produce an 
     agenda each year for CBO to follow in making estimates of 
     economic impact, with periodic updates as necessary. In this 
     way, CBO could concentrate its limited resources on a few 
     critical bills for which economic analyses might produce good 
     quality information for the Congress. This approach would 
     avoid duplication of effort and confusion, provide the 
     Congress with useful information, and require limited 
     additional resources.
       I hope that this information is useful. I would be happy to 
     discuss further this matter with you or with your staff.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. The majority leader, as he does well, has expressed 
where we are at this point. I do not want to intrude on the patience of 
the managers. I said I would place this amendment before the body. It 
is a compilation of various measures, as the Senator has expressed, 
some one or two of which in its fluid state have been taken care of 
today.
  So that is the reason my attempt was to hold it open, not to slide 
one in on the leader or the body, I can assure you of that, but to 
accommodate--and this has an array of bipartisan measures in it--
members of both parties, both sides of the aisle.
  However, it is important for our consideration that we close this 
issue as to what can be introduced. So I would like to introduce the 
amendment. That will be then part of the Record, and then the procedure 
can go forward as the Senator suggests. And then tomorrow I will be 
here at 9 o'clock. If it would be possible for me at least not to go 
forward with the debate of the issue after introduction, then I will be 
here at whatever hour the majority leader will set and then immediately 
take approximately 20 minutes.
  There are other cosponsors who would not require a great amount of 
time, and we can go right to this measure. I will assure you that we 
will conclude. I have a list of the people who wish to speak, and they 
are 4 minutes or 3 minutes or 5 minutes. So it should not be a long 
period of time.
  I think that this amendment would be concluded tomorrow. I do not 
know the other amendments from our side of the aisle on the bill itself 
but perhaps some of it will be conditioned upon this amendment and its 
success or failure.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his comments. 
This is an important amendment. As both Senator Simpson and I have 
said, it is a compilation of several bills that are included in the 
single amendment. So I think it does warrant debate and an opportunity 
for Senators who have not yet seen it to review it.
  My hope is that we can complete action on this amendment within a 
reasonable time tomorrow and complete action on the bill. I merely want 
to say for my colleague's benefit that we made good progress today, 
disposed of several amendments, and our hope is we can finish the bill 
tomorrow. If not, Senators should be prepared for a very late evening 
tomorrow on the bill as we attempt to proceed to complete action on the 
bill.
  I would like to inquire of the manager if the procedure we have 
described is agreeable to him.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The procedure, I say to the majority leader and to the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming, is very agreeable in that I have no 
alternative. Referring just at a glance, like Senator Dole's private 
property rights amendment does not belong on a technology bill; reform 
of Davis-Bacon does not belong on the technology bill; regulatory 
relief for bankers; paperwork reduction; rural community bank; you go 
right on down; the matter of OSHA. You see there are no amendments to 
my bill. When you say it is agreeable, I do not agree to the amendment. 
It is quite obvious. I just want to make that clear. It is important in 
not being germane.
  I guess we will have to vote, and maybe some Senators in different 
committees want to sever out sections of this or put in amendments. 
This is mischief when you try to catch dogs and lump them altogether. I 
have seen just one amendment come here, and we worked. We really have 
to get these compromises. True it is, we accepted one. We compromised 
another one. But that still leaves the 12, 10 important items not 
germane and belonging to the other committees.
  So while the procedure is very agreeable, and I think that is the 
only sensible thing we can do at this particular moment, I am always 
glad to work with the Senator from Wyoming.
  (Mr. GRAHAM assumed the chair.)
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, in that event, I think it is best to let 
the Senator from Wyoming proceed, as we suggested, and introduce his 
amendment, and say as much or as little as he wants. I do not know what 
anybody wants to say, but we will stay as long as any Senator wants to 
continue to debate and then come back in, and get back on this at 9 
o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 1486

(Purpose: To promote industrial competitiveness and economic growth in 
 the United States by providing for Federal regulatory reform, and for 
                            other purposes)

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an 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 Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], for himself, Mr. 
     Nickles, Mr. Dole, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
     Durenberger, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
     Murkowski, Mr. Mack, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Lott, Mr. Smith, Mrs. 
     Hutchison, Mr. Helms, Mr. Craig, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gorton, and 
     Mr. Warner proposes an amendment numbered 1486.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, after this introduction, this will be 
presented to our colleagues.
  I would just add that I understand fully the trials of a floor 
manager in this arena. And the patience of the Senator from South 
Carolina is great.
  But the purpose of the amendment is to deal with what we see as real 
competitiveness. If you want to have competitiveness in the country, 
each and every segment of this amendment is a compilation of what 
Democrats and Republicans on this issue have said in the past. Some of 
these have been shot out of the sky like clay pigeons at the fair.
  So they are all presented. They are cosponsored in more than several 
instances by Democrats and Republicans. But they all have to do with 
competitiveness. We are talking about competitiveness. Each and every 
one of them have to do with something which would relieve the burden of 
regulation in America which should improve competitiveness, enhance our 
competitiveness by seeking to reduce Government intervention, and that 
is the purpose of the amendment.
  I can go into it, and will in greater detail. I assure you that I 
will work with the floor managers to process it as swiftly as possible 
tomorrow. I will assist with the time, and those on our side of the 
aisle to come forward and briefly speak in the debate on this 
amendment.
  I reserve my full statement until the morning hour.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for 
his cooperation for the presentation of the amendment because it will 
help us to move along. You can see the practical difficulties now that 
I have as manager of the bill. It is not any political difference 
between the distinguished Senator from Wyoming and myself. But when I 
see 40 Senators vote to gut the bill, then I know we are in some 
trouble because they are not treating the bill seriously, I take it. It 
has been treated seriously, reported, unanimously approved, ready for a 
markup, conference report from the House and Senate, back again, 
unanimously reported out.
  So I know the history of the underlying bill on technology, 
competitiveness, the commercialization, the National Science 
Foundation, the information superhighway. Then I see, well, 40 Senators 
are ready to vote en bloc. I am sure the distinguished leader on the 
other side of the aisle could carry that block, if anyone can. And then 
I see some amendments on here that have nothing to do with respect to 
this particular technology bill.
  When I see there are colleagues on this side of the aisle who would 
not want to be voting against their own bill, I do not know what the 
Mack-Shelby Banking Regulatory Relief Act is, or the Wallop-Boren Rural 
Community Act is. But I see those Members on my side, and I say, wait a 
minute. You can get as popular as the Senator from Wyoming is. He has 
40-some in his whole side moving with him. And then he has some of the 
amendments from our side. This thing is going to pass. I am saying, all 
right, let us say it is going to pass. And I am over in conference, and 
I am with all kinds of committees over there. It just really frustrates 
the orderly procedure of legislating on a very, very important subject.
  I know the illusion. You can call anything ``competitiveness.'' I 
guess the Senator from Wyoming and I are competitive standing here. He 
is ready to go to the Chinese Embassy, and I am ready for him to go.
  I look forward to seeing him at 9 o'clock in the morning. I just 
wanted him to know some of my immediate reaction having been working on 
this bill for 3 days.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, where else would the Senator tell me to 
go? No.
  I could go there. But no. I shall not.
  But I do not have 40 votes in my pocket on this one.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator. I feel better. I can sleep a 
little bit better.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I say to the Senator from South Carolina that I do not. 
But anyway, there is time to deal with it. I appreciate his usual 
courtesies to me. He has been a good counsel since I came here.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank him.
  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. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________