[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.
____________________