[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.
____________________