[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 70 (Wednesday, June 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD HAITI

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate returns from the Memorial Day 
recess after a time of sober reflection. We have been looking back with 
pride on the magnificent accomplishments of the Americans who liberated 
Europe from the Nazis, and with sorrow on the supreme sacrifice of so 
many fine young men. But, as President Clinton observed, the ``longest 
day'' has not ended, because the challenges to freedom never end. As we 
return to take up the Nation's business we must face a number of 
challenges to freedom and world peace--in North Korea, in the Balkans, 
and in the Middle East.
  In our own hemisphere we face a growing problem in Haiti. Under 
domestic political pressure, the President recently announced his 
second major shift in policy toward Haiti. Instead of intercepting 
Haitians on the high seas and returning them--which incidentally was 
the policy of his predecessor he soundly condemned--now the President 
has ordered asylum hearings for refugees at sea. At the same time, the 
United States has led the move for tighter U.N. sanctions against 
Haiti.
  Tougher sanctions will devastate Haiti's poor, not the corrupt 
military dictatorship we want to replace. Loosening the restrictions on 
entry to the United States while tightening sanctions can have only one 
result. Thousands more Haitians will arrive on our shores, destitute 
and needing medical care, straining our already overburdened welfare 
system to the breaking point. One Haitian expert has predicted as many 
as 100,000 may risk the voyage during the fair sailing weather between 
now and the advent of hurricane season.
  While Haiti does not represent a national security threat to the 
United States in the traditional sense, it is certainly not in this 
Nation's interests--nor frankly in Haiti's best interests--for tens of 
thousands of its citizens to decamp to Florida. The Haitians are not 
political refugees, they are economic refugees. Given the increase of 
the homeless and poverty levels on our own shores, the United States 
cannot offer economic asylum for others until we have solved our own 
problems.
  Unfortunately, the administration has boxed itself in regarding 
Haiti. The President's advisors have narrowed our options to either 
tightening sanctions or invading. Neither is a good option.
  The American people have made their reluctance to intervene 
militarily in Haiti very clear. We tried it once in 1915, when 
President Woodrow Wilson sent in the Marines to temporarily restore 
order. That temporary intervention lasted until 1934. The same thing 
could happen again. There is no doubt that the United States military 
could easily dispose of the Haitian military and gendarmes and put Mr. 
Aristide back in power if that must be our goal. But what happens then? 
Are we prepared to occupy Haiti on a long-term basis to prop up a man 
who is detested by a large portion of Haiti's population, even if he 
was democratically elected. Are we prepared to fight a protracted 
guerilla war in the name of nation building?
  That leaves the second option. We have now pinned our hopes on the 
new U.N. sanctions. Yet in doing so we are guilty of crushing an 
already desperate people with the new sanctions, which may well prove 
to be futile in any case. As far as the poor people of Haiti are 
concerned, we are the villains, not their rulers. Our lofty talk about 
restoring democracy does not ease their terrible suffering and 
deprivation. Who can blame them for wanting to escape? Yet who can 
blame the people of the United States, in particular the people of 
Florida, for wanting them to stay home? In this sense we are both 
villain and victim of the no-win situation our inept statecraft has 
created.

  Mr. President, it is time we looked for a new approach. I am taking 
the floor today to urge the administration to find a way out of this 
blind alley. We must broaden our options and divest ourselves of sole 
ownership of this dilemma, before the problem reaches crisis 
proportions.
  Most Members perhaps were not aware that the Organization of American 
States is meeting this week in Brazil. The OAS has issued a resolution 
calling for a multinational force drawn from member states to assist 
Haiti's transition, after the military rulers step down. The 
involvement of the OAS is a welcome addition. The OAS was created to 
promote democracy, stability, and peace in the Western Hemisphere. It 
is an excellent forum for the peaceful resolution of problems like 
Haiti.
  I believe the OAS must be brought in even more and encouraged to 
address Haiti as a serious concern of all the Americas. If the crisis 
in Haiti deepens to the point that its neighbor the Dominican Republic 
is destabilized, the OAS will have to become more deeply involved. Why 
wait until then to gain the benefit of the OAS's collective experience?
  Now that the OAS has begun to address the problem of Haiti, the 
President should ask for consultation of the foreign ministers of the 
member states to discuss additional OAS actions. Through the OAS, let 
us cast a wider net for new diplomatic initiatives, for new economic 
and political solutions.
  I urge the administration to initiate a coalition response to Haiti's 
turmoil by working with the OAS in search of a solution that targets 
the real problems in Haiti; which, if implemented, will ensure that 
Haiti recovers not just politically, but also economically.
  If we must force to place Aristide back into power, Haiti's 
Government will need protection as he reestablishes control. Under the 
auspices of the OAS, the Inter-American Defense Board could provide a 
coalition of its member nations for a security force to help democracy 
take root in Haiti, as called for in this week's OAS resolution.
  At the same time the OAS could send in economic, humanitarian, and 
judicial advisors to teach Haitians the fundamentals of governing a 
nation which bears the scars of so many ruthless dictatorships. By 
teaching the skills necessary to establish a successful democracy, the 
OAS will be providing long-term aid that reaches the root of the 
current crisis, beyond the immediate situation of refugees and 
restoring Aristide to power.
  Mr. President, if we do not begin looking outside the current policy 
framework for creative solutions, I fear that pressures for ill-
considered military intervention may build irresistibly, and we may 
find the tragedy in Somalia repeating itself in Haiti.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1762

 (Purpose: To provide Government contractors and the Government access 
     to alternative dispute resolution procedures by requiring the 
  Government and contractors to make available such procedures unless 
  they identify the circumstances in which the use of such procedures 
                        would be inappropriate)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1762.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 463, line 3, insert ``(a) Extension of Authority.--
     '' before ``Section 6(e)''.
       On page 463, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       (b) Availability of Procedures to Small Business Government 
     Contractors.--Section 6(e) of such Act is amended by 
     inserting after the first sentence the following:
       ``In any case in which the contracting officer rejects a 
     contractor's request for alternative dispute resolution 
     proceedings, the contracting officer shall provide the 
     contractor with a written explanation, citing one or more of 
     the conditions in section 572(b) of title V, United States 
     Code, or such other specific reasons that alternative dispute 
     resolution procedures are inappropriate for the resolution of 
     the dispute.
       ``In any case in which a contractor rejects a request of an 
     agency for alternative dispute resolution proceedings, the 
     contractor shall inform the agency in writing of the 
     contractor's specific reasons for rejecting the request.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Senator Bumpers and myself are working 
still with Senator Glenn and others on another amendment.
  Mr. President, I think probably the best way to summarize this 
amendment--it now has been accepted--is just to read directly from it.
  ``In any case in which the contracting officer,'' this deals with the 
ADR, alternative dispute resolution process, which I think is extremely 
important to small businesses. The amendment reads:

       In any case in which the contracting officer rejects a 
     contractor's request for alternative dispute resolution 
     proceedings, the contracting officer shall provide the 
     contractor with a written explanation, citing one or more of 
     the conditions in section 572(b) of the title V, United 
     States Code, or such other specific reasons that alternative 
     dispute resolution procedures are inappropriate for the 
     resolution of the dispute.

  The other side of the coin is:

       In any case in which a contractor rejects a request of an 
     agency for alternative dispute resolution proceedings, the 
     contractor shall inform the agency in writing of the 
     contractor's specific reasons for rejecting the request.

  The reason for this amendment is that before, if the Government or, 
for that matter, business, said they did not want to be in this ADR 
process, there was no obligation to be clear as to reasons why they 
would not participate. I was looking at this initially from the point 
of view of kind of due process and fairness for small business. This 
way, we have done it on both sides with both parties.
  I think it is an important amendment and it improves what I think is 
a very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to provide government 
contractors access to alternative dispute resolution [ADR] procedures 
by requiring a contracting officer to participate in such dispute 
resolution techniques, unless the contracting officer provides written 
explanation which identifies one of the existing statutory 
circumstances--i.e., exemptions--in which Congress has determined 
alternative dispute techniques to be inappropriate, or provides in 
writing other specific reasons that alternative dispute resolution 
procedures are inappropriate to resolve the dispute. Likewise, if the 
contractor rejects an agency's request for ADR, the contractor will 
inform the agency of its specific reasons for rejecting ADR.
  Provisions in S. 1587 continue, for another 5 years, the ADR process 
whereby the Government and contractor have the option of resolving 
their dispute through streamlined ADR procedures, unless certain 
statutory exemptions apply.
  However, under S. 1587, if these exemptions are inapplicable, the 
Government contracting officer could still arbitrarily refuse to 
participate in these ADR procedures, and may not be required to provide 
good reasons why.
  I want to assure my colleagues that this amendment does not require 
the Government, or the contractor, to engage in ADR if it is 
inappropriate to do so. It simply requires both parties to give good 
reasons why ADR would not be appropriate. And some of those reasons are 
already provided for in statute. We ask that the Government take a 
circumspective look at ADR and consider using it if a contractor 
requests it--and if not, then base this decision on one of the 
statutory exemptions, or other reasoned consideration.
  This is an extremely important provision for small businesses. If a 
small business cannot resolve their contract dispute with the 
Government through ADR, they will have to do it by going to the Board 
of Contract Appeals, or to federal court--these are, by their nature, 
much longer and more costly proceedings.
  In fact, these proceedings can go on for months, even years, and 
still they may be no closer to resolution then when they started. In 
the meantime, if the contract dispute is over payment for instance, the 
small business is not getting paid, but is instead having to spend 
time, money, and substantial effort to resolve what may be a simple 
disagreement, and one which might have been resolved quicker in an ADR 
proceeding.
  The scenario could be even worse: In Minnesota, and probably 
elsewhere, we have been told about companies that have gone out of 
business while fighting and waiting for their contract dispute with the 
Government to be resolved.
  I understand that one businessman in Minneapolis had to cease 
operations of his business after he waited 6 years and spent almost 
$400,000 trying to resolve his dispute with the Government. I've been 
told that another company went bankrupt because it lacked working 
capital after it took more than 3 years and over $40,000 in litigation 
expenses to obtain just a partial resolution. ADR may not have solved 
these companies problems * * * but maybe it could have.
  If ADR had been available to these two businesses, then maybe these 
companies would be in a different situation today.
  In short, ADR procedures are considered by many to be more 
streamlined and less expensive than other contract resolution 
procedures, and are heavily favored by small business concerns. I would 
also like to point out that this amendment is also supported by the 
Small Business Working Group on Procurement Reform, which is comprised 
of many representative groups--the Minority Business Enterprise Legal 
Defense and Education Fund, the National Association of Women Business 
Owners--just to name two.
  Mr. President, it is time we give ADR a chance. Because it does not 
require the lengthy and time consuming procedures of going to court or 
the Board of Contract Appeals, ADR itself may help to streamline 
Government activity in the contract disputes area, as well as provide a 
more palatable option for small business. And streamlining, after all, 
is the purpose of this legislation.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we negotiated on this quite a while today 
here. It is a compromise.
  I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Minnesota being willing 
to work this out. It has been worked out and we are glad to accept it 
on this side of the aisle, and I believe it has been accepted on the 
other side. We are prepared for a vote, if the Senator is ready to do 
so.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am ready to vote. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1762) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1763

(Purpose: To continue to permit a small business winning a bid protest 
 before the GAO or the GSA Board of Contract Appeals to be reimbursed 
   for reasonable amounts incurred for the fees of attorneys and any 
                 consultants or expert witnesses used)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 1763.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. 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 383, line 15, insert ``(other than a small business 
     concern (within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Small 
     Business Act))'' after ``No Party''.
       On page 393, line 24, insert ``(other than a small business 
     concern (within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Small 
     Business Act)) after ``no party''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this particular case, to summarize this 
amendment--and we have had a whole day of fairly intense negotiations 
and I send this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator 
Bumpers--let me just summarize.
  The purpose of the amendment really describes the amendment. It is:

       To continue to permit a small business winning a bid 
     protest before the GAO or the GSA Board of Contract Appeals 
     to be reimbursed for reasonable amounts incurred for fees of 
     attorneys and any consultants or expert witnesses used.

  Mr. President, the initial language had a cap, and my concern was 
about small businesses do not have in-house counsel and whether or not 
vis-a-vis the procurement and appeals process this would work out well 
for them.
  I think now this amendment is acceptable to the managers of the bill. 
I thank them for their cooperation throughout the day of negotiation.
  Mr. GLENN. 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. BUMPERS. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
allow small business concerns, as defined by the Small Business Act, 
which win bid protests before the U.S. General Accounting Office or the 
GSA Board of Contract Appeals to be reimbursed by the Government for 
reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees.
  Provisions in S. 1587 place limits on the amount of attorneys' fees 
and expert witness fees small business owners can recoup upon winning a 
successful bid protest. The bill would limit the amount of fees bid 
protesters could recoup to $75 per hour.
  Many large corporations have in-house counsels or the resources to 
engage in their company's bid protests, and therefore would not be 
hampered by a $75 per hour reimbursement limitation.
  For small business--plainly speaking, a limitation on this hourly 
reimbursable rate would have a chilling effect on small business' 
ability to engage in bid protests. Since most small businesses do not 
have attorneys or experts on staff, small businesses would be required 
to retain outside counsel for this purpose, and in order for most to 
afford to do this, they'd have to find an attorney or expert who 
charged $75 per hour.
  Therefore, if this limitation is put in place, meaningful and 
successful bid protests by small businesses would probably become 
illusory. Small businesses probably could not afford to pay for 
attorneys and experts that specialize in the procurement field, and 
they probably could not challenge what they feel are bid decisions 
possibly contrary to law or regulation without placing an extreme 
financial burden on their business.
  In essence, with a cap on the reimbursement of attorney and expert 
fees, we are asking small business, the sector which would be most 
affected by this limitation, to unreasonably foot the bill to ensure 
the Government engages in good procurement practice.
  One thing I would like to emphasize is that small businesses will 
only be entitled to this reimbursement if they win. We are not asking 
for blanket coverage for any action a potential contractor wants to 
take--only if the claimant wins. Preserving the current law and not 
allowing this bill to extend the reimbursement limit to small business 
merely maintains the status quo for small business. It does not foster 
frivolous claims, it does not foster frivolous lawsuits.
  It does mean rewarding meritorious challenges by small business on 
the procurement system when those challenges have a right to be heard. 
If a winning claim means that procurement law and policy will be 
ensured, then these small business bid protesters should be compensated 
for their time and efforts by helping to preserve the public's trust in 
how the procurement process works.
  This is really a small, yet extremely important and vital element, to 
preserve for small business, which must already overcome a myriad of 
obstacles in their quest to do business with the Federal Government.
  This amendment is supported by the Small Business Working Group on 
Procurement Reform, which I understand has specifically asked each 
Senator by letter for relief in this area.
  The Small Business Working Group is comprised of many other 
representative groups, among them the Minority Business Enterprise 
Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Association of Women 
Business Owners, The National Association of Minority Contractors, and 
the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, just to 
name a few. I think it is time we stand by small business, and respond 
to their request for relief in this area.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, so that all of our colleagues will 
understand, I would like to say, I consider this a very important 
amendment. It deals with providing attorney fees to people who feel 
that they have been wronged in the contract award process. If you are a 
bidder on a Government contract and feel you have been wronged, you can 
file a protest and the GAO will consider the protest and determine 
whether or not, in their opinion, you were wronged.
  If the GAO says you have not been wronged, normally that is the end 
of it. But if either the GAO, or the GSA Board of Contract Appeals, the 
other bid protest forum says that you have been wronged, under existing 
law, you are entitled to reasonable attorney fees.
  Mr. President, for the past several years, we have had an average of 
about 3,000 protests per year, of which roughly 100 have been 
successful. So you can see there is no great incentive, even with 
reasonable attorney fees, under existing law for somebody to protest, 
because if you only have a 100 out of 3,000 chance, or roughly 3 
percent chance, of succeeding, you are not going to protest without 
good cause.
  What this bill does, for some very strange reason which I do not 
fathom, it limits the attorney fees to be paid to the 1980 equal access 
to justice statute with its $75 an hour cap. That would be the most 
anybody who wins a protest could collect.
  In 1980, $75 an hour might have been a fairly reasonable attorney 
fee. I do not know. Lord knows, this country lawyer never made $75 an 
hour in his life.
  But today, everybody in this town has their own lawyer. And I see 
these stories where the President could conceivably be out $10,000 a 
day on attorney fees.
  Now, I feel strongly about removing that $75 cap and continuing to 
say these people are entitled to reasonable attorney fees because, No. 
1, $75 is an obsolete figure. No. 2, I do not want a small business 
person who is genuinely wronged and is advised that he has been wronged 
to feel that he ought not to do anything about it because he cannot 
afford the attorney fees.
  Strangely enough, if you protest to the GSA Board of Contract Appeals 
and you lose, and you still feel strongly about it, and you go to 
Federal court. If you win in Federal court, you get no attorney fees 
for the cost of the appeal.
  This provision of the bill or the amendment does not address that. It 
is a tragedy that the bill does not, because you ought to get your 
attorney fees from the very beginning if you win in Federal court as 
part of this protest process.
  Mr. President, I remember one time I had a contract appeals case. 
Because the Administrative Procedure Act said that my client had slept 
on his rights, that was before he hired me, you understand, I had to go 
to the Court of Claims, and I had to get a special bill passed in 
Congress to authorize me to do that. It took 7 long years and a 1-week 
trial to get an $80,000 judgment. I figured my fee at about $1.50 an 
hour. But I did not get that fee from the Federal Government. I got it 
from my client. The Federal Government bankrupted my client. The Court 
of Claims so held and gave him $80,000. I like to never have gotten my 
money, got no interest, got no attorney fees, nothing.
  Now, Mr. President, this is an increasingly pressing problem that 
this Congress is going to have to deal with, attorney fees for people 
that the Government wrongs. It is patently unfair to have the U.S. 
Government arrayed against some small business person who cannot afford 
that kind of odds.
  Mr. President, we used to tell a story in Arkansas about old Clem 
Callahan. He was making moonshine up in the Ozark Mountains, and the 
Feds came up and arrested him, brought him into Little Rock and 
arraigned him. Finally, they got around to trial and they hauled old 
Clem into Federal court, and the bailiff announced the case, United 
States versus Callahan. Old Clem turned to his lawyer and says, ``Them 
don't sound like very fair odds to me.''
  Well, when you have the whole Federal Government arrayed against you, 
those are not very fair odds. And so what the amendment of the Senator 
from Minnesota does is to simply level the playing field a little bit.
  This is not a bank breaker when you consider that only 100 
protestants a year succeed. Reasonable attorney fees in that many cases 
is providing a modest amount of justice, that will not be available to 
small business people in the future, if we do not adopt the amendment 
of  the Senator from Minnesota. I wish to thank my friend for the work 
he has done on it. I understood the amendment is going to be accepted.

  So, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that request be 
withheld.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Both Senator Bumpers and I have spoken about the 
amendment. I think it is acceptable now to my colleagues.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. 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. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the pending business I believe is the 
amendment proposed by Senator Wellstone.
  Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Wellstone amendment to the committee 
substitute is pending.
  Mr. GLENN. We are prepared to accept that amendment. I believe 
Senator Roth is also prepared to accept it.
  Mr. ROTH. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and just remind 
them that it is the Wellstone-Bumpers amendment. I want to include 
Senator Bumpers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The amendment (No. 1763) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1764

(Purpose: To provide for the rationalization of definitions in Federal 
             law regarding certain small business concerns)

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, 
I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], for Mrs. Hutchison, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1764.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 518 between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 4105. DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS REGARDING CERTAIN SMALL 
                   BUSINESS CONCERNS.

       (a) Review Required.--
       (1) Definitions to be identified.--The Administrator for 
     Federal Procurement Policy shall conduct a comprehensive 
     review of Federal laws, as in effect on November 1, 1994, to 
     identify and catalogue all of the provisions in such laws 
     that define (or describe for definitional purposes) the small 
     business concerns set forth in paragraph (2) for purposes of 
     authorizing the participation of such small business concerns 
     as prime contractors or subcontractors in--
       (A) contracts awarded directly by the Federal Government or 
     subcontracts awarded under such contracts; or
       (B) contracts and subcontracts funded, in whole or in part, 
     by Federal financial assistance under grants, cooperative 
     agreements, or other forms of Federal assistance.
       (2) Covered small business concerns.--The small business 
     concerns referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
       (A) Small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
       (B) Minority-owned small business concerns.
       (C) Small business concerns owned and controlled by women.
       (D) Woman-owned small business concerns.
       (b) Matters To Be Developed.--On the basis of the results 
     of the review carried out under subsection (a), the 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall develop--
       (1) uniform definitions for the small business concerns 
     referred to in subsection (a)(2);
       (2) uniform agency certification standards and procedures 
     for--
       (A) determinations of whether a small business concern 
     qualifies as a small business concern referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2) under an applicable standard for purposes 
     contracts and subcontracts referred to in subsection (a)(1); 
     and
       (B) reciprocal recognition by an agency of a decision of 
     another agency regarding whether a small business concern 
     qualifies as a small business concern referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2) for such purposes; and
       (3) such other related recommendations as the Administrator 
     determines appropriate consistent with the review results.
       (c) Procedures and Schedule.--
       (1) Participation by certain interested parties.--The 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall provide 
     for the participation in the review and activities under 
     subsections (a) and (b) by representatives of--
       (A) the Small Business Administration (including the Office 
     of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy);
       (B) the Minority Business Development Agency of the 
     Department of Commerce;
       (C) the Department of Transportation;
       (D) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       (E) such other executive departments and agencies as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.
       (2) Consultation with certain interested parties.--In 
     carrying out subsections (a) and (b), the Administrator shall 
     consult with representatives of organizations representing--
       (A) minority-owned business enterprises;
       (B) women-owned business enterprises; and
       (C) other organizations that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.
       (3) Schedule.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish in the 
     Federal Register a notice which--
       (A) lists the provisions of law identified in the review 
     carried out under subsection (a);
       (B) describes the matters to be developed on the basis of 
     the results of the review pursuant to subsection (b);
       (C) solicits public comment regarding the matters described 
     in the notice pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) for a 
     period of not less than 60 days; and
       (D) addresses such other matters as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate to ensure the comprehensiveness of the 
     review and activities under subsections (a) and (b).
       (d) Report.--Not later than May 1, 1995, the Administrator 
     for Federal Procurement Policy shall submit to the Committees 
     on Small business of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report on the results of the review carried 
     out under subsection (a) and the actions taken under 
     subsection (b). The report shall include a discussion of the 
     results of the review, a description of the consultations 
     conducted and public comments received, and the 
     Administrator's recommendations with regard to the matters 
     identified under subsection (b).
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment is to provide a study to be 
made of the rationalization of definitions in Federal law regarding 
certain small business concerns.
  It is my understanding that this amendment is satisfactory to the 
majority side.
  Mr. GLENN. That is correct. We are willing to accept it on this side.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas.
  The amendment (No. 1764) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. My colleague, Senator Mikulski, and I appreciate the 
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee indulging us in this 
colloquy. We are concerned that section 6501 of the procurement reform 
bill would preclude former FFRDC's that conduct analyses for the 
Federal Government from continuing to perform these evaluations.
  As the chairman knows, the special relationship between FFRDC and the 
Government was recognized. We would urge similar recognition for those 
former FFRDC's that continue to perform analyses of Government 
procurements. We understand it is the Chairman's intention to address 
this issue in conference. Is this correct?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes, the Senator from Maryland is correct. It is my 
intention to address this issue in conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am pleased to hear my colleague from Ohio say that. 
This is a very important issue for these few and unique institutions 
that, while not FFRDC's, continue to have a special relationship with 
the Government. We want to preserve that relationship.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Will the Senator yield? Section 4012 of this bill 
establishers a small business reservation for contracts under the new 
simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000. It is my understanding 
that, in effect this amendment merely updates section 15(j) of the 
Small Business Act to reflect the new threshold.
  Mr. GLENN. The Senator is correct. Contracts for the procurement of 
goods and services with an anticipated value under the new simplified 
acquisition threshold, rather than the current $25,000 small purchase 
threshold, will be reserved exclusively for eligible small business 
concerns, excepting contracts for purchases under $2500.
  Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield? It is my understanding that the 
GSA's Multiple Award Schedule program will continue to be available to 
Federal agencies without change, as they are today, to acquire goods 
and services at fair and reasonable prices that meet the government's 
needs.
  Mr. GLENN. The Senator is correct. The purpose of this provision is 
to streamline the process of making small purchases, while also 
increasing government contracting opportunities for small business and 
small disadvantaged business concerns. The increase in the threshold to 
$100,000 and the use of simplified acquisition procedures will 
accomplish both goals.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senators for the clarification and for 
their leadership on this important matter. We commend them all for the 
diligence they have demonstrated in pursuing this much-needed 
legislation.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I rise today to express my appreciation to Senators 
Glenn and Roth for their willingness to enter into this colloquy on 
what I believe is a critical issue facing American business. Form their 
positions as chairman and ranking member of the Government Affairs 
Committee, they know full well the complex relationship between the 
Federal Government and the private sector. The bill before the Senate 
today, S. 1587, addresses the complex and overlapping requirements that 
have made procurement from the Federal Government a hassle for many 
businesses. But just as mountains of Government-mandated paperwork is a 
disincentive for businesses to contract with the Government, so it is a 
detriment to businesses productivity.
  The problem of Government-mandated paperwork has grown so large 
difficult to know where to begin to get relief. What I have tried to do 
is isolate specific examples of this activity and eliminate them. I 
recently introduced legislation to address such activity by the 
Department of Commerce. The Bureau of Census requires businesses, large 
and small, to provide detailed, quarterly financial information on 
their financial activities for 2 years. It's called the Quarterly 
Financial Report Program, and participation is mandatory if a business 
is unfortunate enough to be selected. Last year, the Office of 
Management and Budget estimated that over 189.000 hours were spent by 
businesses filling out forms associated with this program, at a cost of 
millions of dollars.
  Moreover, the Department of Commerce compiles the data, issues a 
report, and sells the information it has compelled from businesses to 
outside users. Certainly, I do not doubt the utility of much of this 
information. However, I don't believe it is fair for the Government to 
compel information from the private sector--without compensation for 
the considerable time and resources devoted to its completion--and then 
sell it to outside users. That is why I offered an amendment to make 
the completion of these forms voluntary, or to have the Secretary of 
Commerce issue fair and reasonable compensation for the considerable 
time and effort it takes to comply with this federal mandate.
  After consulting with the managers of this bill, I understand their 
concerns that legislation dealing with procurement reform may not be 
the most appropriate place to offer this amendment. Nonetheless, I 
believe this is an issue of critical importance to the relationship 
between the private sector and the Federal Government, and hope that 
future, more appropriate vehicles will be available to address this 
issue.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank my colleague for bringing this matter to the 
attention of the Senate. I too am seriously concerned at the volume and 
burden of Government regulation that is strangling the productivity of 
American businesses. While I do not believe this amendment is 
appropriate for the measure before the Senate today, it is my 
understanding that the appropriate measure, The Paperwork Reduction 
Act, will be marked-up in the Government Affairs Committee next week. 
Hopefully this measure will then be brought to the Senate floor in the 
near future. I look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia on 
this issue at that time.
  Mr. GLENN. I associate myself with the comments from the ranking 
member of the Government Affairs Committee. As the chairman of that 
committee, I can assure the Senator that the issue of paperwork 
reduction is a high priority, and that my committee will mark up 
legislation on the matter next week. Since the purpose of that 
legislation is to lessen the burden of federally mandated paperwork, I 
look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia at that time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senators from Ohio and Delaware for their 
comments, and commend them for the work they have done on this bill. I 
appreciate their interest in the issue of paperwork reduction, and look 
forward to addressing this issue on the paperwork reduction 
legislation.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I wish to make several comments 
concerning S. 1587, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. 
As the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I will focus on 
those aspects important to the small business community.
  The process that has brought us here today has not been an easy one. 
It took the Members and staff of three Senate committees more than 1\1/
2\ years to write the bill. That effort came after 2 years of work by 
the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Laws. 
Otherwise known as the section 800 panel, this group of Government and 
private sector procurement experts was created by the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 1991.
  Mr. President, this bill is important. I applaud the efforts of all 
involved. I wish I could stand here today in full support of the 
legislation. I cannot. Simply put, the bill could do much more for 
small business. I have worked to improve numerous provisions with which 
the small business community is concerned. Some progress has been made. 
I wish we had been able to accomplish more. However, the other body is 
working on companion legislation and is expected to consider a similar 
bill soon. It is my hope that many of the shortcomings in this 
legislation will be addressed as the process continues.
  This measure is designed as a procurement simplification or 
streamlining bill. This is an admirable goal. However, streamlining the 
Government's procurement policies must not merely make purchasing 
easier for the Government. We also must ensure that opportunities for 
businesses--especially small businesses--to sell to their Government 
are enhanced, not diminished. I am certain this is a goal shared by 
most of my colleagues. Unfortunately, until quite recently, little was 
being done to address the issue in this legislation. Indeed, as this 
bill was being written, the small business community was quite 
concerned that its concerns would essentially be bypassed in the name 
of streamlining and flexibility.
  For instance, the authors of this bill included a provision granting 
broad statutory authority for the Government to waive any laws relating 
to Government procurement as such laws apply to subcontractors of a 
contractor furnishing a commercial item or any subcontractor furnishing 
a commercial component. A likely use of such a waiver would be the 
subcontracting requirements of section 8(d) of the Small Business Act. 
Section 8(d) ensures that contractors make use of small business 
concerns in their lower tier subcontracting and supply plans. A broad 
waiver could prevent small businesses owned and controlled by socially 
and economically disadvantaged individuals from participating as 
subcontractors.
  I understand an amendment may be offered to limit the waiver 
authority only to subcontracting requirements regarding commercial 
products. This is an improvement over the bill as introduced. However, 
I am concerned that the definition of commercial products is so broad 
that it could include some commercial services.
  I also understand that under the amendment, small business and 
minority business utilization plans would be made a source selection 
criterion before contracts are let, rather than a postcontract 
requirement, as under current law. I fully support such a change. It 
could mean the strength of prime contractors' small business 
utilization plans may, in effect, determine who wins bidding wars among 
contractors. Such a focus would promote efficiency by encouraging 
healthy, free market competition.
  Another serious problem with S. 1587 concerns new procedures for 
commercial item acquisition conducted through the governmentwide 
Federal Acquisition Regulation. Specifically, the bill provides no 
constraints on how the regulations would define market acceptance 
criteria. As written, it allows regulators to give contracting officers 
the authority to base market acceptance upon the volume of previous 
market sales. The effect could be a market acceptance level so high as 
to exclude small businesses--businesses with fully commercial products, 
but limited markets--from the process.
  Here again, it is my understanding the managers may offer an 
amendment designed to address this concern. However, in draft form, the 
volume of sales issue was not directly addressed. Unless specific 
statutory standards can be developed, the potential for abuse will 
remain. I share the fear of the small business community that 
regulators may base their definition largely upon volume of sales, 
rather than a business's ability to supply the desired goods or 
services. In short, the legislation in its current form provides 
regulators too little guidance in defining market acceptability.
  Mr. President, a number of items in this bill are positive for small 
business. Yet even in many of these sections, problems remain. One such 
provision concerns the small business small purchase reserve. Under the 
Small Business Act, a contract in an amount below what is known as the 
small purchase threshold is reserved for exclusive competition among 
small businesses, unless the contracting officer is unable to obtain 
offers from two or more small businesses that can furnish the product 
or service at a fair market price. Currently, the threshold is $25,000. 
Under this legislation, the threshold would be renamed the simplified 
acquisition threshold and raised to $100,000. This is a much needed 
reform of current law.
  Unfortunately, this section also includes what I consider a rather 
odd, unwise and somewhat risky provision. It excludes all purchases 
below $2,500 from the small business small purchase reserve and labels 
them micro purchases. Evidently, this was done in order to facilitate a 
provision the administration deems essential in simplifying Federal 
procurement--namely that Government officials are to be issued 
Government credit cards that could be used for small purchases of 
office equipment, supplies, and other items. Micro purchases would not 
be regulated. In other words, purchasers could choose larger stores 
rather than small businesses and disregard business location or cost of 
the product or service. Thus, while this measure will expedite 
purchasing practices, it does not guarantee agencies will save money. 
In addition, for most small businesses, purchases of $2,500 are not 
considered small or micro. I cannot help but think that Main Street 
small businesses may suffer for the convenience of Federal bureaucrats.

  I am encouraged by the attention paid by the bill to electronic 
commerce. Electronic commerce would allow Federal agencies to use 
computers to publicize available contracts to businesses. Small 
business owners in my home State of South Dakota already are able to 
take advantage of a similar system. The South Dakota Procurement 
Technical Assistance Center acts as a computerized clearinghouse of 
procurement opportunities for small businessowners in South Dakota. I 
think it is very important for the Government to use technological 
advances to improve communication with the citizenry.
  One concern I have with respect to electronic commerce, however, is 
that sufficient response times are provided. As I understand it, the 
managers' amendment would allow regulators to establish the time 
available for an offeror to submit a response to a solicitation made by 
electronic commerce. The bill gives the regulators no guidelines to 
follow. I share the small business community's concern that, as the 
procurement process is expedited through electronic commerce, 
sufficient response times may not be provided.
  The legislation also recognizes the bigger picture in the 
streamlining process for all businesses wishing to do business with the 
Federal Government. S. 1587 encourages the Government to purchase more 
commercial or off the shelf products--a congressional goal since the 
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 was enacted. The bill would 
advance the open and fair procurement procedures of the Competition in 
Contracting Act by requiring clearer enunciation of so-called nonprice 
evaluation factors. These factors are being used increasingly by 
various agencies as they make use of best value procurement. However, 
many businesses charge they have been used to make unacceptably 
subjective award decisions. This measure should help to correct that 
problem by more clearly defining what may be considered as nonprice 
evaluation factors.
  In addition, the legislation seeks to establish uniformity in Federal 
contracting by placing provisions applicable to the Department of 
Defense on par with provisions governing civilian Government agencies. 
This is designed to create a common statutory base that would allow the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide a unified structure to the 
contractor community. Hopefully, unity will translate into relative 
simplicity.
  Mr. President, there are other items of concern to the small business 
community that I will not take the time to elaborate upon at this time. 
A number of them, I believe, have been satisfactorily resolved. Others 
remain, but I am hopeful they can be worked out as this process 
continues.
  In the end, many of these issues can be boiled down to one basic, yet 
important, question: Can we trust the Federal bureaucracy to set 
procurement regulations that will be fair and friendly to small 
businesses? I believe the answer is, ``No.'' Unfortunately, history 
provides the proof. Current law, while overly complicated, also 
contains a system of checks and balances--a structure put in place over 
many years--to encourage competition in Federal procurement and to 
provide opportunities for small, minority, and women-owned firms. Some 
of these safeguards now are viewed by some as roadblocks to reform. 
They do not have to be.

  I am not implying Federal agencies will fail to act in what they may 
think is in the best interest of the procurement process. Nor do I mean 
to cause Federal agencies undue burden to assure small business 
participation. I simply believe Congress must set comprehensive and 
reasonable guidelines for Federal agencies to follow. These guidelines 
can and should achieve the dual goals of ensuring the Federal 
Government is operating efficiently and that our Nation's small 
businesses are able to sell their goods and services to their 
Government.
  I believe strongly in the spirit of this bill. The current process is 
unnecessarily cumbersome. I think the managers realize the importance 
of including our Nation's top job creators--small businesses--in the 
Federal procurement process. I thank them for their efforts and pledge 
my assistance in this reform effort. I also thank all of the staff who 
have worked so long and so diligently on this issue. In particular, I 
want to thank Bill Montalto, procurement counsel to the Small Business 
Committee, for his significant and tireless efforts. I hope the 
concerns I have raised today will be addressed as the process 
continues. I will follow this bill's progress with great interest.


         in support of increasing the small purchase threshold

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise in support of one of the key 
provisions of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. This bill, S. 
1587, would increase the threshold for small Government purchases from 
$25,000 to $100,000. This increase is important for the successful 
implementation of a watershed restoration and enhancement program 
enacted by the Congress last year for the Pacific Northwest.
  The watershed enhancement program has, as a central component, 
provisions designed to hire workers from timber-dependent communities 
to restore streams and habitat in the Northwest. This program achieves 
two important objectives. First, the jobs provide a transition for 
displaced timber workers that makes every effort to keep these rural 
communities intact. Second, this restoration is vital to the 
preservation of key salmon habitat, which, in turn, will contribute to 
regional efforts to recover endangered wild salmon stocks.
  Without the increase in the acquisition threshold, the Forest Service 
and Department of the Interior will have to bid these important 
projects nationally. In other words, one of the central purposes of 
this new program--helping displaced workers--could not be achieved.
  I am certain that all of my colleagues have experienced similar 
difficulties in their States. I believe this change will not only make 
the Federal Government more efficient, but it will also improve the 
ability of the Federal Government to achieve the objectives of their 
programs.
  I commend the Government Affairs and Armed Services Committee for 
including an increase in the small purchase threshold in this bill, and 
I urge my colleague to support this change.


                         removing the shackles

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. The changes proposed by this 
legislation will lift the burden of needless and cumbersome regulations 
from the backs of thousands of small businesses now contracting with 
the Federal Government.
  Perhaps the most promising change will occur in the day-to-day 
management of smaller Government contracts. Of the estimated $450 
billion in annual Federal contracts, 16 percent or $72 billion is for 
contracts with values of less than $100,000. Yet, the manpower required 
to maintain and process those contracts now account for 95 percent of 
the total Federal contracting paperwork backlog. What is even more 
amazing is the estimated overall cost of some of those contracts. Over 
the life of some of these smaller contracts, the required manpower 
costs for oversight and administration often approaches or exceeds the 
initial value of the contract. That is ludicrous bureaucratic waste at 
its very worst.
  However, this legislation would change that trend and break the 
shackles of burdensome bureaucracy. This bill would allow many of the 
small- and medium-sized companies that typically hold contracts with 
values of less than $100,000 to be paid more quickly. This concept of 
fast pay operations is already in place for contracts below $25,000 and 
has been enormously successful. This bill would simply raise the 
threshold for fast-pay contracts from $25,000 to $100,000, encompassing 
the lion's share of daily Federal contract work. This single change 
will relieve thousands of companies and Federal contractors from the 
volumes of regulation and oversight that currently choke our Federal 
acquisition system. That is particularly good news for States with high 
concentrations of enterprises bidding on Federal contracts.
  My home State of Connecticut ranks 11th in the Nation in Federal 
contract spending. More than $3 billion in Federal contracts were 
signed in Connecticut in 1993. Much of that money comes from the 
Department of Defense, the agency most likely to see the greatest 
relief from this legislation. That is good news to the hundreds of 
small Connecticut companies that continue to provide more than $334 
million annually in high quality products and services for our national 
defense.
  Less waste, more service and greater productivity: That is the 
hallmark of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.


                           amendment no. 1751

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate adopted an amendment 
developed by Senator Ford and myself to clarify once and for all that 
Federal funds cannot be used by grantees or subgrantees to promote 
specific agendas at the State or local levels.
  Mr. President, I heartily agree with this prohibition. I do not 
believe that one Member of this body believes that the role of the 
Federal Government is to use taxpayer money to lobby other government 
bodies. This is not the correct use of taxpayer money. Mr. President, 
this is especially important in the current fiscal environment. The 
expenditure of scarce Federal resources should actively contribute to 
programs that will help United States citizens, not go to passive 
lobbying efforts to affect policy changes in State and local bodies 
with which citizens may not agree.
  Mr. President, the bill before us today would codify most of the 
current Federal Acquisition Regulations used by Federal agencies today. 
The regulation I am concerned with in this amendment is the prohibition 
against lobbying Federal and State legislatures.
  This amendment would go one step further than the underlying bill. It 
would prohibit lobbying at not only the Federal and State levels, but 
would extend the prohibition to local legislative bodies as well. 
Federal money should go into Federal programs, not to lobbying for a 
policy change in local communities.
  I strongly believe that this amendment will strengthen the underlying 
bill and thank the distinguished Senators from Ohio, Delaware, Georgia, 
and South Carolina for accepting this provision.


                    amendment no. 1756, as modified

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleague from 
the State of Illinois in introducing legislation that would create a 
Federal Government-wide goal of 5 percent for the combined value of 
prime contracts and subcontracts awarded by the Federal Government to 
small business concerns owned and controlled by women.
  There currently exists a patchwork of laws which have goals for 
economically and socially disadvantaged individuals or enterprises--and 
although women are presumed to be economically and/or socially 
disadvantaged, too few women are receiving these awards. Given that 
roughly 35 percent of today's businesses are owned and controlled by 
women and that by the end of the decade it is is estimated that this 
figure will increase to 50 percent, it is appalling that a mere 1.8 
percent of the $180 billion in Federal prime contracts go to women-
owned businesses.
  The argument that women just aren't involved in industries competing 
for Federal contracts can and should no longer be made. Women-owned 
businesses are found in all industry sectors and employ more workers 
than the Fortune 500 companies do worldwide. With receipts estimated to 
be 1 trillion by 1995, women-owned businesses are qualified for Federal 
prime contracts and subcontracts.
  This amendment would not established a set-aside program for women; 
it is a simple incentive that underscores the importance that should be 
attributed to the contributions made by the women's business sector. 
Furthermore, this amendment would not impinge upon the existing goals 
that have been established for economically and socially disadvantaged 
firms.
  Finally, I am pleased that the administration has given its support 
to this long overdue goal and I thank Senators Moseley-Braun, Kerry, 
and Well stone for recognizing the importance of a separate goal for 
women-owned and controlled businesses. I am hopeful that our colleagues 
will likewise see the wisdom in this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments to be proposed?
  Without objection, the committee substitute, as amended, is agreed 
to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
committee substitute, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read 
the third time, and passed.
  (The text of S. 1587, as amended, as passed, will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.)
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
bill, as amended, was passed.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________