[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12133-S12137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes at this time to the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Campbell. I thank him for his 
work on this bill. He has worked very hard. The problems we have were 
not caused by him, but by difficulties in the House of Representatives. 
I thank the Senator for the effort that he put into this legislation. 
We will get it done before the day is done--maybe not this day, but 
before the day is done.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the majority leader. Whether this bill is 
pulled down or proceeds is yet to be determined. I would like to make a 
few comments about the bill. Senator Kohl and I, as well as our staffs, 
worked very hard on this bill. It seemed like the longer it hung out 
there the more lightning it drew. I want comment on a few provisions in 
it.
  This report provides funding for the Department of Treasury, the U.S. 
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and various 
independent agencies, as our colleagues know.
  Although this has not been an easy bill to complete, because of the 
funding constraints as well as controversial issues, I think we did as 
good a job as we could, accommodating as many requests as we could from 
our colleagues. The most difficult issues for the conferees were not 
about money, but about legislative riders to this appropriations bill. 
There were some very strong opinions on both sides on these riders and 
that did end up stalling the bill.
  But I am concerned about one article. As I mentioned, during the heat 
of the debate, there were some strong opinions. I was concerned about 
an article appearing in the October 7 Hill that implied the Senator 
from Texas, Senator Hutchison, was blocking the bill because it 
contained language to name a post office building in St. Paul for 
former Senator Eugene McCarthy. For the Record, I want to say that is 
absolutely not true. At no time, did she ever disagree with this bill, 
and in fact that language is in the bill. I wanted to make that part of 
the Record.
  The ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator Kohl, and I continued 
to place greater emphasis on treasury law enforcement, which is a 
central focus of this bill, and tried to ensure that agents and 
inspectors have the tools to do their job. I certainly appreciate 
Senator Kohl's support and hard work.
  There is much in this conference report that deserves the support of 
the Senate:
  $128 million for the IRS customer service initiative, and to 
restructure and reform their long overdue operation.
  $2 million for low-income taxpayers clinic.
  $2.4 million to double the staffing for the cyber-smuggling unit at 
the Customs Service to stop child pornography, plus an additional $1 
million for technology to assist in this effort.
  $13 million for grants to state and local law enforcement for gang 
resistance education and training programs, called GREAT programs--$3 
million more than the President actually had requested.
  $6 million to allow eligible State and local law enforcement to 
acquire ballistics identification and comparison computer systems for 
both bullets and cartridge cases.
  There is another $27 million to continue and expand the Youth Crime 
Gun Interdiction Initiative to help stop gun trafficking to our youth.
  There is $182 million for the high-intensity drug trafficking areas, 
known as HIDTAs, and $13 million to continue the program to transfer 
technology to State and local law enforcement.
  Courthouse construction projects, as well as repair and alterations 
of current Federal facilities, were also included.
  There is $185 million for a second year of a very successful antidrug 
youth media campaign that was administered by the drug czar.
  All in all, Mr. President, I think it is a good bill. We worked very 
hard.
  I am just here to say I am sorry that some of these rather divisive 
riders that ended up being on the bill ended up making it so 
controversial. But the underlying fact of the bill, the mission of the 
bill, has great intentions. It is a good bill.
  I just wanted to again thank Senator Kohl for all of his work on it. 
I hope we proceed forward with it. I am realistic enough to know that 
it is in trouble.
  With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I agree with much of what my colleague, 
Senator Campbell, has said about this bill.
  It is a good bill. It provides sufficient appropriations for the 
Department of the Treasury and the independent agencies. But, since 
this bill left the Senate floor, it changed in ways that made it 
impossible for me to sign the conference report.
  First, the good news. The conference report before us is silent on 
the issue of staffing the Federal Election Commission. I am very 
pleased we have decided to avoid a partisan battle on this issue.
  Unfortunately, several other changes to the bill were made after the 
conference--and these make the bill much worse.
  First, the Senate bill contained a provision that would have provided 
for the adjustment of the status of Haitians. This provision, which had 
bipartisan Senate support, would allow 40,000 Haitian refugees who have 
been in this country since 1995, to stay permanently. Last year 
Congress provided this same type of correction for 150,000 Nicaraguans 
and 5,000 Cubans. The conference report before us drops that 
provision--despite the fact that it was agreed to by all conferees.
  Second, the Senate bill contained a provision that would address the 
requirements of providing quality child care in Federal facilities. 
This measure, proposed by Senator Jeffords, would simply make sure that 
Federal child care facilities operate under reasonable quality 
standards. In addition, it would bring under Federal regulation the 
child care centers run by Congress--child care centers that operate now 
completely unregulated by local, state, or Federal law.
  The conference report before us drops this provision--which until now 
was uncontroversial. I find it unacceptable that Congress would use the 
last minute legislative rush to exempt itself from basic health and 
safety standards for the children in its care.
  And, third, this conference report drops language--adopted by a 
bipartisan majority in both Houses--that would provide Federal 
employees with health insurance coverage for contraception. Again it is 
unacceptable that an extreme minority should be able to prevail on 
this. Close to half of all pregnancies in the United States are 
unintended, and tragically, those unintended pregnancies often led to 
abortion. By providing federal workers with the most appropriate and 
safe means of contraception, we can reduce the number of abortions 
performed and increase the number of children who are born wanted, 
planned for, and loved.
  We in the Senate made good decisions when we passed the Treasury-
General Government appropriations bill. It is disappointing that so 
many of those decisions have been overturned in last minute, partisan 
negotiations.
  The White House has promised that they will work with us to get the 
Haitian fairness, child care and contraception provisions included in 
the omnibus

[[Page S12134]]

funding bill. Based on that assurance, and knowing of the many other 
strong provisions retained in the conference report, I will vote for 
passage. But I do so with great disappointment at how this bill has 
been altered in the last few days and great hope that the democratic 
decisions overturned will be restored in the final omnibus 
appropriations measure.
  One last note, I want to thank the staff members who have worked so 
tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor. Pat Raymond and Tammy 
Perrin of Senator Campbell's staff have always been helpful and 
professional in their dealings with us--their demeanor has allowed us 
to put this bill together in a truly bipartisan way. Paul Bock, my 
chief of staff, approached this bill as he does everything: with 
intelligence and a healthy sense of humor. And my deepest gratitude is 
for my clerk, Barbara Retzlaff, who has boundless energy, complete 
mastery of the programs she monitors, and incredible patience--with me 
and with this year's torturous negotiations. Thank you all.


               public access to government research data

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank the 
Senator from Alabama and the Chairman of the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Subcommittee for their diligent efforts to 
develop legislation that will provide the public with access to 
federally funded research data. The Conference Report for the Treasury 
and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 99 currently before us 
requires the Director of OMB to amend OMB Circular A-110 to require 
Federal awarding agencies to ensure that all research results, 
including underlying research data, funded by the Federal government 
are made available to the public through the procedures established 
under the Freedom of Information Act. This provision represents a 
critical step forward in assuring that the public has access to the 
research and underlying data used by the Federal government in 
developing policy and rules.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Majority Leader and my colleague from 
Alabama for his leadership on this issue. The gentleman is correct. The 
language included in the Conference Report will require Federal 
agencies to make all Federally funded research data available to the 
public through procedures established by the Freedom of Information 
Act. The Conferees recognize that this language covers research data 
not currently covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The provision 
applies to all Federally funded research data regardless of whether the 
awarding agency has the data at the time the request is made. If the 
awarding agency must obtain the data from the recipient of the award, 
the provision specifically states that the awarding agency may 
authorize a reasonable user fee equaling the incremental cost of 
obtaining the data. It is my expectation that the Director of OMB to 
make the required changes within 90 days of enactment and that awarding 
agencies to issue new regulations implementing the amended Circular 
within one year of enactment. As is true with the existing OMB Circular 
A-110, the amended Circular shall apply to all Federally funded 
research, regardless of the level of funding or whether the award 
recipient is also using non-Federal funds. I want to thank my colleague 
from Alabama for his leadership on this important issue and his efforts 
to safeguard the public's right to know.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Majority Leader and Chairman Campbell for 
their support. The lack of public access to research data feeds general 
public mistrust of the government and undermines support for major 
regulatory programs. This measure was long overdue and it represents a 
first step in ensuring that the public has access to all studies used 
by the Federal government to develop Federal policy.
 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to note my 
disappointment that the permanent relief for Haitian refugees that I 
and many others in this body have worked to make law has been dropped 
from the Treasury Appropriations Conference Report.
  This effort began last year during debate of the D.C. Appropriations 
bill, which included language that granted certain Central Americans 
access to the ``suspension of deportation'' procedure, but Haitians 
were not granted this access. And you may recall that while I supported 
granting relief to the affected class of Central Americans, I, along 
with several of my colleagues here in the Senate and the House, fought 
vigorously for additional provisions for Haitian refugees.
  Although we were unsuccessful in that effort, we later introduced S. 
1504, Haitian Immigrations Fairness Act of 1997, legislation that would 
provide Haitian refugees permanent residency status. During the course 
of this year, this legislation was reported favorably out of the 
Judiciary committee and passed by the Senate as a provision of the 
Treasury-Postal Appropriations Fiscal Year 1999 bill. Eventually, this 
language was agreed to by the Conferees on the Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, due to last-minute, close-door 
maneuvering and negotiations, there is no Haitian relief included in 
the Conference Report that we are voting on today.
  This legislation is vitally important to the several thousand Haitian 
men, women, and children who came here in the wake of the military coup 
in Haiti that in 1991 toppled the democratically elected government of 
that country. That coup was followed by a period of military 
dictatorship in Haiti marked by atrocious human rights abuses, 
including systematic use of rape and murder as weapons of terror. The 
International Civilian Mission, which has monitored human rights 
conditions throughout Haiti, documented this tragedy, including horrors 
so awful as to be almost imaginable.
  To allow such human rights violations to occur so close to home while 
doing nothing would have been inconsistent with the stated goals of our 
foreign policy. So in 1991, the U.S. took in persons fleeing Haiti at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After intense screening, many of these 
individuals were paroled into the U.S. to apply affirmatively for 
asylum. Between the 1991 and May of 1992, over 30,000 Haitians were 
interviewed. Under one-third of these individuals were paroled into the 
U.S. to seek asylum.
  Around Memorial day in 1992, Bush issued the ``Kennebunkport Order,'' 
ending the asylum screening process at Guantanamo Bay, an action which 
became an issue during the 1992 presidential elections. A refugee 
program began operating in Port-au-Prince. This practice continued 
until 1994, when President Clinton reinstated a screening process in 
military hospital ship in Kingston Harbor, Jamaica. Democracy was 
restored in Haiti in the fall of 1994.
  The individuals that I am talking about today are the children, 
wives, brothers, and sisters of soldiers and activists who stood up for 
democracy in Haiti. They fled to this country for refuge. They played 
by our rules. In the time that they've been here, they've built homes, 
paid taxes, had families in our country. These individuals are owed 
nothing less than treatment equal to that already provided to the 
Eastern European and Central European refugees residing in our Nation.
  I regret that the Conferees decided at the last moment to strip the 
Haitian refugee relief provision from the Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations bill, but I would like to urge Senators Lott and Daschle 
to consider adding this provision to any omnibus appropriations 
measures that may be considered in the upcoming days.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill 
for their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides 
federal funding for numerous vital programs. However, I am sad to say, 
once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before 
my colleagues about unacceptable levels of parochial projects in 
another appropriations Conference Report.
  Earlier this year, I came to the Senate floor and highlighted the 
numerous earmarks and set asides contained in the Senate version of 
this bill. That bill contained $826 million in specifically earmarked 
pork-barrel spending. That was a $791 million increase over last year's 
pork-barrel spending total for this bill, which only contained $34.25 
million in wasted funds.
  While the Senate bill contained an unacceptable amount of pork, this 
conference report is even worse. It contains $1.5 billion in specially 
earmarked pork barrel spending. This is almost double the amount of 
pork

[[Page S12135]]

which was in the bill. This is a tremendous burden which is patently 
unfair to the millions hard-working American taxpayers, who does not 
possess the resources to get a ``pet project'' placed in their back 
yard.
  The list of projects which received priority billing is quite long 
and the dollar amounts are staggering. Nevertheless, I will highlight a 
few of the more egregious violations.
  First the conference report instructs the Administrator of General 
Services to purchase a property adjacent to the new courthouse 
currently under construction in Scranton, PA, at whatever price she/he 
determines is appropriate. The language then provides $668 million for 
repairs, alterations, and construction services. That adds $668 million 
to the price of acquiring the building. I am not an expert on court 
house construction, but $668 million in addition to the purchase price 
seems like a lot of money for a courthouse.
  But, the unbridled spending does not stop with the Scranton, PA court 
house, it continues. The conference report also contains numerous 
provisions for millions of dollars to construct new court houses in 
specific locations throughout the U.S. Again, why are these particular 
sites so deserving of funding, that they receive specific earmarks to 
fund their construction? Unfortunately, this spending frenzy is not 
limited to court houses. Somebody in either the House of 
Representatives, or the Senate has concluded that the World Trade 
Office in Vermont ($500,000), and the IRS Service Center in Brookhaven, 
NY ($20 million) are so unique that they should receive specific 
earmarks.
  These are just a few examples of the spending excesses in this 
report. The list goes on, and on. Mr. President, why are we spending so 
much on locality specific pork barrel projects? Why are we spending so 
much on new court house construction? Maybe if we used some of the new 
court house construction money to combat teen drug use, we would not 
need to construct so many new court houses. Maybe, we should redirect 
some of this court house construction money to combating overall drug 
use, putting more police on our streets, or funding crime prevention 
programs to prevent people from ever becoming involved in the criminal 
justice system.
  Mr. President, I will not deliberate much longer on the objectionable 
provisions in the conference report. I simply ask my colleagues to 
apply fair and reasonable spending principles when appropriating funds 
to the multitude of priority and necessary programs in our 
appropriations bills.
  As I have said many times in the past, we must remain committed to 
open and fair consideration of public expenditures. Our objective must 
always be to further the greatest public good. This must remain the 
cornerstone of the appropriations process. And, most important, we must 
remember, responsible spending is the cornerstone of good governance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise because the Treasury-Postal 
conferees have bypassed the will of the majority and decided to kill 
the contraceptive coverage language in the Treasury/Postal bill.
  This is an outrage. Our contraceptive language was included in the 
original legislation passed both in the House and in the Senate, and 
conferees last week signed off on including the House language in the 
bill. At the same time, conferees agreed to include the Senate's 
provision specifically excluding coverage of abortion or abortion-
related service, and conferees signed the report, closed out the 
conference and sent the report to the House for consideration.
  The language the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 224 to 
198 on July 15, 1998. The Senate language was agreed to by unanimous 
consent.
  It isn't very complicated language. If you take the time to read the 
two versions, you will see that their intent is the same. The main 
difference in the two versions is the conscience clause in the Senate 
bill.
  In addition to listing the five plans that OPM identifies as being 
religious-based, it goes a step further by providing a waiver to future 
or existing plans that have reason to oppose contraceptive coverage 
because of their religious beliefs. Also the Senate language clarifies 
that this provision is not intended to cover abortion--and again I 
would note that this provision was in the conference report when it was 
signed the first time.
  So last week the conferees accept the language and this week it 
becomes a ``killer provision'' that would keep us from passing the 
Treasury/Postal appropriations bill. Mr. President that fallacious 
argument is belied by the fact that not one person--not one of the 435 
members of the United States House of Representatives--stood up on the 
House floor when the rule on Treasury-Postal was debated last Thursday 
night and cited this provision as a reason for opposing the bill. Not 
one!
  Why is this a ``killer amendment''?
  It can't be because of the cost. CBO won't even score the bill, 
because they don't score legislation that costs less than a million 
dollars. And they put the price tag on this language at $500,000.
  It can't be about the rights of religious plans, because this 
language protects the health care plans that OPM identifies as being 
religious-based.
  It can't be about abortion, because it does not cover abortion in any 
way, shape or form and it says so.
  So, why is it a ``killer amendment'', Mr. President? The answer to 
that question will remain a mystery, as it is opposed by a few people 
in a backroom at the expense of 1.2 million American women who are 
being denied affordable access to a basic health care need--
contraception. These opponents lurk in the shadows, unwilling to come 
out in the daylight and discuss their opposition--and apparently these 
few make the decisions and they decided on their own that it was coming 
out. They have made a mockery of the democratic process.
  Let's consider the language the House and Senate agreed to. It is 
very simple--all this language will do is provide women who work for 
the federal government and the spouses and daughters of federal 
employees equality in health care and the affordable access to 
prescription contraception coverage they need and deserve; and it will 
help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this 
country.
  The provision we are talking about requires plans that participate in 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) that provide 
prescription drug coverage to also cover prescription contraceptives. 
What exactly is wrong with that? Nothing, according to 224 members of 
the United States House of Representatives.
  Today 81 percent of these plans do not cover all five of the most 
basic and widely used methods of contraception and 10 percent of these 
plans do not cover any type of contraception at all. Yet all but one of 
the more than 300 FEHBP plans covers sterilization. Think about that 
for a moment--we are willing to cover sterilization but not 
contraceptives. Unbelievable!
  Today, the victory may go to those who have lurked in the shadows, 
but I have something to say to those few. Do not let yourselves believe 
that you have had the final word on this issue because the women of 
America will not `go quietly into that good night' on an issue as basic 
to their health and well being and that of their family as 
contraceptive coverage.
  It took us 72 years to get the vote and it wasn't until 1978--only 20 
years ago--that Congress finally passed legislation requiring health 
care plans to cover maternity leave. This is not an issue that will go 
away, Mr. President. You can rest assured that we will be back next 
year, and the year after that and as many votes and debates as it takes 
until we win.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4104, the 
Conference Agreement on the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Bill for FY 1999.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $26.9 billion and new 
outlays of $23.2 billion to finance the operations of the Department of 
the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Customs 
Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the 
Financial Management Service. The bill also finances the Executive 
Office of the President, the Office of Personnel Management, the 
General Services Administration, and other agencies that perform 
central government functions.

[[Page S12136]]

  I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for producing a bill 
that is within the Subcommittee's revised 302(b) allocation. I also 
commend the Chairman's strong commitment to law enforcement throughout 
this bill, including support for the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center.
  When outlays from prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into 
account, the bill totals $26.9 billion in BA and $26.0 billion in 
outlays. The total bill is at the Senate subcommittee's revised 302(b) 
allocation for nondefense discretionary budget authority and outlays. 
The subcommittee is also at its Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund 
allocation for BA and outlays.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, 
a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the Conference 
Agreement on H.R. 4104. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            H.R. 4104, TREASURY-POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1999--SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                                   [Fiscal year 1999; in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Defense     Nondefense     Crime      Mandatory      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,311          132       13,439       26,882
    Outlays....................................  ...........       12,429          129       13,439       25,997
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,311          132       13,439       26,882
    Outlays....................................  ...........       12,429          129       13,439       25,997
1998 level:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       12,649          131       12,713       25,493
    Outlays....................................  ...........       12,460          123       12,712       25,295
President's request:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,495          132       13,439       27,066
    Outlays....................................  ...........       13,174           86       13,439       26,699
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,209          132       13,439       26,780
    Outlays....................................  ...........       12,428          129       13,439       25,996
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,211          132       13,439       26,782
    Outlays....................................  ...........       12,068          125       13,439       25,632
Conference Report compared to:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Outlays................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    1998 level:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........          662            1          726        1,389
        Outlays................................  ...........          -31            6          727          702
    President's request:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........         -184  ...........  ...........         -184
        Outlays................................  ...........         -745           43  ...........         -702
    House-passed bill:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........          102  ...........  ...........          102
        Outlays................................  ...........            1  ...........  ...........            1
    Senate-passed bill:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........          100  ...........  ...........          100
        Outlays................................  ...........          361            4  ...........          365
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment 
that a provision in the fiscal year 1999 Treasury, Postal 
Appropriations Bill relating to contraceptive coverage under the 
Federal Employee Health Benefits program was dropped in conference.
  This provision, authored by Senators Harry Reid and Olympia Snowe, 
would have required the Federal Employee Health Benefits plans that 
cover prescription drugs to treat contraceptives in the same fashion as 
all other covered drugs. This amendment passed the Senate unanimously. 
A similar provision, offered by Representative Nita Lowey, was approved 
by the House by a vote of 224-198. However, even after the strong, 
bipartisan show of support by both bodies, this provision was still 
dropped in conference.
  I was a cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation on which this 
provision was based. Along with a bipartisan group of 25 of my 
colleagues, I wrote the conferees on this bill asking them to retain 
this provision in the conference report.
  I'd like to think we've come a long way since the early 1960s when 
birth control was illegal in many states. So it was astonishing to me 
to learn that in this day and age, many families find their 
contraceptive choices to be limited by their insurers--because insurers 
are not required to cover prescriptive contraceptives.
  In Connecticut, for example, 62% of insurers don't cover birth 
control pills and 85% don't cover devices such as IUDs and diaphragms. 
At the same time, almost all of these policies cover sterilization. And 
of the 68,000 pregnancies each year in our state, more than 14,000 are 
unplanned.
  Under far too many health plans, women are offered the unconscionable 
``choice'' of getting help in paying for an unplanned pregnancy, an 
abortion, or sterilization--but not for birth control.
  Is this the best choice we can offer to families trying to act 
responsibly, wanting to bring children into the world when they can be 
supported and cared for?
  Many of us agree that contraception, and improved access to 
contraception, is a simple, cost-effective way to lower the staggering 
rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States.
  I am very disappointed that this provision has been dropped from the 
fiscal year 1999 Treasury, Postal Appropriations Bill and the federal 
government lost an opportunity to be a leader on this critical issue.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that we passed a regulatory 
accounting provision in the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations bill. I appreciate that the conferees retained the 
provision I introduced to the Senate bill. I believe that this 
legislation will help promote the public's right to know about the 
benefits and costs of regulatory programs; to increase the 
accountability of government to the people it serves; and ultimately, 
to improve the quality of our government. This amendment aims to 
provide better information on the performance of regulatory programs. 
This information should help us assess what benefits our regulatory 
system is delivering, at what costs, and help us understand what need 
to do to improve it.
  The American people deserve better results from the vast time and 
resources spent on regulation--$700 billion per year, or $7,000 for the 
average American household by some estimates. By regulating smarter, we 
could have a cleaner environment, safer workplaces, quality products, 
and a higher standard of living at the same time. As the Office of 
Management and Budget stated in its first Report to Congress on the 
Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations in 1997:

       [R]egulations (like other instruments of government policy) 
     have enormous potential for both good and harm. . . . The 
     only way we know how to distinguish between the regulations 
     that do good and those that cause harm is through careful 
     assessment and evaluation of their benefits and costs. Such 
     analysis can also often be used to redesign harmful 
     regulations so they produce more good than harm and redesign 
     good regulations so they produce even more net benefits.

  I am pleased that there is broad support for this amendment, 
particularly

[[Page S12137]]

from Majority Leader Lott and Senators Breaux, Robb, and Shelby, who 
cosponsored it. There is a broad bipartisan coalition in the House that 
supported this provision. And it continues the efforts of my 
precedessors. Senator Ted Stevens first passed a regulatory accounting 
amendment in 1996 when he was the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. Regulatory accounting also was a part of a regulatory reform 
bill that unanimously passed out of committee in 1995 when Bill Roth 
chaired Governmental Affairs.
  I added several new requirements to the Stevens amendment to improve 
the credibility and usefulness of the report. First, OMB is required to 
arrange for peer review of its draft report and draft guidelines. The 
peer review must be conducted by an organization independent and 
external from the government, with expertise in regulatory analysis and 
regulatory accounting. It is critical that the peer review be performed 
by experts who will critique the draft based on the state of the art--
not by a partisan interest group. Last year, the American Enterprise 
Institute and the Brookings Institution sponsored a conference on OMB's 
first regulatory accounting report. A distinguished group of 
independent economists unanimously agreed that OMB had fallen short in 
many respects. That is the kind of constructive peer review we need.
  Second, OMB must take a more active role in ensuring the quality and 
credibility of information used in the report. OMB must issue 
guidelines to the agencies to standardize plausible measures of costs 
and benefits and the format of regulatory accounting statements. Third, 
OMB must provide more detailed information on the incremental costs and 
benefits of regulation, broken down by agency and by agency program. 
Thus far, OMB has failed to provide that information, despite repeated 
statements in legislative history and in correspondence to OMB. A great 
deal more information on the incremental costs and benefits of agency 
programs can be assembled by OMB, especially for programs run by big 
agencies such as EPA, DOT, OSHA, FDA and the Department of Labor. 
Fourth, OMB must count the paperwork burden. A 1995 report of the U.S. 
Small Business Administration, entitled The Changing Burden of 
Regulation, Paperwork, and Tax Compliance, estimated the process costs 
of regulation at $229 billion for 1998. Clearly, this must be accounted 
for. Finally, OMB must assess the direct and indirect impact of Federal 
regulation on small business; State, local and tribal government; 
wages; and economic growth. This provision addresses several important 
concerns. Regulation can have a disparate impact on small businesses. 
The 1995 SBA report found that, for companies with under 20 workers, 
regulation costs $5,500 per worker each year--far higher than the per 
worker cost for large companies. Many regulations also impose unfunded 
mandates on State, local and tribal government. Unfunded mandates are 
putting a severe strain on these governments, forcing them to raise 
taxes, reduce essential services, or even face bankruptcy. Finally, the 
public has a right to know that there is no free lunch. Regulation can 
reduce productivity, wages and economic growth. In the end, the public 
pays for regulatory programs through higher prices and taxes, reduced 
government services, and squandered opportunities to do better.
  It is time for the Government to come to grips with the good, the 
bad, and the ugly about regulation so we can design a smarter, more 
cost-effective regulatory process.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________