[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT


                           amendment no. 1489

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, last evening, during the floor debate 
on S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, Senator Cohen offered an 
amendment to insert the provisions of S. 1869, the Counterintelligence 
Improvements Act of 1994 in their entirety into the bill. The amendment 
was agreed to by voice vote.
  Although S. 1869 had been referred to this committee, we received no 
prior notice that this amendment was to be offered nor did we learn 
that it had been accepted until after the fact. The committee was in 
closed session at the time taking testimony from the Director of 
Central Intelligence.
  While we appreciate what motivated Senator Cohen to offer his 
amendment as well as what motivated the managers to accept it, it is 
simply premature, in our view, to go forward with this legislation at 
this time and in this manner.
  Since the Ames case was made public, the Select Committee on 
Intelligence has been heavily involved in assessing what went wrong and 
what needs to be done to fix it. While Senator Cohen's bill--which 
incorporates the recommendations made by the so-called Jacobs' panel in 
1990--contains several worthwhile provisions, we think it can be 
improved upon in a number of respects. It also appears likely, based on 
our discussions to date with the administration, that it would oppose 
several of the Jacobs proposals as they are now drafted.
  We intend to introduce a new bill in the next few days which 
incorporates the best features of the Cohen bill and improves upon 
them. Our proposal will also include provisions not in the Cohen bill 
which are suggested by the facts of the Ames case. Public hearings will 
be held on the bill, with the objectives of reporting out a 
comprehensive proposal later this session which has the support of the 
administration.
  Mr. President, I simply want to assure my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle that the Intelligence Committee is fully engaged here and 
will be coming forward in due course to the Senate as a whole with 
legislative recommendations to deal with the problems evident in the 
Ames case. But we must be given an opportunity to do our work in a 
thoughtful, orderly way. Senator Cohen is right when he says we need to 
act. There are clearly some things that are broken. I only ask that our 
process be given a chance to work.


                       nickles amendment no. 1485

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, 2 days ago, the Senate accepted an 
amendment to S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, offered by Senator 
Nickles and entitled the ``Economic and Employment Impact Act.'' This 
amendment would require the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] to 
conduct far-ranging cost impact analyses of all bills considered by 
either House of Congress. The amendment would also require agencies to 
conduct those analyses of all regulatory actions.
  In opposing the amendment I argued, and will point out again, that 
this proposal will be an impediment to the already slow legislative 
process, will require uncertain and unverifiable projections of future 
possible costs, will necessitate the allocation of additional CBO 
resources, and will require agencies to conduct a narrowly focused 
regulatory analysis in a manner much more narrowly than that already 
required by Presidential Executive order. Then and now, I do not argue 
against legislative or regulatory analysis, but just that this 
amendment is not the way to provide for such analysis.
  I rise today, however, not to detail again my various concerns about 
the Nickles amendment, but for the simple purpose of offering for my 
colleagues' review, a letter dated March 10, 1994, from CBO Director, 
Robert Reischauer. This letter confirms my concern about the resources 
CBO would have to devote to this analysis, and that those resources are 
not available. Mr. Reischauer writes:

       Without having done a complete analysis of all the 
     requirements imposed on CBO by the Nickles Amendment, our 
     preliminary estimate is that we would have to increase our 
     workforce by about 80 percent of the size of the [CBO] Budget 
     Analysis Division, or around 60 people. Applying this same 
     proportion to the Budget Analysis Division's proposed budget 
     for 1995, the total cost of additional resources required by 
     CBO would amount to $6,200,000, at a minimum.

  After describing in more detail what the needed $6.2 million would 
cover, Mr. Reischauer puts it quite simply: ``To implement the Nickles 
amendment, CBO will need a 1995 budget increase of more than 30 
percent.''
  This letter, which I ask unanimous consent to be included in the 
Record, following my remarks, clearly sets out the bottom-line. And I 
see nothing from the proponents of the amendment to indicate that any 
of these needed resources will be forthcoming. For this reason alone, I 
urge that the Nickles amendment be struck in conference.


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 1994.
     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 amount of additional resources 
     the Congressional Budget Office would need to carry out the 
     provisions of the Nickles Amendment to S. 4, the 
     Competitiveness Act of 1994.
       The Nickles Amendment requires CBO to prepare economic and 
     employment impact estimates to accompany each bill or 
     resolution reported by any committee of the House or Senate 
     or considered on the floor of either House. These impact 
     statements are supposed to estimate the costs to individuals, 
     consumers, businesses, and state and local governments.
       As required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act 
     of 1974, CBO already provides five-year federal budget cost 
     estimates for virtually every public bill reported by 
     legislative committees in the House and Senate. Official bill 
     cost estimates average about 700 per year. Additionally, CBO 
     is required to review bills to identify their potential 
     impact on state and local governments. For the last ten 
     years, we have prepared more than 600 state and local cost 
     estimates per year.
       The bulk of this work is done in our Budget Analysis 
     Division which, with 75 employees, is the largest of CBO's 
     seven divisions. Without having done a complete analysis of 
     all of the requirements imposed on CBO by the Nickles 
     Amendment, our preliminary estimate is that we would have to 
     increase our workforce by about 80 percent of the size of the 
     Budget Analysis Division, or around 60 people. Applying this 
     same proportion to the Budget Analysis Division's proposed 
     budget for 1995, the total cost of additional resources 
     required by CBO would amount to $6,200,000, at a minimum.
       The additional $6.2 million breaks down as follows:
       $5 million in payroll and benefit costs for an additional 
     60 analysts;
       $640,000 to cover increased ADP timesharing and model 
     development costs;
       $350,000 for additional computer hardware and software 
     purchases;
       $170,000 in increased central support costs, including 
     additional telephones and office supplies and equipment and 
     the like.
       I emphasize that this is the minimum additional amount 
     needed to cover a 60-person increase in CBO's staff size 
     because it fails to include any provision for necessary 
     increases in computer support staff or other administrative 
     staff. This is a 27 percent increase in CBO's current staff 
     size and obviously would have a significant impact upon 
     administrative services.
       To implement the Nickles Amendment, CBO will need a 1995 
     budget increase of more than 30%. CBO's current request is 
     less than CBO's baseline projection for the agency. 
     Additionally, the amendment creates logistics and timing 
     problems. CBO currently occupies nearly the entire 4th floor 
     of the Ford House Office Building. To accommodate an 
     additional 60 employees, CBO would need a full wing of an 
     additional floor of the building. Also, the Nickles Amendment 
     calls for implementation 30 days after enactment. It would be 
     nearly impossible to staff to the required level in that 
     time. Finally, this estimate does not include any increase 
     that would be required in CBO's 1994 budget nor has relief 
     been granted CBO from current law requiring a four percent 
     reduction in legislative branch staffing.
       This is a very preliminary analysis of the Nickles 
     Amendment's impact on CBO. It represents a minimum increase, 
     however, in the amount of additional resources CBO would need 
     to carry out those provisions.
       I hope this information is useful. I would be happy to 
     discuss further this matter with you or your staff.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer,
     Director.

                          ____________________