[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 10, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 1492

(Purpose: To make it a felony for persons awarding contracts to solicit 
      campaign contributions from persons receiving the contracts)

  Mr. BROWN. 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 Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1492.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the 
     following section:

     SEC.  . PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   BY PERSONS AWARDING CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 610. Solicitation of political contributions by 
       persons awarding contracts

       ``Any person who awards any contract or grant under any 
     provision of, or any amendment made by, the National 
     Competitiveness Act of 1994 who, during the 5-year period 
     beginning on the date the contract or grant is awarded, 
     knowingly solicits a political contribution (within the 
     meaning of section 7322(3) of title 5, United States Code) 
     from any person who was awarded such contract or grant (or 
     any owner, officer, employee, or agent thereof) shall be 
     imprisoned for 1 year or fined not more than $10,000, or 
     both.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 29 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new items:

``610. Solicitation of political contributions by persons awarding 
              contracts.''

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I took the liberty of asking the clerk to 
read through the amendment because it is reasonably concise. I think it 
is fairly straightforward. I thought it might be of benefit for 
Members, since it involved a minimum amount of time, to at least have 
an opportunity as they listened to this debate to consider the full 
impact of the amendment.
  Mr. President, the amendment is meant to address a potential problem. 
This bill involves breaking of new ground. It certainly involves a wide 
range of economic activity, including government involvement in the 
private sector.
  Specifically, as I read through the Congressional Budget Office's 
description of the bill that is included in our committee report 
running from page 18 on, I find the following activities, economic 
activities, authorized.
  First, purchase of debentures; second, guarantee of debentures; 
third, participation in the nonparticipating preferred securities, and 
that is securities issued by qualified investment companies; pooling of 
debentures; pooling of securities; guarantee of trust certificates; 
funding of research; permitting the establishment of investing 
companies; subsidize loan programs.
  Suffice it to say, this measure before the Senate involves a wide 
range of financial activities. It is well within, I think, the scope of 
what the authors of the bill want to accomplish, and that is, to 
provide a broad range of financial activities that can be engaged in by 
the government to encourage industry and investments and so on.
  I believe it is fair to say, then, that this measure involves a wide 
range of financial activities. It also invites a great deal of interest 
for participating parties. I believe it is also fair to say that, as we 
look at this measure, there is enormous discretion left with the 
Federal officials, whether they buy the debentures or not, whether they 
guarantee debentures, whether they purchase securities, whether they 
pool securities or pool debentures, whether they purchase guaranteed 
trust certificates. The wide range of activities is matched by a very 
wide range of discretion.
  We have not in this measure attempted to pin down with great 
precision the guidelines and restrictions that will be used by the 
decisionmakers. I do not criticize the measure on that account. It may 
well be necessary to leave broad discretion in the hands of the people 
who enforce this act. But I am concerned about--particularly with such 
broad-ranging financial activities--not having clear and precise 
standards on all of them. That raises the potential for abuse.
  Specifically, I am concerned about this potential scenario: A request 
for funds, whether sale of debentures, sale of securities, pooling 
arrangements, underwriting of research, or others, is made to the 
Federal Government. Without definitive standards, enormous discretion 
is in the hands of the people who dispense this money. The people who 
dispense this money give it out and then turn around and solicit 
political contributions from the recipients, from the corporations that 
receive the funding under this act, from the businesses that get it, 
from the agents of those businesses, partners, lobbying firms, and 
others.

  If you hope to get, or you have received, money that is dispensed on 
a somewhat discretionary basis from a Government agency, are you really 
free to say no when they come asking for political contributions? I 
think it raises a tough question. I think it raises a difficult 
question. I believe, particularly with the discretion available under 
this bill, that we put the people who receive the money in a very 
difficult spot.
  I think we also put the people who make the decision on how the money 
is handed out in a difficult spot. Let us assume that those who are 
dispensing the government funds under this act have strong beliefs in 
one party or the other. Mr. President, I know you know that the 
potential for corruption does not extend only to one political party; 
it extends to both political parties.
  Let us assume these people are asked to help out their political 
party, and, more particularly, they are asked to solicit money from 
those with whom they have the closest connections, people they have 
given Government money to. Will they say no? Well, perhaps. Perhaps 
they will feel uncomfortable because of their previous contact with 
those individuals, companies, or those operations. But my guess is that 
some will say yes. Some will say yes because they want to abuse the 
power that they have, and some will say yes simply because they want to 
help out their friends, not for any interest in abusing the system.
  But the reality is that some are going to be in a position of handing 
out Federal money, with minimal guidelines and few restrictions, and 
they may also be in the position of asking the people who got that 
money to donate to a political campaign or party.

  Keep in mind that under some portions of this program, the moneys 
given out have to be matched, but others do not have a matching 
requirement. It is free money; it is money that does not require even a 
match, in some areas, from the people who get it. Will they be able to 
say no? Well, I hope so. But I am not sure of that. And I suspect that 
every Member of this body will have some doubts about the discretion, 
the ability to say no as well.
  The amendment attempts to deal with the problem before it happens. It 
simply says this: Look, if you are one of those who hands out the 
money, then you cannot engage in soliciting money from people who got 
the money. That is pretty straightforward. It has a penalty clause in 
it, and it is meant to be enough to get their attention to stop the 
activity.
  I think this is a minimum penalty that we ought to insert into this 
bill. It is a minimum of what we ought to demand. We should pass laws 
that vest the discretion to hand out the public's money without some 
restriction to curtail abuse. There may well be other safeguards that 
are appropriate and needed. I suspect there are already some safeguards 
that exist in law now. But this is an added safeguard that I think can 
have a positive impact and improve the integrity of the administration 
of the program and, perhaps more importantly, protect the process of 
the use of this money from political abuse.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if I read this correctly, what it says, 
is if I am a Cabinet member and I award the contract, I am barred by 
law from soliciting a political contribution from any person who was 
awarded such contract or grant, is that correct?
  Mr. BROWN. That is correct, except it would not apply beyond 5 years 
after the grant has been awarded. There is a time limit.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Awarded such contract, or any owner, officer, employee 
or agent thereof--let us say the XYZ Corporation, a solicitation of 
anybody connected with XYZ. In other words, it does not have to be the 
owner or chairman of the board, or one of the employees? I am not 
trying to be picky. I like this amendment. How would it be the agent? 
How would that be?
  Mr. BROWN. My specific concern there is over an agent whose 
activities might be related to this, but who is not technically an 
employee. For example, a lobbying firm in Washington that might have 
assisted the company in getting a grant could be hit up for a 
contribution.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The lawyer at the lobbying firm and consultant would 
all be included?
  Mr. BROWN. Indeed, that is part of what would be covered by 
amendment's reference to the term agent.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Now you are getting with the program. This is the first 
experience I had when I came here. A Cabinet officer was running around 
giving an allocation, saying to the textile industry, ``Your allocation 
is $350,000.'' I knew the industry, and it always kept in my mind 
because running there and operating, getting all of the awards and what 
have you and kudos from the industry itself, I had never gotten that 
amount of money myself out of my own State. Yet, this Cabinet member 
said, ``This is your allocation,'' and this really brought out the 
Federal campaign election practices, the Campaign Reform Act of 1974. 
We debated this. I had not thought of it. It is probably a good 
precedent, not only here, because it would apply to the Secretary of 
Commerce, but it would apply to any and every Secretary, is that 
correct?
  Mr. BROWN. My sense is a Secretary not affiliated with the awards of 
the grant would not come under it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No, but anyone would affiliate with the awarding of the 
grant.
  Mr. BROWN. The essence here is where you have a connection with the 
act of awarding the grant or research and the person who receives it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. And the SBA can.
  Mr. BROWN. Indeed, if it is covered under this particular act under 
the National Competitiveness Act of 1994.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It would only have to be under the National 
Competitiveness Act that I award General Electric a contract to the 
Department of Defense. It does not apply to me.
  Mr. BROWN. If it does not involve funds covered under the National 
Competitiveness Act, this would not apply.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Would the Senator consider expanding this to include 
all grants of the Federal Government, all departments and agencies?
  Mr. BROWN. I would indeed be delighted. While it is not my purpose to 
burden the bill by causing problems in other places, that would be my 
preference.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good.
  This is a good initiative, unless there is a part I have not thought 
of. People do not realize it sounds serious and it is serious to make 
it a felony.
  It is still a felony, as I understand it. If I recommend you as a 
postmaster of a particular town in my State or you recommend me as a 
postmaster, you have committed felony.
  We put that in the Postal Reform Act as they called it way back in 
the early seventies. So you can start making it felonies here. This 
virus can spread, and maybe we could just simmer down a lot of things 
going on and set a good precedent here.
  This is the nearest thing to campaign finance reform I have seen in 
quite a while. I am willing to go along with this amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the chairman for his comments, and I assure him I 
will not nominate him to be a postmaster.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Nor will I the Senator.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. FORD. 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.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 8:15 p.m. we 
vote on the Brown amendment up or down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The rollcall vote on the pending Brown amendment will occur at 8:15 
p.m.
  Mr. FORD. 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. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise to send an amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Colorado seeking to set 
aside the pending amendment?
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam President.
  I ask also unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
accommodated the Senator from Colorado. Now he wants another amendment. 
Will he be sure he will be through at 8:15 p.m. so we can proceed to 
his original amendment?
  Mr. BROWN. Indeed, I will be happy to assure the distinguished 
Senator that this should be completed quite promptly, and I can assure 
him of that.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, will the Senator require a rollcall on 
this amendment?
  Mr. BROWN. My hope is that it will be accepted. I will not ask for a 
rollcall if it goes through, and my guess is it will be acceptable.
  Mr. FORD. The other amendment was acceptable and the Senator wanted a 
rollcall vote on that. I was not sure.
  Mr. BROWN. It is not my intention.
  Mr. FORD. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1493

 (Purpose: To institute a cost share requirement for single businesses 
   applying for funding under the Advanced Technology Program of the 
            National Institute of Standards and Technology)

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1493.

  The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   The amendment is as follows:

       On page 49, strike line 19 to line 7 on page 50, and insert 
     the following:
       ``(B) strike paragraph (1)(B)(ii) and replace with: 
     participation in such joint ventures, if the Secretary, 
     acting through the Director, determines participation to be 
     appropriate and if the business agrees to pay at least half 
     of the total costs of such joint ventures during the 
     participation period, which shall not extend beyond 5 
     years,'';
       ``(C) Strike paragraph (2) and replace with: enter into 
     contracts and cooperative agreements, and subject to the last 
     sentence of this subsection, other transactions with United 
     States businesses and independent research organizations, 
     especially small businesses and independent research 
     organizations, Provided: that the business or independent 
     research organization agrees to pay at least half of the 
     total costs of a project during the project period, which 
     shall not extend beyond 5 years and Provided further: that 
     the emphasis is placed on applying the Institute's research, 
     research techniques, and expertise to those organizations' 
     research programs;''.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I asked for the reading at least of that 
portion of the amendment I think to make it clear.
  My understanding is that we already have on the books provisions that 
call for cost sharing. The amendment deals with both single businesses 
as well as joint ventures in making it clear that cost sharing of at 
least 50 percent is required by both single businesses and joint 
ventures.
  What is the purpose of it? The purpose of this is to make it clear 
whoever gets the Government money has to put some of their money into 
it as well.
  We have already recognized the need for this by requiring matching 
funds for joint ventures. But I think it is particularly appropriate 
that we make absolutely clear that people who get venture money out of 
this bill will have to risk their own money as well.
  Is 50 percent too low a minimum match to ask? I think it is. It is 
included in this bill, though, at least setting forth a minimum.
  As one who in the private sector spent a portion of his time looking 
at proposals for joint ventures, proposals for new businesses, 
proposals for new operations and for development of new projects, one 
of the things I found, and I believe it applies here, is that people 
tend to be far more careful with what they ask for if they have some of 
their own money riding on the venture as well.
  This, I believe, provides the best insurance that any proposal will 
have good or better management, because it makes sure that the people 
who get the money have some of their own at risk.
  My hope is that Members will find this acceptable and find it a 
positive addition to the bill.
  I believe this is the best insurance we can come up with. If we fund 
ventures without asking the people who take the money to put anything 
of theirs on the line, we invite corruption, we invite abuse, we invite 
waste.
  On the other hand, if we do, as this amendment suggests, ask them to 
step forward and belly up to the bar, as well, I think we provide 
strong incentive to make sure the money is far better used.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It is my understanding, I say to the Senator from 
Colorado--I am just getting an understanding of the amendment itself--
that this refers to the advanced technology program which already has a 
50-50 requirement sharing of the cost.
  So then we go technically to ``cost.'' What are the costs, is that 
what we have involved here in this amendment?
  Mr. BROWN. I believe the Senator is correct in the way he has 
described it.
  My understanding is cost sharing applies only to joint ventures. This 
would extend it both to joint ventures and single entities.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. When the industry comes on an advanced technology 
program, the applicant must have at least 50 percent, put up 50 percent 
of the cost of the money of the particular loan. If they are requesting 
a grant or loan approval of the project under the advanced technology 
program, our experience has been the majority, because they have more 
than 50 percent, they study it out. And we are talking about the cost. 
As I heard the Senator from Colorado, it is going to be more burdensome 
than before.
  We already have that requirement in there, and getting credit for the 
overhead, the building, and so forth of that kind to put down on the 
cost of actually conducting that research.
  We had this measured out. We talked with the Department of Defense. 
We are wondering, for example, on sharing the administration of some of 
the programs that are still within the Department of Defense costs but 
administered by the Department of Commerce. As they transmit over that, 
you do not have two IG's coming. You have one understanding of at least 
50 percent of the cost and that is the way.
  Now is it the concern of the Senator from Colorado as to what 
constitutes cost?
  Mr. BROWN. My concern is that making sure that the sharing provisions 
applies to single businesses as well as joint ventures.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It applies to all--single ventures, joint ventures, 
limited partnerships.
  Mr. BROWN. I am reading under subparagraph (b), the reference, 
(1)(B)(ii). The summary stating, ``by striking the `provision of a 
minority share of the cost of such joint ventures for up to 5 years' 
and inserting in lieu thereof `the option of providing either a 
minority share of the total cost of such joint ventures for up to 5 
years, or only direct costs.''' And it goes on.
  So it does apply the consent to the joint ventures. But at least my 
concern is that we are not fully covered on the portion that relates to 
direct costs which is listed as an option there.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I understand that section (B) reads:

       Participation in such joint ventures by means of grants, 
     cooperative agreements, [or contracts,] contracts, and other 
     transactions if the Secretary, acting through the Director, 
     determines participation to be appropriate, which may include 
     (i) partial start-up funding, (ii) [provision of a minority 
     share of the cost of such joint ventures for up to 5 years] 
     the option of providing either a minority share of the total 
     cost of such joint ventures for up to 5 years, or only direct 
     costs (and not indirect costs, profits, or management fees), 
     for up to 5 years, and (iii) making available equipment, 
     facilities, and personnel.

  Now your amendment would do what?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator that the 
hour of 8:15 is upon us.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will get with the Senator from Colorado later.


                       VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1492

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], and the Senator from Connecticut 
[Mr. Dodd] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and the 
Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--0

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Campbell
     Dodd
     Durenberger
     Helms
     Kassebaum
  So the amendment (No. 1492) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the distinguished chairman has raised 
what I believe is a very valid concern about the accounting procedures 
that would apply to my amendment to ensure a minimum of a 50-50 cost-
sharing arrangement. It is my understanding that the distinguished 
chairman has an interest in assuring that a 50-50 cost-sharing 
arrangement is part of the bill and that he has interest in making sure 
that it is done in such a way so that it does not cause undue burdens 
or unreasonable accounting expense for the entities involved.
  My understanding is that the chairman's staff and my staff will be 
working on developing acceptable language.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the Senator is correct. We both have 
the same interest on the 50-50 cost sharing and how you estimate those 
costs with the least burden to the small business. That is what we are 
working on with the staff. I am confident we can work it out because I 
was sort of nonplused when you called the amendment. I said that is 
what I am for; what am I amending?
  Let the staffs work it out with the least amount of burden, but it 
will be a 50-50 sharing.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his assistance and 
advice. My thought would be to bring it up during our deliberations 
tomorrow with a solution to it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The amendment is withdrawn then?
  Mr. BROWN. I would like to lay it over.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Either way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Nevada.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
change my vote on vote No. 53, from aye to nay. I have cleared this 
with both sides of the aisle, with the floor managers, and I represent 
to the Chamber it would not in any way affect the outcome of that vote.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President I move to reconsider the vote on the just-
adopted Brown amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, we are looking now--our colleagues, of 
course, are very anxious to learn, and so am I-- right now we are 
looking for amendments. I have talked to the majority leader. We will 
continue on to try to dispose of the amendments, as many as we can 
today, because it seems tomorrow is going to be a full day also.
  So I ask our distinguished ranking member to bring on these 
amendments so that we can dispose of them. We have been making pretty 
good progress so far.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado. Is the Senator 
seeking recognition?
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1494

       (Purpose: To reduce the amount of new spending authorized)

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1494:

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the committee substitute as modified, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC.  . SPENDING AUTHORIZATION.

       Notwithstanding any provision of law, including any 
     provision of this Act, the total amount of appropriations 
     authorized by this Act shall not exceed $1,500,000,000.

  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair.
  The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the authorized amount of 
spending in this measure to an amount that is comparable with the House 
bill. This would achieve a savings of a little in excess of $1.3 
billion. It seems to me that this amendment would move us not only 
toward the House position but would also deal with much of the concern 
about the authorized spending in this bill.
  I do not intend to prolong the debate on this item--I assume it may 
well generate some interest. But, I want to at least offer the 
amendment tonight so Members can consider it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, we do not support this amendment. 
Apparently, the amendment is so drawn as to really cut in half the 
program, not necessarily the House amount. The House amount never 
included the $244 million for the information highway.
  Now, over on the House side they have a special bill, a Boucher bill 
and the Boucher bill is contemplated to include that amount. We are 
including it here, and we do not want it excluded there and have it 
handled in a separate bill. That is the main difference when you take 
those two amounts together because the House bill started off at $950, 
we started off at $1.194 for 1995 in the committee report, and, of 
course, it has been cut back to 1984--it is cut back, of course, $1.086 
billion for the year 1995, and $1.253 billion for 1996.
  So what really occurs, Madam President, is that the amendment of the 
Senator from Colorado will eliminate totally, of course, the 
information highway moneys plus I can see here some construction moneys 
that were not in the House bill for those facilities, and there are 
increased amounts on the National Science Foundation. The House 
included $30 million for the National Science Foundation. We increased 
that to $75 million for the 2 years. That is another one of the 
increases just going over it.
  With respect to the laboratory, the House had in there a $300 million 
amount; we have $320 million for 1995 and $350 million for 1996. So you 
can see that is pretty constant. But the way the wording of the 
amendment appears here is to cut it right in half, $1.5. Actually, the 
$1.5 is less than what our Republican colleagues supported in the 
report of this bill. When we unanimously reported this out of the 
Committee of Commerce, they reported an amount of $1.513 billion. He is 
cutting it below what they all voted for back in June of last year and, 
of course, we have these additional endeavors here.
  Of the particular SBA program, I talked about the laboratories, I 
talked about the matter of the facilities, and then, of course, the 
information highway that is in a separate bill over on the House side.
  So you get up casually and you really couple in your discussion and 
in your amendment 2 years and act like, well, it should not exceed the 
House and it is just a little amount.
  Actually, if it was for only 1 year at $1.5, I think we could 
compromise on the $13 million difference. That is the way the committee 
reported. And if we had that difference we would go along, but that is 
not the case at all. He has coupled the 1995 authorization and the 1996 
authorization, so he just eliminates a year, a year's authorization 
under this particular measure, and it is less than what we voted for 
for the 1 year in 1995 when we reported the bill unanimously from the 
committee.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wanted to ask the chairman a question. I do not want to 
necessarily speak on this amendment, although I must say the amendment 
is starting to get closer to the target we are at least talking about 
the bill. We laid this bill down on Monday. As I recall, I was in the 
chair when the distinguished chairman laid this bill down. We have now 
over 4 days covered almost every subject that is being discussed here 
in Washington in the last year or two.
  I am curious, I would ask the chairman of the Commerce Committee when 
the Commerce Committee dealt with S. 4, when that was voted out of the 
committee, was this a controversial bill? Was it a close vote? Could 
the chairman tell us what happened in the committee on this bill?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. In the committee, Mr. President, what really happened 
is that, yes, after all the work we had done over a period of years, 
there was total unanimity. There was no controversy whatsoever. All the 
amounts now the subject matter of the amendment of the Senator from 
Colorado, all the different endeavors with respect to the small 
business loan, with respect to the national information highway, all of 
these coming right on down were all considered and we reported it out 
unanimously.
  What has really occurred is OMB has cut us back so that we would be 
within budget, within the veritable budget freeze going in 1994 to 
1995. I am on that Budget Committee. I am confident that Senator Sasser 
and the Budget Committee is going to report practically the President's 
budget, which will be a freeze. But they come with these facetious--
where does the money come from? Putting on about we have a lot of 
pockets and burning holes in the pockets. Then all the peripheral 
amendments here that have no relation whatsoever. It is now boiling 
down to finally we are getting on target with some of the amendments. 
We will vote on this and we will keep moving.
  And I understand conversation about cloture, we can have several 
cloture votes because I think the klieg light of public interest and 
attention if we can get passed some of the other headlines will just 
show how ludicrous the position has taken.
  Here our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are taking an item 
they are vitally interested in, and I know it and you know it; we have 
worked with them. They are vitally interested in the amounts in this 
bill, in the fairness of the bill, the peer review in the bill. 
Everything about this bill has been worked out, passed the Senate 
unanimously in 1992, unanimously reported out of the Committee of 
Commerce in June of last year.
  Then they come with the tongue and cheek descriptions about the 
amounts, and all of a sudden, it is like I thought up a bill by myself 
and brought it to the floor. Then you can go right on down the list of 
the coalition of technology, including all the large names, blue-chip 
corporations in the technology industry all over America, plus the 
universities, plus the National Association of Manufacturers.
  I have not seen the entity that says that this is a dangerous bill or 
this is a plush bill or pork barrel bill or any of those things. No, 
sir. No contest in it. There are just other reasons unexplained. But 
they have to explain why they are opposing their own bill.
  Let us go ahead, vote, and get the cloture votes and then more 
cloture votes. We can continue.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if I understand the chairman of the 
committee correctly, this bill, S. 4, left the conference committee 
with a unanimous vote, with nobody voting against it, no dissent, comes 
to the floor on a Monday.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is Thursday night, and we have no idea how many 
amendments are left.
  I am curious what the strategy is. The chairman would probably have a 
better idea than I would. He has been here a long, long time. But it 
seems to me this is pretty classic policy discussion.
  Does the chairman believe that this kind of approach is the right 
approach? Or does he believe this is picking winners and losers and 
skating close to an industrial policy, and is bad?
  If you believe it is bad, you vote against it. If you believe it is 
good, you try to promote the right kind of investments, then you 
support this.
  But it seems to me that we are in the process here in which a bill 
that had almost had no opposition gets to the floor, and 4 days later 
we are not able to get to the nub of the policy to vote yes or no on it 
because folks, at their own time, will offer amendments that may or may 
not be germane, may or may not relate to the subject, may or may not be 
involved with the industrial policy or economic growth.
  So the question is, do we ever get to advance this issue? Do we ever 
get to vote on it? That is the question.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I do not know. It seems there should be some shame 
involved in this shenanigan. There ought to be embarrassment at this 
particular point. I think after numerous cloture votes that is what we 
are going to have, and any other bills that come up, we are going to 
have this unanimously approved bill put on somebody else's bill, and 
with amendments.
  We can play this game too. So they will have to, at one time or the 
other, give us a vote up or down on the measure just to see exactly 
where we are.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the chairman. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________