[Senate Report 104-164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



   104th Congress 1st            SENATE                 Report
         Session
                                                       104-164
_______________________________________________________________________



                                                       Calendar No. 214


 
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT TERMINATION AND GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                              to accompany

                                 S. 929

                 TO ABOLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE




 October 20 (legislative day, October 18), 1995.--Ordered to be printed
                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

   TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN GLENN, Ohio                     WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware
SAM NUNN, Georgia                    WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas                THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        HANK BROWN, Colorado
    Albert L. McDermott, Staff 
             Director
John Marshall, Professional Staff 
              Member
       John Mercer, Counsel
  Leonard Weiss, Minority Staff 
             Director
  Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk
                                                       Calendar No. 214
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                    104-164
_______________________________________________________________________


 S. 929, COMMERCE DEPARTMENT TERMINATION AND GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION 
                              ACT OF 1995

                                _______


  October 20 (legislative day, October 18), 1995.--and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________


Mr. Stevens, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 929]

    The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 929) to abolish the Department of 
Commerce, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose..........................................................2
 II. Summary..........................................................2
III. Need for Legislation.............................................2
          A. The Need for Governmentwide Restructuring...........     2
          B. The Need to Replace the Department of Commerce......     5
          C. The Case for Establishing the United States Trade 
              Administration.....................................     9
          D. The Need to Create a Government 2000 Commission.....    12
          E. Future Organizational Options: The Need for 
              Transition Structures..............................    13
 IV. Legislative History of S. 929...................................18
          Committee Hearings on Commerce Department, July 25-27, 
              1995...............................................    18
          Committee Hearings on Government Restructuring, May-
              June, 1995.........................................    22
          Previous Commission Legislation, 1981-1993.............    29
          Committee Mark Up, September 7, 1995...................    32
  V. Section-By-Section Analysis.....................................33
 VI. Regulatory Impact Statement.....................................49
VII. Cost Analysis...................................................49
VIII.Additional Views of Senator Cohen...............................56

 IX. Minority Views of Senators Glenn, Nunn, Levin, Pryor, Lieberman, 
     Akaka, and Dorgan...............................................57
  X. Changes to Existing Laws........................................65
 XI. Appendix A: Previous Reorganization Proposals...................95

                               I. Purpose

    The purpose of S. 929, the Commerce Department Termination 
and Government Reorganization Act of 1995, is to reduce 
government costs and improve performance by abolishing obsolete 
structures, establishing streamlined organizations, eliminating 
wasteful duplication and fragmentation of resources, and 
reorganizing around core missions of national importance.

                              II. Summary

    On September 7, 1995, the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
voted to report S. 929, the Commerce Department Termination and 
Government Reorganization Act of 1995, as proposed by Senator 
Abraham and amended by a substitute offered by Chairman Roth. 
The Act as amended eliminates the Department of Commerce and 
many of its programs which have been determined to be obsolete, 
wasteful, or duplicative of similar programs administered by 
other Federal agencies. In addition, the Act reorganizes trade 
functions into a single United States Trade Administration 
(USTA), combines the standards-setting functions of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with the 
Patents and Trademarks Office (PTO) into an independent Office 
of Patents, Trademarks and Standards (OPTS), and spins off the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as an 
independent agency.
    The Act creates a nine-member bipartisan Government 2000 
Commission charged to restructure the Executive Branch and 
report its recommendations by June 1, 1996. The Act establishes 
an expedited process for Congressional consideration of the 
Commission's recommendations. In creating a process which 
includes expedited committee consideration, the promise of 
floor debate, and the guarantee of unlimited germane 
amendments, the Committee believes it has heeded the call for 
fundamental restructuring of the government while appropriately 
balancing concerns about political gridlock with fundamental 
principles of Congressional debate and deliberation.

                       III. Need for Legislation

              a. the need for governmentwide restructuring

    The Committee believes the Federal Government must be 
comprehensively restructured for improved efficiency and 
effectiveness in the 21st Century. While it may have been 
adequate to the tasks of the last century, our government and 
its antiquated structures and systems are not up to the 
challenges of today, let alone those of tomorrow. As our nation 
looks ahead, it does so with a government that is, in too many 
instances, outmoded, inefficient, rife with duplication and 
fragmentation of effort, and systematically vulnerable to 
fraud, waste and abuse.
    The General Accounting Office (GAO) has testified to the 
rampant duplication, overlap and fragmentation that exists 
throughout the Executive Branch. As reflected on Exhibit 1, on 
the following page, an average of 6.5 agencies play a role in 
each major mission area, as represented by Federal budget 
classifications. For example, the Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) is involved in ten different functional areas, the 
Treasury Department in eight, the Commerce Department in four, 
Eight agencies play a role in natural resources and the 
environment; eight in administration of justice; fifteen in 
providing income support to individuals.



    The Committee believes that the government must rationalize 
its resources and delivery systems to meet growing demands for 
quality and efficiency in public services. The government must 
wake up to the lessons of the past decade and take a dose of 
the same strong medicine taken by thousands of private sector 
organizations in restructuring to meet global competitive 
challenges. The government must restructure, change its 
business practices, and adopt modern information technologies 
to do more and better work with less.
    Government is at a crossroads. The Commerce Department 
Termination and Government Reorganization Act will help both 
the legislative and Executive Branch determine the direction in 
which we must head; how to organize government to maximize 
performance and decrease costs, and how to meet the country's 
needs in the 21st Century. This Committee, which oversees the 
``efficiency and economy of operations of all branches of the 
government,'' is convinced that only a fundamental overhaul of 
structures and systems will provide American citizens with the 
quality and performance they expect from the Federal 
Government. The Committee believes that such action is 
necessary to regain the confidence of the American people in 
their government.

           b. the need to replace the department of commerce

    The Commerce Department is a microcosm of the duplication, 
waste and obsolescence that pervade the Federal Government as a 
whole. GAO and other experts have testified that Commerce is a 
loose collection of poorly managed and unrelated functions. Its 
missions are shared with at least seventy-one different 
agencies, according to GAO. It's financial systems are so weak 
and ineffective that they are on the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) ``high risk'' list. Many in the business community 
doubt that it adds sufficient value to justify its continued 
existence. A June 5, 1995 Business Week poll of senior business 
executives found that supporters of elimination outnumbered the 
Department's defenders by a margin of two to one. The Committee 
believes that the Department should be fundamentally 
restructured to eliminate wholesale duplication and 
fragmentation and to bring coherence to the management of its 
important functions.
    In its present form, the Department is almost unmanageable. 
Former Secretary of Commerce Barbara Hackman Franklin 
emphasized this to the Committee in testimony on July 27, 1995:

          The Department's structure worked against its being 
        managed effectively. One of the things missing in 
        government quite often is managerial capability, and we 
        exacerbate this lack of skill when an entity is not 
        structured and focused properly.

    At the same hearing, former Chairman of the Council of 
Economic Advisors, Murray Weidenbaum, testified that the 
Department's budget has increased by 39 percent in the last two 
years. The Committee finds this rapid growth to be out of sync 
with the times, given the public's demands for reduced 
government costs and better services.
    For all of these reasons, the Committee believes that 
Commerce is an appropriate place to begin the long overdue 
restructuring of the Executive Branch. The Committee is mindful 
of its responsibility to be faithful to the public mandate for 
improved performance and reduced costs. Moreover, the 
Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1996 determined 
that the Commerce Department should be eliminated. It is the 
Committee's responsibility to act consistently with this 
instruction. Perhaps most important, the Committee believes 
that the Congress must act decisively to show the public and 
the members of the Government 2000 Commission that it takes 
restructuring seriously.
    Bipartisan majorities of the Committee have approved bills 
to restructure Commerce in earlier sessions. In 1983, the Trade 
Reorganization Act (S. 121) was reported out of the Committee 
on a 13-3 vote. This bill explicitly terminated the Department 
of Commerce (Section 609) while creating a new Department of 
Trade.
    The process of restructing necessarily involves eliminating 
wasteful and ineffective functions and structures while 
reorganizing remaining ones for improved performance. The Act 
explicitly eliminates the Economic Development Administration 
(EDA), while preserving certain grant authorities by 
consolidating them with similar functions at other agencies: 
EDA's defense conversion authorities are transferred to the 
Department of Defense (DoD), and its infrastructure authorities 
to USDA. These transfers will allow the most worthwhile 
projects to continue to the extent that they are able to 
compete favorably for funds with similar projects in their new 
host agencies.
    EDA is poorly managed, $400 million dollar Great Society 
program with a history of fraud, waste and abuse problems, and 
a vestige of the failed approaches of yesterday. At one point 
in its history, some 40 percent of its loans were in default, 
while grants intended for depressed areas were awarded to such 
areas as Key Biscayne, Florida. At its best, EDA duplicates the 
efforts of several other agencies, such as the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and USDA's Rural Development 
Administration. At its worst, EDA is a symbol of pork barrel 
politics and bureaucracy run amok.
    Eliminating EDA has a history of bipartisan support. As 
recently as 1993, Senators Roth, Dole, Boren, Moynihan and 
Lieberman co-sponsored a bill (S. 580) to create a trade 
department, which also eliminated EDA (though not disputing his 
co-sponsorship, Senator Lieberman's staff asked that this 
report reflect his later support for an amendment offered by 
Senator Pryor to preserve EDA). Matthew Miller, a former 
Clinton Administration budget official, sized up EDA this way 
in the September 11, 1995 New Republic:

          The plan to abolish the Economic Development 
        Administration is laudable. On the Congressional Budget 
        Office's hit list for many years, EDA's yearly $407 
        million goes mostly for public works grants to state 
        and local governments, often to help develop distressed 
        aeras. EDA's reputation for ineffectiveness is so 
        extreme that one governor begged last year that 
        disaster and flood relief money be administered through 
        any agency but EDA. That shouldn't be any surprise, 
        since half of EDA's staff sits comfortably at 
        headquarters rather than in the field; the top heavy 
        bureaucracy sports one supervisor for every supervised 
        employee in the field. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown 
        says EDA should live because it's the only agency 
        specifically targeting communities that are suffering 
        military base closings; but, with just over a quarter 
        of EDA's money earmarked for such purposes, that's 
        pretty weak justification for the whole agency's 
        survival. Privately, Democrats know EDA's best defense: 
        it's one of the few pots of ``political'' money 
        available to dole out for economic development (i.e., 
        vote-buying) in a pinch.

    NIST's Advanced Technology Program (ATP) subsidizes high 
tech industrial research and development (R&D). Funding focuses 
on nascent ``pre-competitive'' technologies, prior to 
commercialization. ATP has been justified on grounds that the 
short term focus of most investors makes them unwilling to fund 
pre-competitive R&D. This premise has been roundly disputed. 
There is no evidence of market failure which might provide a 
rationale for the government's intervention. In the hearing of 
July 27th, Dr. Edward L. Hudgins of the Cato Institute 
testified:

          The market works well without government handouts. 
        The private sector is the principal engine of this 
        country's multi-trillion dollar economy, not government 
        handouts. In the area of advanced commercial 
        technologies, that is the high-tech revolution of the 
        last 15 years, the private sector already does a world-
        class job in developing new products and technologies. 
        Thus, ATP is unnecessary.

    Since there are more projects proposed than available 
funds, ATP substitutes the judgement of government 
decisionmakers for the market place in sorting out next 
generation technologies. The Committee is not persuaded that 
the use of peer review is a substitute for market forces. This 
is a process that inevitably becomes dominated by the best 
proposal writers, not necessarily the best technologies, and it 
is a function that the Committee believes belongs in the 
marketplace. There are more effective and less intrusive ways 
of achieving the desired ends. For example, consistent with the 
principles of the National Performance Review and ``reinventing 
government,'' the government could ``steer more, and row less'' 
by using incentives such as tax credits and regulatory relief, 
rather than attempting to directly manipulate the marketplace 
through bureaucratic decisionmaking. In testimony to the 
Committee on July 27th, former Council of Economic Asdvisors 
Chairman Murray Weidenbaum put it this way:

          It is the new activities of NIST that are truly 
        objectionable and should be terminated. These rapidly 
        escalating outlays--in the guise of promoting 
        technology--constitute the intrusion of ``industrial 
        policy'' into the Federal Government's existing arsenal 
        of business promotion. We can recall that the basic 
        problem with the industrial policy approach, and surely 
        with NIST, is that the government selects the winners 
        and the losers. The Feds choose which specific 
        industries and individual companies are to receive the 
        contracts being awarded. There are alternative and far 
        better ways in which technology can be encouraged--but 
        none of them involves the Department of Commerce.
          For example, tax credits for research and development 
        leave the choice of technology projects with the 
        individual business firm. The company bears the great 
        bulk of the financial risk of a new technological 
        development. It is sad to note that, in the last few 
        years, Congress has been quicker to spend the money 
        than to extend the tax incentive. There is an even less 
        expensive way of promoting technology--reduce 
        innumerable government regulatory barriers that raise 
        the cost and risk of new technology undertakings. That 
        is the role of regulatory reform, a task that Congress 
        is now considering.

    Furthermore, GAO testified that ATP duplicates similar 
programs in other government agencies. These include: DoD's 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, particularly its Dual Use 
Technology and High Performance Computing programs; the 
Department of Energy's Cooperative Research and Development 
initiatives; the Small Business Administration (SBA) Small 
Business Technology Trasnfer program; and others. All together, 
ATP accounts for only ten percent of Federal spending in these 
areas.
    The Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP) program 
provides matching grants to state and local centers which 
provide consulting and training services to small businesses. 
Like ATP, there is no consistent evidence that the centers are 
working. Some seem to do well, while others have failed. The 
centers duplicate services widely available in the private and 
non-profit sectors from consulting firms, trade associations 
and institutions of higher learning. Moreover, GAO testified 
that MEP duplicates nearly identical services provided by SBA 
through its Small Business Development Centers and Small 
Business Institutes. The Committee believes that the 
justification for government involvement in this sector is 
dubious at best. If it exists, at all, it belongs at the state 
and local levels.
    In addition, the following agencies and programs are 
terminated under this Act: U.S. Travel and Tourism 
Administration (USTTA); National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA); Minority Business 
Development Agency (MBDA); National Technical Information 
Service (NTIS); the Office of the Chief Economist; and the 
Technology Administration. The Director-General of the 
Commercial Service (an officer of the new USTA) is authorized 
to assume any essential tourism promotion activities not 
otherwise terminated by the Act. NTIA's trade policy functions 
are transferred to the USTA; its domestic policy functions to 
the Executive Office of the President; standards-setting 
functions and labs to the Office of Patents, Trademarks and 
Standards (OPTS, discussed below); and spectrum management for 
Federal agencies to the General Services Administration (GSA). 
MBDA's funding authorities are transferred to the SBA. This 
will allow its most effective programs to be continued to the 
extent that they compete favorably with similar programs of 
SBA.

  c. the case for establishing the united states trade administration

    The elimination of the Commerce Department presents the 
Congress with a timely opportunity to begin the long overdue 
process of restructuring Executive Branch trade functions to 
meet the needs of the 21st Century. Like so many other 
functions of government, trade has reflected reactive growth 
and haphazard bureaucratic sprawl over several decades. 
Restructuring trade functions for improved focus, coherence and 
performance has been a priority of the Committee for many 
years.
    Trade is a powerful engine of economic growth and job 
creation. Its importance to American prosperity and economic 
strength has never been greater. Approximately one quarter of 
our gross domestic product is now tied to trade with other 
nations. Exports alone support over ten million jobs and have 
been responsible for one-third of overall national economic 
growth in the past seven years. The United States is, by far, 
the world's largest trader, and our trade has grown enormously. 
In 1994, the United States exported $717 billion in goods and 
services, compared to about $280 billion just ten years ago. 
This growth is expected to continue as the information age 
unfolds, as production becomes increasingly globalized, and as 
barriers to trade are removed worldwide.
    Unfortunately, the Committee finds that government 
structures for managing America's trade affairs have failed to 
keep up with changing times. Previous legislative initiatives 
to restructure trade have not been enacted by the Congress, and 
administrative reforms within the Executive Branch have been 
limited in scope and inadequate to emerging needs. The last 
meaningful reform occurred in 1979 under President Carter's 
Reorganization Plan Number Three. Since then, sweeping changes 
have taken place in the international trade environment. Trade 
is now on center stage of the national agenda. Since President 
Clinton took office in 1993, the United States has concluded 
over 150 trade agreements, including the historic North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Uruguay Round of 
multilateral trade negotiations.
    In addition to negotiating agreements and establishing fair 
trade rules, our government performs numerous other vital trade 
functions. These include: trade policy development; 
implementation and enforcement of trade agreements; 
administration of trade laws; and promotion and financing of 
American exports. The Committee believes that the division, 
duplication, and fragmentation of these functions throughout 
the Executive Branch seriously hampers our ability to perform 
them effectively. Allowing these divisions to continue is not 
in our national interest. American interests will be better 
served by uniting trade functions under one roof and the 
leadership of a single cabinet official.
    The Committee believes there are three fundamental reasons 
why the time has come to create a cabinet level United States 
Trade Administration (USTA). First, it will establish a trade 
structure which fully recognizes the vital important of trade 
to our economic health and national interest. Second, it will 
remove longstanding organizational barriers which impede our 
ability to set forth a clear and forward-looking trade policy 
for our nation. Finally, it will help America meet the enormous 
and complex trade challenges of the future through more 
effective and efficient government. Our government's trade 
structure should be based on the trade realities of today and 
tomorrow, not yesterday.
    The USTA created by this Act consolidates and streamlines 
principal Executive Branch trade functions within a single 
structure capable of focusing like a laser on international 
trade matters. The Act will significantly reduce the number of 
agencies involved in export promotion by consolidating 
responsibilities and programs, which currently exist in 19 
different agencies. It will eliminate the rather arbitrary 
bifurcation in trade responsibilities that exists between the 
USTR and the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee recognizes 
that, in many respects, there is no clear dividing line between 
the roles of these two officials. This conclusion is supported 
by numerous trade policy and management experts. In March 1993, 
the Inspector General of the Commerce Department reported that 
two major components of the International Trade 
Administration--the International Economic Policy and Trade 
Development offices--spend about half their time or trade 
policy development and negotiations--functions which nominally 
belong to the USTR.
    The Act establishes the USTA as an independent agency of 
the Executive Branch. The USTA will be headed by the USTR, who 
retains cabinet rank. The USTA will include all of the existing 
functions of the USTR, plus the trade functions of the Commerce 
Department and the Trade and Development Agency (TDA), and the 
financing functions of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) and 
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). By reducing 
the duplication and fragmentation that currently impede 
efficient performance of these functions, the USTA will more 
powerfully promote American trade interests at reduced cost.
    This structure is consistent with the recommendations of 
three former Secretaries of Commerce and at least one former 
USTR. At a July 27th hearing, former USTR and Secretary of 
Agriculture, Clayton Yeutter, testified about the functions 
that should comprise what he referred to as a ``trade 
ministry:''

          In establishing a trade ministry, I'd start with the 
        Office of the USTR. USTR, a superlative performer, will 
        probably always be at the heart of U.S. trade activity, 
        no matter where it is placed in the hierarchy of 
        government. It fits comfortably where it now resides * 
        * * but that is the source of innumerable turf battles 
        with the present Department of Commerce, and USTR's 
        support network is ``voluntary,'' not at its behest and 
        command.
          I'd also put in the Export-Import Bank in a new trade 
        ministry. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
        logically could be included as well * * *.

    The financing functions should be included, Ambassador 
Yeutter argued, to give the USTR ``front line'' trade weapons 
comparable to those wielded by other trade ministries. He went 
on to discuss support functions needed to complete the trade 
ministry: the Foreign Commercial Service; the Import 
Administration; and the Trade Development functions of the 
International Trade Administration. Ambassador Yeutter also 
stated that ``we'll never have a trade ministry with the clout 
this testimony visualizes until and unless we consolidate the 
principal trade functions of the U.S. Government in one cabinet 
department.''
    Former Secretary of Commerce, Barbara Hackman Franklin, 
suggested a similar structure and recommended that it be 
established as a cabinet-level, independent agency, outside of 
the Executive Office of the President (EOP):

          My recommendation is that the U.S. Trade 
        Representative's office be joined organizationally with 
        other trade functions. The USTR already has cabinet-
        level status. Leadership of an enhanced trade function 
        could make it an even stronger and more effective voice 
        in the Executive Branch process when advocating for 
        opportunities in new markets.

    Both witness testified that removing the USTR from the EOP 
would not harm its responsibilities as an ``honest broker'' and 
interagency coordinator on trade policy decisions. The 
Committee concurs with this viewpoint. There is no reason why 
the USTR cannot continue to perform its interagency 
coordinating as effectively as it currently does, particularly 
at the subcabinet level.
    The Committee believes that the merits of creating the USTA 
far outweigh the few, relatively minor concerns that have been 
brought to the Commerce's attention. For example, concerns 
about perceived conflicts and adverse ``trade-offs'' between 
trade negotiations and trade remedy law administration are 
unfounded, because the administration of these laws is a quasi-
judicial process. The Committee expects these functions to 
remain separate from those relating to negotiation and to be 
administered in strict accordance with current law.
    The Committee does not accept the view that the trade 
promotion and trade negotiation functions should be separated. 
In fact, they are interrelated in many ways. For example, trade 
negotiations open markets, while trade promotion takes 
advantage of new market opportunities that result from 
negotiated agreements. Moreover, those who are on the front 
line of export promotion are often in the best position to 
identify issues that should be addressed in future 
negotiations, or that arise from ineffective implementation of 
trade agreements.
    International trade has never been a more crucial or 
complex challenge for our nation. The 21st Century will demand 
that American interests be pursued with greater unity of 
purpose and sophistication than ever before. The negotiating 
agenda has grown enormously, in terms of both the sheer number 
and the unprecedented complexity of issues on the table. 
Monitoring our trading partners' performance on trade 
agreements to make certain that they stick to their 
obligations--in the context of increasingly complex bilateral 
and multilateral agreements, such as NAFTA, the Uruguay Round, 
the United States-Japan Auto Agreement, and the United States-
China Intellectual Property Rights Agreement--will demand 
greater American resolve and ingenuity than ever before. The 
pursuit of long term strategic goals, such as Chile's NAFTA 
accession, and the achievement of free trade throughout the 
Western Hemisphere by 2005, and throughout the Asia-Pacific by 
2020, will compound these challenges. These factors underscore 
the critical importance of unifying Federal trade functions 
within the USTA.
    The case for trade reorganization has never been more 
compelling. The world has changed fundamentally in recent 
years, and America's competitive posture in world markets will 
be a critical determinant of national strength in the years 
ahead. Creating a modernized streamlined USTA is a crucial 
element of a national strategy to meet these challenges.

           d. the need to create a Government 2000 commission

    The Committee believes that the government must be 
fundamentally restructured--well beyond the elimination of one 
department. The amount of change the Committee envisions will 
require the development of a comprehensive blueprint and a 
systematic process for managing the fundamental change involved 
in moving to a new structure. The Committee believes that the 
best vehicle for accomplishing change of this magnitude is a 
bipartisan commission whose recommendations must be considered 
by Congress in an expedient fashion.
    Efforts to eliminate various departments, agencies, and 
programs one at a time may address the feeling of the American 
people that government has grown too large and is too costly. 
However, the public also believes that the Federal Government 
still has important responsibilities, which it needs to perform 
much better. The public's concern is not just that government 
should stop doing certain things, but that those things it 
needs to do, it must do better and at less cost. Given GAO's 
finding that over six agencies perform each major Federal 
mission, merely eliminating one or two agencies will not 
produce the improvements in efficiency and effectiveness that 
the public demands.
    This means that in addition to eliminating some agencies 
and programs, Congress also needs to consolidate and streamline 
others, and to improve their work processes. To do this 
properly, the Committee has concluded that a comprehensive 
blueprint should be developed, reflecting a government better 
organized to address the core missions of a nation about to 
enter the 21st Century. Just taking a list of 14 cabinet 
departments, for example, and striking several from that list 
may not achieve the needed result. The entire organizational 
premises of Executive Branch structure should be re-thought, 
perhaps with a few new departments being considered as the 
replacement for several existing ones.
    Doing this effectively may even entail re-thinking the 
actual role of a cabinet department, as distinguished from an 
independent agency. It may mean considering new uses for 
government corporations and rethinking the rules that apply to 
them. In addition, operational reforms will be needed to retool 
the internal workings of restructured agencies. In this latter 
regard, the Committee expects soon to consider reforms to the 
Federal personnel and purchasing systems. It expects that 
certain other operational matters may need to be part of any 
comprehensive reorganization plan, in order to render it 
effective in achieving better performance at less cost.
    The Committee envisions enormous change in the Federal 
management environment. Given the degree of change envisioned, 
the Committee expects that many interest groups (including 
within Congress itself) will reflexively react against proposed 
changes to the status quo. Strong public support will be needed 
to push through reforms. This level of support is more likely 
to flow from the recommendations of a bipartisan commission 
composed of experts who possess national stature. Also, a 
special process will be needed to ensure that the 
recommendations are considered by Congress in timely fashion. 
Only bipartisan commission is likely to be granted such a 
mechanism for consideration of its recommendations.
    The Committee has, for the past several years, worked on 
various formulations of a restructuring commission proposal. 
Its latest effort embodied in Title V of this Act, as amended, 
creates a Government 2000 Commission. These efforts by the 
Committee are part of a long heritage of similar endeavors and 
have been informed by a close reading of the experience of 
eleven major initiatives in the 20th Century. These include: 
Keep Commission (1905-1909); President's Commission on Economy 
and Efficiency (1910-1913); Joint Committee on Reorganization 
(1921-1924); President's Committee on Administrative Management 
(1936-1937); First Hoover Commission (1947-1949); Second Hoover 
Commission (1953-1955); Ash Council (1969-1971); Carter 
Reorganization Effort (1977-1979); Grace Commission (1982-
1984); and National Performance Review (1993). These 
initiatives are chronicled in Senate Report 103-88.

 e. future organizational options: the need for transitional structures

    The termination of the Department of Commerce raises far-
reaching questions about the structure and location of 
functions remaining after the Department, itself, is dissolved. 
Mindful of the broad charter granted to the Government 2000 
Commission, the Committee does not wish to unnecessarily 
constrain the Commission, or take actions which might be 
contrary to the future structure it envisions. The Committee 
found it necessary, therefore, to propose temporary solutions 
for some functions which might serve as ``holding patterns'' 
pending the Commission's consideration of broader solutions. 
These transitional steps seem preferable and less disruptive in 
the long run than do some of the other alternatives considered. 
Two of these transitional structures are NOAA and OPTS.
    Two restructuring actions which do not fall into this 
transitional category involve the trade and statistical 
functions. The Committee cannot envision a future in which 
trade would not be of sufficiently critical importance to merit 
a dedicated, focused structure such as the USTA created in this 
Act. Similarly, the Committee was sufficiently persuaded by the 
testimonies of former Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Janet 
Norwood, and Scott Hodge of the Heritage Foundation, that there 
are sound programmatic and management reasons for consolidating 
statistical functions into a single agency. The Committee takes 
a confident first step in that direction by transferring the 
Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Census Bureau to the 
Department of Labor for consolidation with the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    The establishment of the NOAA as an independent agency 
reflects the Committee's interest in keeping NOAA intact 
pending broader restructuring of the government's natural 
resources functions by the Commission. The Committee notes that 
almost all recent reorganization plans, including the Ash 
Council proposal of 1971, the plan proposed by then-Congressman 
Leon Panetta in 1991, and the Heritage Foundation proposal of 
1995, envision some form of consolidated natural resources 
agency, which might logically house NOAA or some of its 
functions in the future.
    The Committee considered S. 929 as introduced and other 
proposals which would have dismembered NOAA by transferring its 
functions to various other agencies, but rejected them as 
shortsighted and potentially too disruptive to services. The 
Committee recalls that in 1969, President Nixon created the 
Stratton Commission to examine American oceanic programs. The 
Commission reported that America's use of the seas was hampered 
by having marine activities scattered in several different 
government agencies, and recommended that NOAA be created as an 
independent agency. In testimony before the Committee on July 
27, 1995, Dr. John Knauss, former NOAA Administrator and former 
member of the Stratton Commission, emphasized the importance of 
keeping NOAA intact so as not to lose the synergies between the 
oceanic and atmospheric missions which led to NOAA's creation 
in the first place:

          I strongly believe this nation is well served by 
        combining its ocean and atmospheric services in a 
        single agency. The importance of the ocean-atmosphere 
        interactions was a key reason for the mix of functions 
        the Stratton Commission put into NOAA. It would be 
        tragic to break up ocean and atmosphere function of 
        NOAA.

    Nevertheless, persuasive expert testimony on the 
privatization potential of non-core NOAA weather service 
functions was presented on July 27th by Jeffrey C. Smith of the 
Commercial Weather Services Association. In light of these 
testimonies, the Committee believes that NOAA should be kept 
whole and independent pending consideration of the 
restructuring of the entirety of Federal natural resources 
functions by the Government 2000 Commission, and completion of 
studies by OMB of NOAA's privatization potential. Further, the 
Committee adopted the Glenn Amendment to downsize and 
streamline NOAA in accordance with recent recommendations by 
the President's National Performance Review.

Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards

    The Constitution provides an exclusive right to inventors 
and creators of intellectual property to enjoy the fruits of 
their creativity. This right is granted so as to offer to the 
public inventions and ideas which have been demonstrated to be 
novel and not infringe on the prior art of others.
    One of the earliest enactments of Congress, the Patent Act 
of April 10, 1790, created a cabinet-level board and authorized 
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, the Attorney 
General, or any two of them to issue patents. Thomas Jefferson, 
then Secretary of State, took a particular interest in the 
development of science and industry and encouraged the 
development of patent art.
    The current Patent Office and modern patent law was 
established by the Patent Act of 1836. The Patent Office was 
first a bureau of the Department of State from 1836 until 1849, 
when it was transferred to the Department of the Interior. When 
the Department of Commerce and Labor was created in 1903, 
proposals were made to transfer the office to the new 
department. A comprehensive study of the patent system and 
office was made by a Presidential commission in 1912. The Taft 
Commission recommended that it be made into an independent 
office at that time:

          In 1849 came the creation of the Department of the 
        Interior and under it was placed the Patent Office. As 
        early as 1852, complaints were made by the Commissioner 
        that the Patent Office has no more logical connection 
        with the department than it has with any other; that it 
        suffers with all the inconveniences and embarrassments 
        of such relation, but gains none of the advantages. 
        This idea has continued until the present time. It is 
        often recommended that the Patent Office be made an 
        absolutely independent bureau, whose head shall be 
        appointed for life.

    The recommendation was adopted at the time and the Patent 
and Trademark Office remained in Interior until 1926, when it 
was transferred to the Department of Commerce by executive 
order, where it is located today.
    In 1959 a Senate Judiciary Patent Subcommittee report 
concluded that;

          * * * the present subordination of the Patent Office 
        to the Commerce Department is inconsistent with proper 
        performance of the quasi-judicial functions involved in 
        granting patents. When such a quasi-judicial agency is 
        made subordinate to an executive department it is 
        inevitably handicapped. The Patent Office will also be 
        handicapped in discharging its administrative 
        responsibilities so long as Congress must rely on the 
        Secretary of Commerce, rather than the Commissioner of 
        Patents, to present proposals needed to remedy 
        deficiencies in physical facilities and personnel.

    The Subcommittee staff concluded that the need for an 
independent office was established as long ago as 1912.
    In 1961, Patent Commissioner Ladd set up an independent 
study group headed by Earl Kintner, former chairman of the 
Federal Trade Commission. Like many other outside study groups 
it found that many problems plagued the operation of the 
office, particularly backlog. It found chronic problems of 
personnel turnover, management inertia, poor management and 
poor planning.
    In 1979, Senators Bayh of Indiana and Danforth of Missouri 
cosponsored S. 2079, a bill to establish an independent Patent 
and Trademark Office headed by a presidentially appointed 
Commissioner who would serve a single six year term. Hearings 
were held by the Senate Judiciary and Governmental Affairs 
committees. Six former Patent Commissioners testified in favor 
of the proposed legislation. However, the bill did not receive 
further consideration at that time.
    In 1982, Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement 
Act which created a single Federal appellate court for all 
patent appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 
and which formalized appeal procedures within the Patent Office 
itself by creating two administrative tribunals, the Boards of 
Patent Appeals and the Board of Trademark Appeals. These 
actions proved to be quite successful in creating a uniform, 
consistent body of patent and trademark law, but it did not 
achieve a major goal of cutting down on the costs or 
significant delay in administering and enforcing patent law.
    In 1984, Congress authorized the Patent Office to establish 
an automation fund. As a result hundreds of millions of dollars 
have been obligated in efforts to modernize and automate the 
patent search and retrieval activities of the Patent Office. 
Only limited success has been achieved in automation, according 
to a 1993 GAO report, and much remains to be done to bring the 
Office's capabilities up to the level of private firms offering 
similar services to the patent bar and inventing public.
    From the outset, PTO was a self-sustaining enterprise by 
generating sufficient revenues to cover its costs. This 
continued through 1922, at which time taxpayer funds were 
needed to support the Office. This pattern was reversed in 1982 
and by 1991 it was again 100 percent user fee funded. In recent 
years, budget and administrative officials from the Department 
of Commerce and the OMB have increasingly diverted user fee 
income to other governmental needs.
    Under the 1982 Act, patent and trademark fees recovered 83 
percent of total operating costs. Congressional appropriations 
provided the remainder of the funds. In November, 1990, the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (Public Law 101-508) was 
enacted as a deficit reduction measure. The PTO's share of the 
budget reduction effort was $495 million over a five year 
period. As a result, a 69 percent surcharge was applied by the 
Congress to certain patent fees.
    Through Fiscal Year 1995, the PTO has met all deposit 
requirements of this law. However, through Fiscal Year 1995, 
approximately 12 percent, or close to $60 million of patent fee 
collections have not been appropriated back to the PTO. At the 
current House and Senate marks for Fiscal Year 1996, the amount 
diverted from the PTO will increase to between $80 million and 
$115 million. In all, it is currently estimated that an 
additional $345 million will be diverted by the end of fiscal 
1998.
    The transition to full user-fee funding was accompanied by 
a substantial 35 percent increase in the number of patent 
applications that have been filed from 1982 to 1994. In Fiscal 
Year 1995 almost 192,000 applications were filed and about 
140,000 new patents were issued. By the year 2000, projected 
filings are expected to be at least 234,000. Similar growth is 
being experienced in trademark applications, with current 
filings about 157,000 and reaching over 200,000 by the turn of 
the Century.
    Patent application filings in emerging technologies are 
forecast to increase at higher than average rates. For example, 
in 1995, PTO will have received about 15,000 biotechnology 
applications, more than 5.7 percent more than the previous 
year. Examining patent and trademark applications is a labor-
intensive activity. As workload increases, there needs to be a 
corresponding increase in technical and administrative 
staffing. The examiner corps, which has scientific, technical 
as well as legal backgrounds, currently is more than 1,000. By 
the year 2000, workload projections may well result in a 
doubling of the group. Competition for individuals with these 
technical and legal skills is intense. PTO needs to respond 
quickly to fluctuations in workload as well as sudden increases 
in new technology areas. Personnel ceiling and cutbacks 
applicable to traditional government agencies negatively impact 
production which in turn has a negative impact on productivity 
(new patents awarded) and future revenues.
    In considering the restricting and dismantling of the 
Department of Commerce, serious consideration was given to 
three alternative recommendations for organizational placement 
for the Patent and Trademark Office. A decision was made to 
make the current office an independent agency, free from 
subordination to any cabinet officer. Serious consideration was 
given to the transfer of the agency to the Department of 
Justice, as was the case at the beginning of the Republic, and 
as was recommended by Senator Abraham and the Majority Leader, 
Senator Dole, in S. 929 as introduced.
    The Attorney General traditionally is a powerful senior 
member of any cabinet and is learned in the law, although no 
recent Attorney General has had expertise in the highly 
technical field of patent and trademark law. However, keeping 
in mind recommendations spanning more than a century and up, 
until very recently with the Bayh-Danforth bill, transfer to 
another Department was rejected.
    The proposal to ``privatize'' PTO by establishing a wholly-
owned government corporation was also considered. Such a 
proposal has been made by the patent bar in the 1992 report by 
the American Intellectual Property Law Association and by a 
recently released study by the National Academy of Public 
Administration in August of 1995, These proposals are reflected 
in H.R. 1659, the Moorhead-Schroeder bill, currently pending in 
the House Judiciary Committee and on which recent hearings have 
been held in that body. Also, the Administration will shortly 
submit its proposal which apparently is similar to the Moorhead 
bill. This concept is consistent will the criteria contained in 
the first Hoover Commission Report of 1949 for establishing 
wholly-owned government corporations: PTO is predominately of a 
business nature; it is revenue producing and self sustaining; 
and its is involved in a large number of business-type 
transactions with the public.
    This proposal recognizes the PTO's business responsibility 
of providing products and services in response to pre-paid 
requests and applications and its financially self-sustaining 
nature. The corporate structure would free the PTO from such 
bureaucratic red tape and structure, thus allowing it to cope 
effectively and efficiently with rapidly increasing workload 
while providing high quality, technically sophisticated 
service. While there is broad support for streamlining of PTO 
and its work processes, there are important concerns that PTO 
performs a unique function (i.e. conveying a government backed 
property right) this is inherently governmental and should 
remain within the Federal Government structure.
    The bill as amended is intended to support improvements in 
the efficiency and effectiveness of our patent and trademark 
system, while providing at least a temporary home for the 
standards-setting functions which the new OPTS inherits from 
NIST.
    The Committee has followed closely various Congressional 
proposals to create a Department of Science and other entities 
dedicated to scientific and technological pursuits. The 
Government 2000 Commission is directed to sort out these 
proposals, and in the process it could well find a better home 
for standards. It is hoped that the Commission will consider 
the unification of all intellectual property licensing 
functions (i.e. including copyrights) under a single roof.
    In the meantime, the new OPTS will direct the current 
organization towards a performance based, customer-oriented 
structure, with much more flexibility to rid itself of 
traditional governmental and administrative restraints.

                   IV. Legislative History of S. 929

    The Commerce Department Dismantling Act of 1995 (S. 929) 
was submitted by Senator Abraham, along with co-sponsoring 
Senators Dole, Faircloth, Nickles, Gramm and Brown, on June 15, 
1995, and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

    committee hearings on commerce department, July 25 and 27, 1995

    The Committee held hearings on the bill on July 25 and 27, 
1995. The witnesses appearing on July 25 included:
          The Honorable Robert Dole, Majority Leader, U.S. 
        Senate;
          The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings, U.S. Senate;
          The Honorable Larry Pressler, U.S. Senate;
          The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, U.S. Senate;
          The Honorable Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senate;
          The Honorable Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of Commerce;
          Mr. L. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal Management 
        Issues, GAO;
          Dr. Allan I. Mendelowitz, Managing Director, 
        International Trade, Finance, and Competitiveness 
        Issues, GAO.
    Senator Dole testified that the Department of Commerce 
should be eliminated because of its track record of wasteful 
duplication and ineffectiveness. He stated that Commerce is the 
first of four cabinet departments identified for elimination. 
It is important to eliminate Commerce, he said, because:

          It has become the basement of the Federal 
        bureaucracy, a storage room for the forgotten and 
        misbegotten programs. That is not just the verdict of 
        this Senator but it is shared by its own Inspector 
        General, who called Commerce ``a loose collection of 
        more than 100 programs,'' and the General Accounting 
        Office, which said that it shared its mission with at 
        least 71 Federal departments, agencies, and offices.

    Senator Hollings strongly objected to the elimination of 
the Commerce Department, which he testified performs vital 
functions to the national economy.
    Senator Pressler testified to his support for thoughtfully 
restructuring government, but noted his concerns about keeping 
``trade, technology and the businessman's voice at the cabinet 
table.'' He also expressed concerns about transferring or 
eliminating several functions, including NOAA and the 
Technology Administration agencies, which fall under the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, which he chairs.
    Senator Rockefeller strongly objected to abolishing the 
Commerce Department on grounds that it performs a critical role 
in promoting American competitiveness abroad, particularly in 
high tech industries.
    Senator Bond discussed his concerns about international 
trade. He objected to the way in which S. 929 proposed to 
dismantle and transfer the Department's trade functions. He 
expressed his intention to offer an amendment striking the 
trade sections of the bill and replacing them with language 
creating a new cabinet level Department of International Trade.
    Secretary Brown strongly objected to abolishing the 
Department of Commerce. He staunchly defended the job he has 
done as Secretary, discussed his successful efforts promoting 
American interests abroad, and described the strong support he 
has gained in the business community. He also discussed his 
plans to reinvest the Department, including downsizing its 
workforce by 20 percent, and privatizing PTO and NIST 
functions.
    Mr. Stevens of GAO testified about the duplication, overlap 
and fragmentation in the missions and functions performed by 
the Commerce Department with other agencies. He characterized 
Commerce as: ``essentially a holding company for many disparate 
programs, and it has never been managed on the basis of 
unifying missions or shared goals.'' He described the current 
Administration's articulation of five strategic themes as an 
attempt to create a more cohesive management system among 
thirteen independent and autonomous bureaus. He stated that 
this would be ``a particular challenge for Commerce because it 
does not have exclusive Federal responsibility * * * for any of 
those strategic themes.'' He described the Department's 
administrative systems as highly decentralized and having 
``serious problems with its financial management and related 
internal controls.'' He pointed out several particular examples 
of duplication of resources and effort between Commerce and 
other agencies. One example he cited was the Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP). ATP's funding has increased from $68 
million to $431 million in the past two years. ``ATP is just 
one of several Federal initiatives that support R&D through 
grants and cooperative arrangements. * * * The Administration's 
budget also includes $4.8 billion for these initiatives, of 
which just 10 percent goes through NIST.'' He said that GAO 
issued a report in January 1994 that showed that ``the short 
term results claimed for the Advanced Technology Program are 
overstated or lack support.''
    Mr. Stevens went on to describe similarities between the 
NOAA and other agencies, particularly the Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior. Both NOAA and 
FWS have responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NOAA's oceanic research 
functions also have similarities to several agencies, such as 
the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, 
the Geological Survey and the Minerals Management Service in 
the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, EPA, 
and NASA.
    In the discussion period that followed, Mr. Stevens was 
asked whether spinning off some of the Commerce functions into 
independent agencies would create excessive administrative 
costs. He replied that since the Commerce entities already 
operate fairly autonomously, they could be made independent at 
relatively little extra cost.
    Dr. Mendelowitz of GAO testified about the roles and 
responsibilities performed by various agencies in the Executive 
Branch in the area of international trade. He distinguished 
four basic functions: trade policy; trade promotion, including 
advocacy and finance; trade regulation, including export 
licensing and implementation of antidumping and countervailing 
duty laws; and collection, analysis and dissemination of trade 
related data. He testified that any reorganization of trade 
functions ``should hopefully have as an objective looking for 
opportunities for cost savings.'' He went on to say that any 
``trade reorganization proposal that has as an objective cost 
savings should look more broadly at trade functions across the 
government than just the Department of Commerce. * * * He 
concluded by saying that the proposal to dismantle Commerce 
``provides the Congress the opportunity to deliberate on which 
trade functions are appropriate for the Federal Government and 
how these agencies can be best organized to ensure the 
efficiency and effectiveness of these activities.''
    In the discussion period that followed, Dr. Mendelowitz 
mentioned that three agencies have overlapping roles in 
providing export assistance to small business: SBA; the 
Commerce Department; and the Ex-Im Bank. He described the GAO's 
proposal of creating ``one-stop shops'' to consolidate the 
activities of all three agencies.
    The witnesses appearing in the July 27th hearing included:
          Ambassador Clayton Yeutter, former United States 
        Trade Representative, and former Secretary of 
        Agriculture;
          The Honorable Barbara Hackman Franklin, former 
        Secretary of Commerce;
          Dr. Murray Weidenbaum, Chairman, Center for Study of 
        American Businesses, Washington University, former 
        Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors;
          Mr. Paul R. Huard, Senior Vice President of the 
        National Association of Manufacturers;
          Mr. Clyde V. Prestowitz, Jr., President of the 
        Economic Strategy Institute;
          Mr. Edward H. Kwiatkowski, Director of the Great 
        Lakes Manufacturing Technology Center, and Vice 
        President of the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing 
        Program;
          Dr. John A. Knauss, Dean, Graduate School of 
        Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, former 
        Administrator, NOAA;
          Dr. Edward L. Hudgins, Director of Regulatory 
        Studies, The Cato Institute;
          Mr. Murray Comarow, The American University, former 
        Executive Director, President's Advisory Council on 
        Executive Organization (Ash Council);
          Mr. Jeffrey C. Smith, Executive Director, Commercial 
        Weathers Services Association; and
          Mr. Bryan Norcross, chief Meteorologist, WTVJ-NBC, 
        Miami, Florida.
    Ambassador Yeutter testified in support of the streamlining 
and restructuring of the Executive Branch. He focused on the 
international trade functions and outlined an organizational 
concept for a consolidated trade agency.
    Mrs. Franklin spoke in favor of streamlining and downsizing 
the government and the functions of the Commerce Department.
    Dr. Weidenbaum applauded the objectives of reducing the 
size and scope of government and eliminating wasteful and 
ineffective functions. He focuses particularly on the 
economics, statistical and technology agencies of the Commerce 
Department. He also presented data showing recent growth trends 
in spending in the various programs administered by the 
Department.
    Mr. Prestowitz testified to the importance of the 
international trade functions of the Department of Commerce. He 
urged the Committee to proceed from a careful analysis of 
America's position in the world economy and to avoid 
superficially ``moving boxes around an organization chart.''
    Mr. Huard testified to the importance of the trade and 
export related functions of the Department of Commerce to the 
manufacturing industries. He noted that over 84 percent of 
America's exports and imports are manufactured products. He 
expressed concerns about the approach to restructuring taken by 
S. 929 as introduced by Senator Abraham:

          To do away with some of the vital export related 
        functions of the Department is, in our view, not 
        advisable. To scatter those that remain across four or 
        five other different agencies in the government is 
        equally inadvisable.

    He stated that the

        core elements of the Commerce Department's trade and 
        export functions should remain together under the 
        leadership of a cabinet rank official.

    Dr. Hudgins testified to his support for eliminating 
wasteful and unnecessary functions of the Commerce Department, 
particularly the subsidy programs to industry.
    Dr. Knauss testified about his experience as Administrator 
of NOAA in the Bush Administration, and as a member of the 
Stratton Commission, appointed by President Johnson, which 
first recommended establishing NOAA as an independent agency. 
He objected to the way in which S. 929 would dismember NOAA and 
transfer its functions to other agencies. He expressed greater 
concern about breaking NOAA apart than about its location, 
whether transferred intact to a new agency, or set up as an 
independent agency. As he put it:

          One of the reasons why NOAA was put together with the 
        oceans and atmosphere was from a science point of view, 
        these are interactive systems * * * it is critical that 
        we have an ocean and atmospheric organization that is 
        together.

    He discussed the possibility of privatizing certain weather 
related functions. He suggested that some privatization might 
be possible, but cautioned against outsourcing core Federal 
functions.
    Mr. Comarow testified about his experience as Executive 
Director of the Ash Council and the Council's recommendations 
concerning the establishment of a Department of Natural 
Resources and a Department of Economic Affairs. He discussed 
the principles of organization considered by the Ash Council in 
developing its recommendations. He stressed that reorganization 
is not a panacea. ``There is no perfect organization. No 
structural arrangement can reconcile all interests.''
    Mr. Smith testified about opportunities to privatize 
weather related functions of NOAA. He said that there are 
significant opportunities in non-core Federal functions which 
offer substantial cost savings.
    Mr. Norcross testified to the importance of the weather 
related services of NOAA. He strongly supported keeping NOAA's 
oceanic and atmospheric functions intact, and expressed 
concerns that privatizing weather functions might result in 
higher costs to some users of Weather Service data, producing a 
system of ``haves and have nots'' which might not serve the 
public interest.
    Mr. Kwiatkowski testified in support of the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership program. He said that the Cleveland 
Advanced Manufacturing Program has served some 2,500 companies 
since its founding in 1989, and discussed its strategies and 
success stories.

     committee hearings on government restructuring, May-June, 1995

    On May 17 and 18, and June 7, 1995, the Committee held 
hearings on issues concerning Executive Branch reorganization. 
Witnesses on the first day were:
          Honorable Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General of 
        the United States;
          Honorable Alice M. Rivlin, Director of OMB;
          Scott Fosler, President, National Academy of Public 
        Administration;
          Alan Dean, Senior Fellow, National Academy of Public 
        Administration;
          Honorable Andrew Foster, Chief Executive, The Audit 
        Commission, United Kingdom;
          Robert S. Gilmour, Professor of Political Science, 
        University of Connecticut; and
          Paul C. Light, Professor of Public Affairs, Hubert H. 
        Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of 
        Minnesota;
    Charles Bowsher described several examples illustrating 
some of the problems with the current structure of the 
Executive Branch:

          The Federal food safety system, which took shape 
        under as many as 35 laws and is administered by 12 
        different agencies, does not effectively protect the 
        public from major foodborne illnesses. The system lacks 
        coherence because the basic structure was created and 
        continues to operate in piecemeal fashion * * *
          The Federal Government has 163 separate employment 
        training programs scattered across 15 departments and 
        agencies and 40 interdepartmental offices, which in 
        turn channel funds to state and local program 
        administrators. Given the size and structure of these 
        and other welfare programs, the vulnerability to fraud, 
        waste, and abuse is considerable. Moreover, little is 
        known about the effectiveness of many of these 
        programs; most of the agencies that administer 
        employment training programs cannot say if these 
        programs are actually helping people to find jobs.
          The Federal Government funds over 90 early childhood 
        programs in 11 Federal agencies and 20 offices * * * Of 
        the key programs we identified, 13 targeted 
        economically disadvantaged children from birth through 
        age five. * * *

    In asserting the need for a more integrated approach to the 
organization of Federal agencies and programs, he stated that:

          The case for reorganizing the Federal Government is 
        an easy one to make. Many departments and agencies were 
        created in a different time and in response to problems 
        very different from today's. Many have accumulated 
        responsibilities beyond their original purposes. As new 
        challenges arose or new needs were identified, new 
        programs and responsibilities were added to departments 
        and agencies with insufficient regard to their effects 
        on the overall delivery of services to the public.
          Moving to a smaller, more efficient Federal 
        Government that stresses accountability and managing 
        for results will require reengineering Federal 
        operations and supporting them with modern information 
        technology. Reengineering inefficient work processes 
        and using modern technology offer unprecedented 
        opportunities to improve the delivery of government 
        services and reduce program costs.

    He stated that in order to develop a plan for such reforms, 
he had ``always supported the idea of a bipartisan commission 
on this because I think it does help.''
    Dr. Rivlin discussed some of the advantages and 
disadvantages involved in creating a commission on 
reorganization. She expressed concern that such an effort would 
cause a loss of momentum within the Executive Branch for the 
Administration's own efforts to restructure and reform the 
operations of government. She said that there is a problem with 
creating too many independent agencies that do not report to 
the President, but that there also should not be too many that 
do report directly. She expressed the opinion that 13 to 14 
departments is about the right number for this size of 
government, though we may not have the right ones.
    Scott Fosler presented a comprehensive overview of the 
advice of the National Academy of Public Administration 
regarding the principles of Executive Branch reorganization. 
Among the points he raised were that successful restructuring 
requires a framework, or at least a robust set of principles, 
to give coherence to a wide range of complex actions, and that 
the Federal Government needs a strategy for restructuring which 
includes but is not limited to reorganization. He also 
explained that several foreign governments, such as the United 
Kingdom and New Zealand, have created ``relatively independent 
operating agencies.''

          Such agencies typically are assigned focused missions 
        and headed by professional executives who negotiate 
        performance agreements with their ministries 
        (equivalent to our cabinet departments) specifying 
        targeted objectives and indicators in exchange for 
        appropriations. The executives are given wide latitude 
        to manage their agencies (including freedom from most 
        central controls on personnel, procurement, and 
        processes), and held accountable for achieving 
        specified performance targets regularly reported in 
        performance reports.
          These and other overseas experiences warrant closer 
        attention. But their immediate importance for our 
        consideration here is that the Federal Government 
        should give primary attention to the organizational 
        design of its principal operating units, which in most 
        cases are agencies below the departmental level or 
        completely outside departments, and avoid becoming 
        overly preoccupied with whether or not given 
        departments should continue to exist.

    Alan Dean drew on his experiences both as assistant to the 
vice chairman of the first Hoover Commission and as the 
coordinator of President Nixon's effort to replace seven 
cabinet departments with four. In doing so, he focused 
specifically on the question of when should a function be a 
cabinet department, an independent agency, or a government 
corporation. He concluded that those existing departments which 
deserve to remain so are the departments of State, Defense, 
Treasury, Justice, and Transportation, and that each of the 
others should ``be given the additional responsibilities needed 
for them to pursue successfully some major purpose or they 
should be combined with other existing departments or 
agencies.''
    Mr. Dean suggested that many of the non-regulatory agencies 
``exist because no one has gotten around to placing them in an 
executive department or because supportive groups have 
successfully kept them separate.'' He believes that ``Small 
independent agencies do not really `report to the President.' 
They tend either to be dominated by interest groups or to be at 
the mercy of examiners in the Office of Management and 
Budget.'' Referring to Senator Roth's reorganization commission 
bill, he said:

          Another action which Congress usefully could take is 
        to revive the Chairman's proposal to create a new, 
        Hoover-type commission to conduct a bi-partisan review 
        of the organization of the Executive Branch and to 
        develop consistent and well thought out recommendations 
        for the next administration and the 105th Congress.

    Andrew Foster explained, from his perspective as a chief 
executive of such an agency, how the government of the United 
Kingdom has created over 100 ``executive agencies'' within its 
departments, covering 66 percent of its total central 
government workforce. These agencies are each established with 
a ``framework'' document, dealing with items such as: aims and 
objectives, reporting and accountability, finance, pay and 
personnel, etc. A chief executive is hired by the department 
head to run the agency, on a negotiated performance contract, 
for a fixed term (usually three to five years), with pay 
closely linked to performance. in return, they are given much 
greater flexibility over the use of resources, including 
reallocating funds, and pay and personnel matters. He said that 
this arrangement has also made it easier for certain functions 
later to become privatized.
    Mr. Foster acknowledged that ``The main difficulty has been 
in the distinction between policy and operational matters,'' 
which ``has led to tension between some chief executives and 
their departmental ministers''--particularly as to assessing 
blame when things go wrong (i.e., was it bad management or bad 
policy?). He concluded that on balance, ``The agency model is 
potentially very powerful'' and that it ``has generally had a 
successful start.''
    Paul Light summarized the message of his recent book, 
``Thickening Government,'' about how there are more layers of 
management, and more managers in each layer, in the Federal 
Government than ever before. He argued that there are too many 
budget and administrative units in government agencies, and 
that they could be centralized into a small number of quasi-
independent ``Federal administrative centers. He also endorsed 
the commission proposal of Senator Roth, likening it to the 
``Greenspan Commission'' on Social Security, rather than to the 
Hoover Commission.
    Robert Gilmour testified that the primary purpose of 
governmental organization should be accountability, not 
efficiency, and that efforts to decentralize to achieve the 
latter often undermine the former. He urged that reorganization 
be done with clear principles of governmental management and 
performance in mind, and suggested that the political and legal 
accountability of government officials are best assured when 
the following such principles are observed:

          Statutes delegate effective authority to the 
        president or to his subordinates who are officers of 
        the United States;
          Statutes organizing policy implementation and program 
        administration draw clear lines of authority from the 
        President to the heads of the departments and agencies 
        and from them to their subordinates;
          Authority and responsibility for policy and program 
        performance are located with certainty in single 
        administrators, not in plural executives, interagency 
        committees, or representatives boards;
          Specific policy and program objectives are 
        incorporated into enabling legislation, subject to 
        reasonable and articulate standards of measurements and 
        compliance;
          Statutory responsibility for policy and program 
        performance is congruent with administrative authority 
        and resources;
          Executive Branch managers are held legally 
        accountable by reviewing courts for maintaining 
        procedural safeguards in dealing with both citizens and 
        employees and for conforming to legislative deadlines 
        and substantive standards; and
          Inherently governmental functions (the making of 
        binding law; authoritative adjudication of disputes; 
        control over elections for government office; the 
        unconsented taking of private property; the exercise of 
        coercive force over others; and the denial of private 
        rights on behalf of the state) are performed 
        exclusively by officers of the United States and their 
        government-employed subordinates.

    He endorsed Senator Roth's proposal for a commission to 
conduct a comprehensive review of these issues and to recommend 
reforms.
    Witnesses at the May 18 hearing who addressed broad 
reorganizational issues, beyond the elimination or creation of 
an individual department, were:
          Donald F. Kettl, Robert M. La Follette Institute of 
        Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin, and non-
        resident Senior Fellow, Center for Public Management, 
        the Brookings Institution;
          Murray Comarow, American University School of Public 
        Affairs, and former Executive Director, President 
        Nixon's Advisory Council on Executive Organization;
          Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Ph.D., President, the Progress & 
        Freedom Foundation; and
          Scott A. Hodge, Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal 
        Budgetary Affairs, the Heritage Foundation.
    Donald Kettl testified that the Committee's ``challenge is 
not just to downsize but to `smartsize': to reconfigure the 
Federal Government so that it does its job better, at lower 
costs and higher performance.'' Regarding shrinking the size of 
the cabinet, he stated that, ``Fewer departments, and 
especially more agencies, bureaus, and government corporations, 
will mean giving government managers more discretion. Such a 
step has to be accompanied by a careful plan to ensure 
accountability.'' He reiterated this need to strengthen 
accountability as follows:

          The one, core element of every major governmental 
        reform, abroad and in the United States, is a 
        revolutionary focus on performance. Instead of judging 
        success by the amount of money spent, the reformers are 
        demanding that government concentrate on the results it 
        produces. In New Zealand, this comes through 
        performance contracts between top bureaucrats and the 
        government and by a dramatic increase in government 
        workers competing with private companies for their own 
        jobs. In Australia, this comes through program-based 
        performance management that leads to performance-based 
        assessment of managers' work. In the United Kingdom's 
        ``Next Steps'' program, it is leading to the creation 
        of ``executive agencies,'' semi-autonomous bodies 
        charged with clearly defined tasks, driven by market-
        like, and measured against clear performance standards 
        * * * The most fascinating feature of public sector 
        reform is the remarkable convergence of tactics around 
        performance-based management * * * In the United 
        States, the performance movement is still in its 
        nursery. One of the most important steps was the 
        passage, led by this Committee, of the Government 
        Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA commits the 
        government to an aggressive, decade-long program to 
        move the Federal Government toward performance-based 
        management.

    He endorsed the proposal to establish a commission to 
develop proposals for organizational reform of the Federal 
Government as being ``an excellent way to trying to make sure 
that we think carefully about how to do this job well.''
    Murray Comarow described the 1970-71 recommendations of 
what is commonly referred to as the Ash Council, to create a 
Department of Natural Resources, a Department of Human 
Resources, a Department of Community Development, and a 
Department of Economic Growth and Productivity, with the result 
being that there would be a reduction to a total of eight 
cabinet departments (those four, plus State, Treasury, Defense, 
and Justice). He stated that the Council concluded that the 
reorganization plan should be based on the following 
principles:

          Departments should be organized around broad missions 
        and should seek to integrate the professional skills 
        and governmental functions necessary to accomplish 
        those missions;
          The number of departments should be reduced;
          Departments should group similar or interdependent 
        programs together to avoid the need for excessive 
        coordination and to permit decision making on all 
        issues relevant to their missions; and
          Departments should not be preceived primarily as a 
        spokesman in government for one profession or clientele 
        group.

    In responding to the questions of when should a function be 
a cabinet department, Mr. Comarow suggested that,

          Cabinet departments should be those dealing with 
        primary government functions which rightly claim 
        presidential attention * * * It is important to group 
        interdependent programs in a mission broad enough to 
        foster tradeoffs at the departmental level. Single 
        client departments can't do that, with the result that 
        inter-departmental conflicts are resolved in the White 
        House often at levels well below the President and his 
        senior advisors.

    Jeffrey Eisenach testified that what is needed today is 
neither reform of the current system (i.e., ``that the current 
set of programs can be made to work more efficiently and more 
effectively through relatively marginal changes''), nor 
abolishment of any particular departments or agencies, but 
rather replacement, which asks, ``Suppose we were trying to 
achieve X, what would we do?'' He suggested several principles 
to guide such an approach:

          Replace current institutions with systems that have 
        clearly defined, quantifiable objectives and hold those 
        systems accountable for achieving those objectives * * 
        *
          [E]ach Federal activity should identify clearly the 
        customers it is trying to serve * * *
          [R]eplace complex, ambiguous and arbitrary systems of 
        regulation with lean, effective frameworks of laws and 
        institutions * * *
          [R]eplace government activities with government 
        incentives and get the government out of the ``doing'' 
        business * * *
          [F]ocus on moving from large, bureaucratic, 
        inefficient systems to small, decentralized, efficient 
        ones.

    Scott Hodge's testimony was primarily a description of a 
recently released proposal by the Heritage Foundation to 
reorganize the Executive Branch. Under the Heritage Foundation 
proposal, the five cabinet departments would be Defense, Health 
and Human Services, Justice, State, and Treasury.
    Witnesses at the June 7th hearing focused on duplication, 
overlap and fragmentation in Federal missions, functions and 
program delivery. The witnesses included:
          Susan J. Irving, Associate Issues Area Director, 
        Budget Issues, GAO
          Thomas H. Stanton, Johns Hopkins University
          Janet L. Norwood, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The Urban 
        Institute
          William E. Davis III, Executive Director, Advisory 
        Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR)
    Ms. Irving reported the findings of studies completed for 
the Committee which examined duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation in Federal missions and functions. The study used 
Federal budget functions as proxies for national mission areas 
and identified the number of Federal agencies and subagencies 
involved in each area. On average, some 6.5 agencies perform 
roles in each of 17 missions. (These results are summarized in 
Exhibit 1 of this Committee Report.) She traced the origins of 
duplication to ``active and responsive government'' wherein 
Congress, over many years, has assigned functions to multiple 
agencies to meet emerging needs or to serve constituencies 
which Congress believed were under served. In considering 
restructuring opportunities, Ms. Irving urged that the 
Committee recognize that different agencies often use different 
intervention strategies to address what appear to be the same 
missions (e.g., direct Federal labor, grants, loans, 
regulations, etc.). She testified that only about 12 percent of 
Federal spending pays for the salaries and benefits of Federal 
employees, while ``the dominant mode of Federal operations is 
to mail checks, either to states or to localities or to 
individuals.'' She discussed some caveats in interpreting the 
data and suggested future lines of inquiry.
    Mr. Stanton testified to duplication and fragmentation in 
Federal credit programs, which he attributed to Congressional 
committees servicing different constituencies. He traced the 
origins of credit programs in the New Deal era when they were 
designed to correct market imperfections. He explained that 
recent restructuring and innovations in the financial markets 
have fixed many of the problems government programs were 
created to address. There are fewer needs for government 
intervention today, and greater risks of unintended 
consequences. He said that credit is a complex policy tool with 
major shortcomings. For example, he explained that credit is 
not always a good tool for helping lower income groups, because 
if the government expects repayment, borrowers who can't repay 
may suffer loss of future creditworthiness. He stated that many 
Federal credit programs duplicate each other and are poorly 
administered. He called for ``rationalizing'' the system and 
identified debt collection as a function which should be 
centralized within a single entity, perhaps organized as a 
government corporation.
    Dr. Norwood testified to her 25 years experience in the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, including three terms as 
Commissioner. She said that American statistics programs are 
probably the most decentralized in the world: ``We have 11 
individual agencies located in nine different departments which 
have statistics as their major mission, and there are perhaps 
70 other agencies in other government departments which also 
produce statistical output as a part of their programmatic 
responsibilities.'' She said her experience has convinced her 
that Federal statistics programs should be consolidated within 
a single agency along the lines outlined in her recent book, 
``Organizing to Count,'' published by the Urban Institute 
Press. This agency, ``Statistics America,'' would include the 
Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis, and OMB's statistical policy branch. She 
explained that other functions should remain within their host 
agencies, at least in the near term, on grounds that total 
centralization would be too traumatic. ``Statistics America'' 
would set governmentwide policy and coordinate the entire 
system.
    Mr. Davis testified to duplication and fragmentation in 
Federal grant programs. He said that the number of Federal 
categorical grant programs has grown to 618--the largest number 
in history. He discussed ACIR's ``fragmentation index,'' a 
measure reflecting Congress's tendency to create more and more 
small, narrow purpose programs. He explained that small 
programs carry a disproportionately heavy administrative burden 
relative to dollars delivered. He discussed the trend of the 
index to increase over time, indicating government's tendency 
to grow increasingly complex and costly to manage. He said that 
the least efficient grant programs (i.e., those with the 
highest fragmentation scores) in the government today are in 
the areas of: cultural affairs; occupational health and safety; 
disaster prevention and relief; libraries; veterans services; 
natural resources; justice; and energy. These programs may 
offer some of the best opportunities for consolidation and/or 
devolution through block grants.

               previous Commission legislation, 1981-1993

    Title V of this legislation is the latest version of an 
effort to create a bi-partisan commission to propose a 
reorganization plan for the Executive Branch, which traces back 
to S. 10, introduced on January 5, 1981--by Senators Roth and 
Eagleton--and passed by the Senate on December 7, 1981. 
Senators Roth and Eagleton introduced similar legislation, S. 
35, on January 26, 1983, which passed the Senate on November 
17, 1983. Senators Roth and Eagleton again introduced similar 
legislation, S. 35, on January 3, 1985.
    In 1988, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act (P.L. 100-
527) included a provision by Senator Roth that gave the 
President the option within a limited time of creating a 
reorganization commission. However, President Bush did not 
exercise that authority, out of a stated concern that the 
recommendations would be ignored by Congress.
    In the 102nd Congress, Senator Roth introduced another 
reorganization commission bill, but with a ``fast-track'' 
mechanism for congressional consideration of any 
recommendations (modeled on the device of the military Base-
Closing Commission), as S. 2531 on April 7, 1992, and Senator 
Sanford introduced a reorganization commission bill, S. 2670, 
on May 17, 1992.
    In the 103rd Congress, several bills were introduced to 
create a commission to consider and propose reforms to the 
organization and operations of the Executive Branch of the 
Federal Government, including:
          S. 15, the ``Reinventing Government Act,'' introduced 
        on January 21, 1993, by Senator Roth and co-sponsored 
        by Senator Campbell, to create a nine-member, two-year 
        ``Commission on Government Reform;''
          S. 101, the ``Executive Organization Reform Act,'' 
        introduced on January 21, 1993, by Senator Glenn, to 
        create a 12-member, two-year ``National Commission on 
        Executive Organization Reform;'' and
          S. 432, the ``Federal Government Streamlining and 
        Efficiency Act,'' introduced on February 24, 1993, by 
        Senator Lieberman and co-sponsored by Senator Kerrey, 
        to create a 14-member, six-year ``Commission for a 
        Government that Works.''
    Each of these three proposals provided for Presidential 
review and approval of commission recommendations before 
congressional consideration. The commission's final 
recommendations would be submitted to Congress for limited 
committee consideration and limited floor debate, and under 
each bill the commission's legislation could not be amended. 
While the legislation proposed by S. 15's commission would have 
become law unless disapproved by both Houses of Congress, the 
legislation proposed by S. 101's and S. 432's commissions would 
have had to be approved by both Houses.
    At the Governmental Affairs Committee's January 11, 1993, 
hearing on the nomination of Leon Panetta to be Director of the 
OMB, Mr. Panetta was asked about proposals to create a 
government reorganization and reform commission, including the 
commission legislation he had introduced while a member of the 
House of Representatives. Mr. Panetta answered:

          I think you have to do it. I think as I have 
        introduced on the House side and you have introduced on 
        the Senate side, I think you do need to have a 
        commission to do it, because, frankly, the problem is 
        it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion. And if 
        you just try to nit-pick away at this, you will never 
        get anywhere.
          I do think it is essential that we do that. We have 
        not moved into the 21st Century yet in terms of our 
        structure of government. We are still operating over 
        departments and agencies that have been established 
        over the last 200 years, some of which, frankly, have 
        lost their effectiveness. And so the question is how do 
        you reorganize our overall government for the future?

    Many of the same issues were discussed on January 13, 1993, 
at the confirmation hearing of OMB Deputy Director Alice 
Rivlin. In response to questions about government reform, Dr. 
Rivlin stated:

          I do think we need restructuring of government very 
        badly, and simplification of how the government is 
        organized, and a commission strikes me as a good idea. 
        I don't know that there is a Clinton administration 
        position on this * * * but if I were a new President 
        coming in, I would welcome such a thing.

    The various government reform bills referred to the 
Committee were, themselves, the subject of a Committee hearing 
on March 11, 1993. While testimony was heard regarding 
``sunset'' legislation introduced by Senator Reid (S. 186, the 
``Spending Control and Program Evaluation Act'') and S. 20, the 
``Government Performance and Results Act,'' the major focus of 
the hearing was on the government reform commission legislation 
before the Committee.
    Members of the Committee engaged OMB Director Panetta in a 
colloquy about the need to ``complement'' the National 
Performance Review. Senator Roth pointed out that Mr. Panetta 
had testified in favor of a commission at his January 
confirmation hearing. Mr. Panetta responded saying that his 
major concern was in avoiding ``duplicative efforts.'' He 
concluded:

          I guess what I am saying to the Chairman and to you 
        and to this committee is that what we would like to do 
        is to work with you in perhaps fashioning how the work 
        of the Vice President and the (National Performance) 
        review can, in fact, be coordinated with the kind of 
        (commission) approach that you are suggesting, so that 
        maybe they can all come together in September when the 
        recommendations are made.

    Comptroller General Charles Bowsher testified that a broad-
based, bipartisan commission could perform a valuable service 
in assessing new management strategies that emphasize 
``flattening hierarchies, decentralizing authority, creating a 
customer focus, encouraging competition, and achieving 
results.''
    On August 5, 1993, the Committee met to consider a proposed 
Committee substitute to S. 101 that was developed as a 
collaboration of Senators Glenn, Roth, and Lieberman, with 
ideas drawn from all three of their own bills. After accepting 
three amendments by Senator Roth and two amendments from 
Senator Glenn, the Committee voted to report the legislation as 
a new bill by a voice vote. This new bill was introduced as S. 
1675 on November 18, 1993, by Chairman Glenn, and co-sponsored 
by Senators Roth, Liberman, Cohen, Akaka, Grassley, and Kerrey 
(S. Rept. 103-188).
    S. 1675 provided for a nine-member commission, of which no 
more than 5 members could be affiliated with any one party, and 
requiring at least 7 votes for approval any proposed 
legislative package of reforms. One member would be appointed 
by each of the four leaders of the Democratic and Republican 
parties in Congress. Five members would be appointed by the 
President, four of whom would have had to have been selected in 
consultation with, one each of four congressional leaders. The 
Commission's first task would have been to review all of the 
recommendations of the newly-released report of the Vice 
President's National Performance Review, and to submit for 
enactment a package of those recommendations with which it 
agreed. Thereafter, the Commission would have had until March 
31, 1995, to submit up to three legislative proposals for 
reform of the organization and operations of the Executive 
Branch--including proposals to ``consolidate or reorganize 
programs and agencies,'' and improvements to personnel systems, 
budgetary systems, financial systems, information systems, and 
procurement systems. After public hearings on their preliminary 
proposals, followed by review and approval by the President, 
the Commission's recommended legislation would have been 
submitted to Congress. Congressional consideration would have 
involved a modified fast-track procedure which allowed germane 
amendments. The Commission would have terminated not later than 
December 31, 1995.
    After being placed on the Senate calendar, there was no 
further action on S. 1675.

                  committee mark up, september 7, 1995

    A Committee Mark Up was held on September 7, 1995, in which 
Chairman Roth presented an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to S. 929, entitled ``The Commerce Department 
Termination and Government Reorganization Act of 1995.'' This 
title reflected the broadening of the purposes of the Act to 
include, in Title V, the ``Government 2000 Act,'' creation of a 
commission to restructure the entire Executive Branch.
    During the mark-up, the Committee considered and adopted 
several amendments. The first was an amendment by Senator Glenn 
in the nature of a substitute to S. 929, which would have 
stricken all of the text of Senator Roth's substitute 
(eliminating the Commerce Department and establishing a 
Government 2000 Commission). The Glenn substitute was a 
modified version of the Glenn-Roth-Lieberman commission bill 
reported by the Committee by a vote of 12-1 in the 103rd 
Congress (S. 1675). The Chairman stressed that since both 
Houses of Congress had already voted to eliminate the Commerce 
Department in the FY 1996 budget resolution, that decision 
should be carried out in this bill. The Glenn substitute failed 
6 to 7. (Yeas: Glenn, Levin, Pryor, Lieberman, Akaka, and 
Dorgan; Nays; Roth, Cohen, Thompson, Cochran, Grassley, McCain 
and Smith)
    Senator Pryor offered an amendment to transfer EDA to the 
new USTA created by the Chairman's substitute, and to maintain 
all of EDA's funding authorities. This amendment failed 6-7. 
(Yeas: Glenn, Levin, Pryor, Lieberman, Akaka, and Dorgan; Nays: 
Roth, Cohen, Thompson, Cochran, Grassley, McCain and Smith)
    Senator Levin offered an amendment to include NIST and PTO 
within the USTA and restore terminated ATP and MEP programs. 
This amendment failed 6-7. (Yeas: Glenn, Levin, Pryor, 
Lieberman, Akaka, and Dorgan; Nays: Roth, Cohen, Thompson, 
Cochran, Grassley, McCain and Smith)
    Senator Glenn offered an amendment to accept downsizing and 
streamlining recommendations of the National Performance Review 
applying to NOAA, and to transfer NOAA to the USTA. The Glenn 
Amendment would call for: reducing the NOAA workforce by over 
2,000 positions by the end of Fiscal Year 1999 from its end of 
Fiscal Year 1993 levels; reducing the number of Commissioned 
Officers in the NOAA Corps; transferring aeronautical charting 
to the Federal Aviation Administration; cutting the volume of 
NOAA regulations by 45 percent; reducing the NOAA fleet by 50 
percent over ten years; requiring submission of legislation to 
halve the number of Congressionally-mandated reporting 
requirements; and requiring NOAA to develop a plan to 
consolidate its laboratories. Senator Roth offered a second 
degree amendment to Senator Glenn's amendment to strike the 
transfer to USTA, while accepting the streamlining provisions. 
The Roth second degree amendment was approved 8-7. (Yeas: Roth, 
Stevens, Cohen, Thompson, Cochran, Grassley, McCain and Smith; 
Nays: Glenn, Nunn, Levin, Pryor, Lieberman, Akaka, and Dorgan.) 
The Glenn amendment was accepted by voice vote as amended by 
the Roth second degree amendment.
    Senator Glenn offered an amendment to modify the procedures 
under which the Commission makes recommendations and to extend 
its term by an additional year. This amendment failed 7-7. 
(Yeas: Glenn, Nunn, Levin, Pryor, Lieberman, Akaka, and Dorgan; 
Nays: Roth, Cohen, Thompson, Cochran, Grassley, McCain and 
Smith)
    Senator Lieberman, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, offered an 
amendment to retain NTIA and transfer it to the new USTA. This 
amendment failed 7-7. (Yeas: Glenn, Nunn, Levin, Pryor, 
Lieberman, Akaka, and Dorgan; Nays: Roth, Cohen, Thompson, 
Cochran, Grassley, McCain and Smith)
    Senator Glenn offered an amendment to provide for the 
appointment of a Chairman of the Commission by joint selection 
of the President, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate 
Majority Leader. This amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Levin offered a package of six technical and 
clarifying amendments, including clarifying the scope of the 35 
percent funding reduction and allowing 25 days for selection of 
Commission members (other than the Chairman), two hours of 
debate on the motion to proceed in the Senate, one hour of 
debate on appeals from a ruling of the Chair in the Senate, and 
the expedited procedures in the Senate to be set aside by 
unanimous consent. These amendments were adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Glenn offered an amendment authorizing 
appropriations for the Commission of $5 million for each of two 
years. This amendment was adopted by voice vote as modified by 
a Roth second degree amendment limiting the authorization to $5 
million for Fiscal Year 1997.
    A Unanimous Consent allowing for technical changes as 
necessary was adopted.
    The Committee voted to report the Roth substitute to S. 
929, as amended, by a vote of 5-3 (Yeas: Roth, Cohen, Thompson, 
Cochran, and Smith; Nays: Glenn, Nunn, and Pryor.)

                     V. Section-by-Section Analysis

                      title i: general provisions

    Section 101. Findings.--This section is a statement of 
interest in restructuring the missions and functions of the 
Department of Commerce and the Executive Branch. It is 
recognized that existing, bureaucratic government structures 
are outmoded and wasteful, and incapable of delivering cost-
effective service expected by citizens in the 21st Century. The 
Department of Commerce is typical of these dysfunctional 
structures. Responsibility for trade, one of its major mission 
areas, is so fragmented across the government that a patchwork 
of coordinating mechanisms involving nineteen different 
agencies has been created. Consolidation of trade functions 
into a single United States Trade Administration (USTA) is 
necessary to bring coherence to the pursuit of our national 
trade interests.
    Section 102. Purposes.--This section discusses the purpose 
of the act, which include eliminating outmoded structures, and 
wasteful duplication of effort, streamlining bureaucracy, and 
enhancing government performance in trade and the other major 
functions of Commerce.
    Section 103. Definitions.--This section defines terms used 
throughout the bill.

              title ii: United States Trade Administration

Subtitle A: Establishment

    Section 201. Establishment of the Administration.--This 
section establishes the USTA. The USTA will be headed by the 
United States Trade Representative (USTR), who retains cabinet 
status and Ambassador rank. The Administration succeeds the 
Commerce Department for purposes of protocol.
    Section 202. Functions of the USTR.--This section 
establishes the USTR as the principal adviser to the President 
on trade issues. The USTR will continue to be responsible for 
trade policy and negotiations while assuming additional 
functions, including the promotion and administrative functions 
of the International Trade Administration and the Bureau of 
Export Administration. Uniting these functions under a single, 
powerful trade agency will create a stronger trade voice of our 
nation, while eliminating counterproductive duplication, 
fragmentation, turf battles, and inconsistency that currently 
impede development of coherent policy and consistent 
administration of trade laws and programs.

Subtitle B: Officers

    Section 211 and 212. Deputy Administrators of the U.S. 
Trade Administration.--These sections establish two Deputy USTR 
positions reporting directly to the USTR with ambassadorial 
rank. They will be appointed by the President with Senate 
confirmation. One will be based in Geneva as the permanent 
representative to the World Trade Organization; the other will 
have overall responsibility for USTR negotiating functions. In 
addition, there will be one Deputy Administrator who will serve 
as the agency's chief operating officer for non-USTR-related 
trade functions.
    Section 213. Assistant Administrators.--This section 
establishes three assistant administrators who will manage the 
functions of Export Administration, Import Administration, and 
Trade and Policy Analysis, respectively. They will be appointed 
by the President with Senate confirmation.
    Section 214. Director General of the Commercial Service.--
This section establishes the position of Director General of 
the Commercial Service (formerly the U.S. & Foreign Commercial 
Service) and transfers functions from the former agency to the 
USTA. The position is to be appointed by the President with 
Senate confirmation.
    Section 215. General Counsel.--This section establishes a 
General Counsel, to be appointed by the President with Senate 
confirmation.
    Sections 216 and 217. Inspector General and Chief Financial 
Officer.--These sections establish an Inspector General and a 
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), to be appointed in accordance 
with the Inspector General Act of 1978 and the Chief Financial 
Officers Act (CFO Act), respectively.

Subtitle C: Transfers to the administration

    Section 221. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.--This 
section transfers all functions currently performed by the USTR 
within the Executive Office of the President to the new USTA.
    Section 222. Transfers from the Department of Commerce.--
This section transfers trade-related functions from the 
Commerce Department to the USTA. This include those performed 
by the International Trade Administration, the U.S. & Foreign 
Commercial Service, International Economic Policy, Trade 
Development, the Export Administration, the Import 
Administration, and National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) relating to international 
telecommunications policy and trade.
    Sections 223, 224, and 225. Transfers from the Export-
Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Bank, and the Trade 
and Development Agency.--These sections transfer the functions 
of three trade finance agencies to the USTA. Their existing 
structures remain intact, although they will report to the head 
of the USTA. Including the trade finance agencies in the USTA 
will strengthen the hand of our negotiators while improving 
services to businesses through ``one-stop shopping'' on Federal 
export promotion activities.
    Section 226. Miscellaneous Export Promotion Related 
Functions.--Other non-agricultural export promotion functions, 
including trade missions and assistance programs, performed by 
agencies with representation on the Trade Promotion 
Coordinating Committee (TPCC) are transferred to the USTA.

Subtitle D: Terminations and transferred functions and authorities

    Section 231. Terminations of Administrative Units of the 
Department of Commerce.--The following bureaus and programs of 
the Department of Commerce are terminated: Economic Development 
Administration (EDA); United States Travel and Tourism 
Administration (USTTA); NTIA; the Office of the Chief 
Economist; Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA); 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS); Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP); Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
(MEP) program; and the Technology Administration.
    The following transfers are effected: EDA's financial asset 
portfolio is transferred to the Treasury Department for 
management and liquidation; its infrastructure grant 
authorities are transferred to the Rural Development 
Administration of the Agriculture Department; and its defense 
conversion grant authorities to the Department of Defense. 
NTIA's trade policy functions are transferred to the USTA; its 
domestic policy functions to the Executive Office of the 
President; standards-setting and functions and labs to the 
Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards (OPTS, see Title 
IV, below); the NTIS assets are transferred to the General 
Services Administration for disposition. MBDA's funding 
authorities are transferred to the Small Business 
Administration. The grant authorities transferred from EDA and 
MBDA are authorities only; funding is terminated. This will 
allow their most effective programs to be continued to the 
extent that they compete favorably with existing similar 
programs in the receiving agencies.
    Section 232. Termination of the Department of Commerce.--
The Department of Commerce is terminated.

Subtitle E: Administrative provisions

    Section 241. Personnel Provisions.--The USTA is authorized 
to perform all necessary personnel administrative functions in 
accordance with its status as an independent agency. A 25 
percent reduction in the number of politically appointed 
positions coming into the USTA from formerly Commerce 
Department functions is expected. This provision is aimed 
particularly at the excessive layering of political positions 
in the International Trade Administration.
    Section 242. Delegation and Assignment.--The USTR is 
authorized to delegate and assign functions to USTA personnel 
as necessary.
    Section 243. Succession.--The USTR is authorized to 
establish a line of succession within the Administration.
    Section 244. Reorganization.--The USTR is authorized to 
restructure functions of the Administration as appropriate and 
not inconsistent with this Act.
    Section 245. Rules.--The USTR is authorized to issue 
appropriate rules and regulations to conduct USTA business.
    Section 246. Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative 
Agreements.--The USTR is authorized to enter into business 
relationships as necessary and appropriate to conduct business.
    Section 247. Use of Facilities.--The USTR is authorized to 
acquire and make use of facilities, services, equipment, etc., 
of public and private organizations as necessary to conduct 
business.
    Section 248. Gifts and Bequests.--The USTR is authorized to 
accept and use bequests of property for the conduct of agency 
business.
    Section 249. Working Capital Fund.--The USTR is authorized 
to establish a working capital fund, without Fiscal Year 
limitation, for the conduct of common administrative functions 
as approved by OMB.
    Section 250. Seal of Administration.--The USTR shall create 
a seal of office for the USTA and register it with proper 
authorities.

Subtitle F: Related agencies

    Section 251. Interagency Trade Organization.--This section 
amends the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to substitute the USTR 
for the Secretary of Commerce on the Interagency Trade 
Organization.
    Section 252. National Security Council.--This section 
amends the National Security Council Act of 1947 to substitute 
the USTR for the Secretary of Commerce on the National Security 
Council.
    Section 253. International Monetary Fund.--This section 
amends Section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act to 
substitute the USTR for the Secretary of Commerce in trade 
related matters.
    Section 254. General Services Administration.--Transfers 
NTIA's spectrum management function for Federal agencies to the 
GSA.
    Section 255. Department of Labor.--Transfers functions 
performed by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis to the Department of Labor for consolidation with the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Subtitle G: Conforming amendments

    Section 261. Amendments to General Provisions.--This 
section: substitutes the USTR for the Secretary of Commerce in 
the line of Presidential succession in U.S. Code; substitutes 
the USTA Inspector General for that of the Department of 
Commerce, with respect to the Inspector General Act of 1978; 
amends the Trade Act of 1974 to clarify that trade functions 
are transferred with the USTR to the USTA; and amends the CFO 
Act to make certain requirements apply to the USTA.
    Section 262. Repeals.--This section repeals references in 
other laws to the creation, existence and authorities of the 
Department of Commerce and terminated offices and officers.
    Section 263. Conforming Amendments Relating to Executive 
Schedule Positions.--This section amends U.S. Code to eliminate 
presidentially appointed positions at the Department of 
Commerce and establish a smaller number in the USTA.

         title iii. establishment of NOAA as independent agency

Subtitle A: Establishment of administration

    Section 301. Short Title.--This title may be cited as the 
``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act of 
1995.''
    Section 302. Findings and Purposes.--This section discusses 
the Committee's interests in establishing a single agency as a 
focal point for oceanic, coastal, atmospheric, and related 
environmental matters, and to streamline and improve the 
efficiency of NOAA's operations.
    Section 303. Definitions.--This section defines terms used 
throughout this Act.
    Section 304. Establishment.--This section establishes NOAA 
as an independent agency and the successor to NOAA as 
previously established in the Department of Commerce.
    Section 305. Officers.--This section establishes the 
following positions: an Administrator, a Deputy Administrator, 
and a Chief Scientist, all appointed by the President with 
Senate confirmation; not less than three and no more than five 
Assistant Administrators, a General Counsel, and a Director of 
the National Sea Grant College, all appointed by the 
Administrator; an Inspector General and a Chief Financial 
Officer, appointed in accordance with the Inspector General Act 
of 1978 and the CFO Act, respectively. Also established is a 
Commissioned Officer Corps, with all responsibilities 
transferred from the Department of Commerce.
    Section 306. Transfer of NOAA from the Department of 
Commerce.--This section transfers all functions performed by 
NOAA from the Department of Commerce to the new NOAA.

Subtitle B: Streamlining provisions

    Section 311. Personnel Reductions.--This section enacts 
downsizing proposals of the National Performance Review, 
including: a 2,318 reduction in full-time equivalent positions, 
measured against the number that existed on September 30, 1993; 
authorization of an end-of-year staffing level for active NOAA 
Corps officers of 383 as of September 30, 1996, declining to 
285 on September 30, 1999; conforming amendments to existing 
laws to allow such actions; and authorization of separation 
incentives as apply to members of the Armed Services, subject 
to the availability of appropriations, and at the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    Section 312. Transfer of Aeronautical Charting.--This 
section transfers aeronautical charting functions from NOAA to 
the Federal Aviation Administration effective October 1, 1995, 
as proposed by the National Performance Review.
    Section 313. Regulatory Streamlining.--This section directs 
the Administrator to eliminate obsolete and redundant 
regulations and achieve a 45 percent reduction in the volume of 
regulations by December 31, 1997.
    Section 314. Reduction in NOAA Fleet.--This section directs 
the Administration to revise its fleet modernization plan to 
achieve the following objectives: a 50 percent reduction in the 
size of the NOAA fleet over ten years, including 
decommissioning of six vessels by the end of Fiscal Year 1998; 
a 50 percent reduction in the cost of construction from 1993 
levels; cost-effective contracting out with other vessels; and 
selling decommissioned vessels.
    Section 315. Reduction of Reporting Requirements.--This 
section directs the Administrator to review and develop a plan 
to reduce statutory reporting requirements by 50 percent, from 
those in effect on January 1, 1995.
    Section 316. Laboratory Consolidation study.--This section 
requires NOAA to develop a plan and implementation schedule for 
the cost-effective consolidation of laboratory facilities.

Subtitle C: Administrative provisions

    Section 321. Rules.--This section grants the Administrator 
rulemaking authority consistent with an independent agency.
    Section 322. Delegation.--This section grants the 
Administrator the authority to delegate functions within NOAA 
as necessary and appropriate.
    Section 323 through 332.--These sections authorize the 
Administrator to administer personnel functions in accordance 
with Federal Civil Service laws, enter into contracts, use 
facilities, establish service charges, acquire and maintain 
property and facilities, acquire copyrights and patents, accept 
gifts and bequests, accept transfers of funds from other 
Federal agencies, and establish a seal of office, all as 
necessary and appropriate in the course of conducting NOAA's 
business.
    Section 333. Status of Administration Under Certain Laws.--
This section establishes NOAA as an ``agency'' of the Federal 
Government, for purposes as defined in U.S. Code.
    Section 334. Assistant Administration as Executive Schedule 
Positions.--This section replaces the statutory titles of 
several Assistant Administrators with specific designations, 
with general titles of ``Assistant Administrator.''
    Section 335. Coordination of Environmental Policy.--This 
section establishes NOAA's consultative and coordinating role 
vis-a-vis the President's Council on Environmental Quality.

   title iv: establishment of the office of patents, trademarks, and 
                               standards

Subtitle A: Establishment

    Section 401. Definitions.--This section defines the terms 
``Office'' as the Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards 
(OPTS), and ``Director'' as the Director of OPTS.
    Section 402. Establishment of the Office of Patents, 
Trademarks and Standards.--This section establishes OPTS and 
the position of the Director, who is to be appointed by the 
President with Senate Confirmation.
    Sections 403 and 404. Functions and Transfers to the 
Office.--These sections establish the authority of the Director 
to perform specific functions transferred from the former PTO 
and NIST in the Department of Commerce. These functions 
include: the standard-setting functions and labs presently 
performed and operated by NIST and NTIA; the functions 
performed by the Office of Technology Policy relating to the 
Baldrige Quality Award; and all existing functions of PTO.
    Section 405. Additional Officers.--This section establishes 
the positions of: General Counsel, appointed by the President 
with Senate confirmation; Inspector General, appointed in 
accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended; 
and Chief Financial Officer, appointed in accordance with the 
CFO Act, as amended.

Subtitle B: Administrative provisions

    Section 411. Rules.--This section grants the Director 
rulemaking authority consistent with an independent agency.
    Section 412. Delegation.--This section grants the Director 
the authority to delegate functions within OPTS as necessary 
and appropriate.
    Sections 413 through 418.--These sections authorize the 
Director to administer personnel functions in accordance with 
Federal Civil Service laws, enter into contracts, acquire 
copyrights and patents, accept gifts and bequests, accept 
transfers of funds from other Federal agencies, and establish a 
seal of office, all as necessary and appropriate in the course 
of conducting OPTS business.
    Section 419. Status of Administration Under Certain Laws.--
This section establishes OPTS as an ``agency'' of the Federal 
Government, for purposes as defined in U.S. Code.

Subtitle C: Conforming amendments

    Sections 421 and 422.--These sections make conforming 
changes in other laws to reflect that the functions residing in 
the existing PTO and the NIST are transferred to OPTS.
    Section 423. Federal Laboratories under Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980.--This section amends the 
subject act by striking references to offices and functions of 
NIST and ATP eliminated under earlier sections of this Act.

                  title v: government 2000 commission

    Section 501. Short title and purposes.--This section 
provides that the short title of Title V will be the 
``Government 2000 Act,'' and states that the purpose is to 
reduce the costs and increase the effectiveness of the Federal 
Government by reorganizing departments and agencies, 
consolidating redundant activities, streamlining operations, 
and decentralizing service delivery in a manner that promotes 
economy, efficiency, and accountability in Government programs.
    The intention is to reduce the size of the Federal 
workforce, while providing better service to the public through 
the more effective use of modern technology and other 
improvements in the organizational work environment. Any 
reorganization plan should also reflect the need for 
constituency interests to have appropriate venues for 
representation of their concerns in the policy formulation and 
service delivery process.
    This section also sets out several specific goals that the 
commission created under this title is intended to achieve in 
the way of improved performance of the Federal Government by 
Fiscal Year 2003, along with achieving an immediate reduction 
in the number of cabinet departments to no more than ten. The 
Committee intends that the reorganization plan that is 
developed will, if implemented, result in a 35 percent 
reduction in the administrative costs of the Federal 
Government, along with a six percent compound annual 
improvement in productivity. With respect to improved 
performance, the Committee intends that the plan will result in 
responsiveness and customer-service levels that are comparable 
to those achieved in the private sector, including a ten-fold 
improvement in timely delivery of services. For example, if 30 
percent of a particular program's service delivery is not 
achieving on-time goals today, this should be cut to three 
percent by the year 2003.
    In its February 2, 1995, hearing on Executive Branch 
reengineering, the Committee received testimony from GAO that 
these goals are the level of improvement that the Federal 
Government could reasonably expect to see, if it adopted modern 
organizational principles, management techniques and 
information technology. The Committee urges the Commission to 
be bold in its recommendations, and to use these performance 
goals as the means to ensure that its proposed reforms are of 
the scale desired by the Congress.
    Section 502. The Commission.--Section 502(a) establishes 
the Government 2000 Commission as an independent commission.
    Section 502(b) sets out the duties of the Commission as 
examining the organization and operation of Federal departments 
and agencies, and recommending ways to reduce costs, streamline 
operations, and improve performance, responsiveness, and 
accountability. The Commission is to package these 
recommendations into a single legislative proposal implementing 
a comprehensive reorganization plan for the Executive Branch. 
The legislation should also propose other institutional and 
operational reforms that are consistent with the purposes 
stated in section 501 and the requirements of section 503.
    Section 502(c) provides that the Commission will be made of 
nine members, appointed on a bipartisan basis. The President, 
the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House 
are each to appoint two members. In addition, the President is 
to select a chairman of the Commission, who must be acceptable 
to both the Speaker and Majority Leader. The Minority Leaders 
of the Senate and of the House will each select one member of 
the Commission. Any citizen of the United States is eligible 
for appointment, and they shall be considered special 
government employees for conflict of interest purposes. All 
appointments shall be made within 25 calendar days of 
enactment, except that the Chairman may be appointed within 40 
days.
    Section 502(d) provides that members terms shall be until 
termination of the Commission, section 502(e) provides for 
vacancies to be filled in the same way as the original 
appointment, and section 502(f) authorizes meetings outside of 
the District of Columbia.
    Section 502(g) provides that the Chairman shall be paid at 
a rate equal to the daily equivalent of basic pay for Executive 
Schedule III under 5 U.S.C. 5314, for each day while engaged in 
Commission duties (unless that person is already a Federal 
officer or employee). Other members shall be paid at the daily 
equivalent of the basic pay for Executive Schedule IV under 5 
U.S.C. 3515, under the same circumstances. Commissioners shall 
also receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
subsistence.
    Section 502(h) provides that a staff director shall be 
appointed by an affirmative vote of at least five members of 
the Commission, and that the Director will be paid at the rate 
of basic pay for Level IV of the Executive Schedule. Section 
502(i) provides that the Director is authorized, with the 
approval of the Commission, to appoint and fix the pay of 
employees of the Commission, which shall not exceed Level V of 
the Executive Schedule. Upon the Director's request, the head 
of any Federal department or agency, or any Member of Congress, 
may detail an employee to the Commission, with or without 
reimbursement.
    Section 502(j) directs the OMB to provide support services 
to the Commission, and GAO may provide assistance, including 
the detailing of employees. Under section 502(k), the temporary 
services of experts may be procured, following public notice 
before entering into any such contract. Section 502(l) subjects 
the Commission to the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. Section 502(m) authorizes a $5,000,000 
appropriation for the Commission for Fiscal Year 1996, and 
section 502(n) provides that the Commission shall terminate no 
later than October 31, 1996.
    Section 503. Legislative recommendations.--This section 
directs the Commission to achieve certain objectives in its 
reorganization plan. The first is that the plan provide for no 
more than ten cabinet departments, which shall each have 
responsibility for the development of, and ensuring the proper 
execution of, governmental and program policy. In arriving at 
this recommendation, the Committee actively considered three 
reorganization proposals which called for substantially smaller 
cabinets than today's 14 departments. These were the proposals 
of: the Heritage Foundation, which recommended five departments 
in 1995; then-Congressman Leon Panetta, who proposed six 
departments in 1991; and the Ash Council, which proposed eight 
departments in 1971 (the Panetta, Heritage and Ash Council 
proposals are summarized in Appendix A of this Committee 
Report).
    The plan developed by the Commission must also provide for 
a reduction in the layers of hierarchy and in the concentration 
of employees in staff and overhead functions within departments 
and agencies. In doing so, the Committee expects the 
redefinition of a cabinet department as a flat, mission-
oriented organization responsible for planning and budgeting.
    The plan must also provide for an adequate number of 
operating units (i.e., agencies, bureaus, offices, and other 
subdepartmental organizations) having primary responsibility 
for program administration and service delivery, as 
distinguished from program policy development.
    It is the Committee's expectation that the legislation 
submitted by the Commission will more sharply define the 
distinction between those two functions, and reflect that 
distinction in its organizational plan for the Executive 
Branch. Focusing the cabinet departments on the development and 
proper execution of policy would allow the consolidation of the 
existing 14 departments into ten or fewer, without a 
concomitant increase in the size and complexity of the 
remaining departmental bureaucracy.
    This is why the Commission is charged to consider the 
consolidation of program administration and service delivery 
functions into operating units that are independent of 
individual executive departments. If such an arrangement proves 
useful, it would--in addition to permitting better coordination 
of services--enable a significant reduction in the size of the 
cabinet departments. Furthermore, by consolidating program 
administration and service delivery into non-departmental 
operating units, and by integrating and reengineering their 
processes and activities, these entities could be reduced 
substantially both in actual number and in their total 
administrative costs, without sacrificing performance. 
(Similarly, the centralization of common administrative 
functions should also be studied, to determine whether this 
type of streamlining might cut costs while improving 
performance.)
    To be effective, there will likely be a need for new 
structural arrangements of responsibility and authority that 
strengthen accountability for performance. for this reason, the 
Committee further instructs the Commission to consider whether 
the heads of such program operating units should be non-
political, non-career appointments who are hired for a fixed 
term (e.g., three to five years) under an employment contract 
with specific, measurable program performance goals. The 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62) 
already requires agencies to develop such goals for their 
program activities. These goals could form the basis for 
effective performance contracts for program heads, with 
meaningful pay-for-performance provisions.
    The Committee heard testimony that the United Kingdom has 
taken a similar approach, by creating ``executive agencies'' 
headed by chief executives on performance contracts negotiated 
with ministry heads (though these entities are usually still 
subunits of particular departments). While the agency staffs 
remain in the civil service, agency heads (who can negotiate 
larger salaries and greater administrative flexibilities than 
might otherwise be available) have no such tenure, but neither 
are they removed with a change in government. They can, 
however, be removed for cause (i.e., failure to achieve 
performance targets) before their contract expires. These 
``executive agencies'' are service delivery mechanisms, with 
the actual policy underlying those services being developed by 
the departments and ministries.
    This section also charges the Commission with examining 
agency field structures, and to consider their consolidation 
where appropriate into a unified system of local offices 
providing one-stop services to the public. For example, rather 
than each agency having its own separate system of field 
offices, these might be consolidated into a system of ``citizen 
service centers,'' ``business service centers,'' and 
``intergovernmental service centers'' throughout the country. 
Each office might provide direct linkage to the headquarters of 
every department and agency, through modern telecommunications 
technologies. Inter-agency coordination could be enhanced, 
while allowing citizens, business, and local governments the 
convenience of dealing with any Federal agency at a single 
location.
    One way of visualizing a Federal Government restructured to 
incorporate some of the principles and innovations discussed 
above is presented in Exhibit 2. This vision reflects a 
``cabinet'' of six ``mission departments'' structured around 
core Federal missions of Defense, Justice, State (foreign 
affairs), Natural Resources, Free Market Enterprise (business, 
commerce and the economy), and Citizen Services (these are 
essentially the same core cabinet missions reflected in the 
proposal of then-Congressman Panetta in 1991; see Appendix A). 
In addition, a seventh Department of Administration performs 
general government management functions. In the outer tiers are 
``operating units'' structured around core program functions 
and work processes (e.g., statistics, environmental clean-up, 
provision of income security services to citizens, etc.), and 
``service centers,'' whose customers might include any 
combination of Federal departments or operating units, 
citizens, businesses, or state and local governments. The roles 
and inter-relationships of the three tiers are summarized in 
Exhibit 3.



    This is just one possible approach the Commission might 
consider in restructuring the government, reducing overhead 
costs, and streamlining field structures to bring the Federal 
Government closer to the people.
    Recognizing that any comprehensive reorganization of the 
Executive Branch can cause disruptions in program performance 
and service delivery, the Commission is also instructed to 
recommend a transition plan that minimizes such disruptions. It 
is expected that this plan will address the capacity of the 
Executive Branch to manage change of the unprecedented order 
contemplated by this Act, and will recommend any changes in 
structure or resources needed to ensure that these challenges 
are met.
    Section 504. Definition.--This section defines ``agency'' 
to mean each authority of the Federal Government, including all 
departments, independent agencies, government-sponsored 
enterprises, and government corporations, except the 
legislative branch, judicial branch, the governments of the 
territories or possessions of the United States, or the 
District of Columbia.
    Section 505. Department and agency cooperation.--This 
section instructs all Federal agencies and their employees to 
cooperate fully with all requests for information from the 
Commission and to respond to such requests within 30 calendar 
days.
    Section 506. Procedures for making recommendations.--This 
section requires that the Commission, no later than June 1, 
1996, submit to Congress a single legislative proposal to 
implement the recommendations that it developed pursuant to 
section 503, along with an explanation of the reasons for such 
recommendations, or to indicate that it was unable to agree on 
such a proposal. An affirmative vote of six member of the 
Commission is required to approve any such proposal for 
submission to Congress.
    Section 507. Congressional consideration of reform 
proposal.--This section specifies the procedures that apply to 
congressional consideration of a bill submitted to Congress 
under section 506.
    Section 507(a) defines the legislation covered by the 
section 507 procedures as legislation submitted by the 
Commission under section 506. It also makes clear that the 
deadlines in this section are calculated by calendar days, 
except when Congress has adjourned for a period of more than 
three days to a date certain. Under Senate rules, such an 
adjournment requires passage of a concurrent resolution.
    Section 507(b) provides for introduction, referral to 
committee, and committee consideration of the implementing 
legislation. The Majority and Minority leaders of the House and 
Senate are directed to introduce, either through their own 
actions or by members designated by them, the proposed 
legislation submitted by the Commission, on the first session 
day in which both houses are in session after submission. The 
bills are then referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, 
and other committees with jurisdiction. The committees must 
report the bill or be discharged after 30 days. As is the 
practice in the Senate under existing rules, committees in both 
Houses may report the portions of the bills under their 
jurisdiction together with any amendments proposed to be 
adopted. The text of the bill may not, however, be altered 
prior to floor consideration. All committee amendments must be 
germane to the bill.
    Section 507(c) outlines the procedures for Senate floor 
consideration of the implementation bill. On the second day 
after the implementation bill is reported or discharged from 
all committees, it is in order in the Senate for any Senator to 
make a privileged motion to proceed to the consideration of the 
implementation bill, which motion is subject to two hours of 
debate. Senators are required to give at least one day's notice 
on the floor of the Senate of his or her intent to make such a 
motion. Once such a motion is agreed to, the implementation 
bill becomes the pending business. All points of order against 
the bill are waived, other than those under Senate Rules 15 or 
16, or for any failure to comply with any requirements of 
section 507. A motion to postpone or to recommit is also not in 
order. All amendments to the implementation bill must be 
germane. It shall not be in order to suspend or waive the 
application of this subsection, except by unanimous consent. 
Debate over appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to 
the application of Senate rules shall be limited to one hour.
    Section 507(d) outlines the procedures for consideration of 
the implementation bill in the House of Representatives. 
General debate is limited to ten hours, after which the bill 
shall be considered for amendment by title under the five 
minute rule. The only amendments that are permitted will be 
germane amendments. Each amendment shall be debatable for not 
more than 30 minutes, except that the time for consideration of 
all amendments shall not exceed 20 hours.
    Section 507(e) provides that in the Senate, a motion to 
elect conferees, or to authorize the Chair to appoint 
conferees, is non-debatable. This section also directs the 
conferees to report within 20 days of appointment. It does not, 
however, require the conference to be dissolved or to file a 
report in disagreement if, in fact, the conferees have not 
agreed on a report within 20 days of appointment.
    Section 507(f) provides that the provisions of section 507 
are enacted as exercises of the rulemaking powers of the House 
and Senate.
    Section 508. Implementation.--This section provides that 
the OMB shall have primary responsibility for implementation of 
the Commission's report and any implementation legislation that 
is enacted, unless otherwise specified in the implementation 
bill. Federal departments and agencies are required to include 
a schedule for implementation of the provisions of the 
implementation act as part of the annual budget request. GAO is 
given oversight responsibility and is required to report to the 
Congress and President regarding the accomplishment costs, 
timetable and effectiveness of the implementation process.
    Section 509. Distribution of assets.--This section provides 
that proceeds from the sale of assets of any department or 
agency resulting from enactment of the implementation 
legislation shall be applied to reduce the Federal deficit, and 
shall be deposited in the treasury as general receipts.

       title vi: transitional, savings, and conforming provisions

    Section 601. Additional Transfers.--This section provides 
for the transfer of Department of Commerce functions, not 
specifically transferred elsewhere and which are incidental and 
necessary to perform transferred functions, to the agencies to 
which related functions are transferred.
    Section 602. Transfer and Allocations of appropriations and 
Personnel.--This section provides for the transfer of 
personnel, funds, and other resources associated with functions 
transferred under the act to the agencies to which the 
functions are transferred.
    Section 603. Incidental Transfers.--This section authorizes 
the Director of the OMB to make additional transfers of 
resources as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the 
Act. This includes the transfer of Senior Executive Service 
positions.
    Section 604. Effect on Personnel.--This section provides 
the following protections for Federal employees: permanent 
career civil servants performing transferred functions are 
protected against separation or reduction in grade or 
compensation for one year after transfer; and Executive 
Schedule incumbents who continue to perform comparable 
functions after transfer are protected against reductions in 
compensation for as long as they hold their positions. 
Positions held by presidential appointees confirmed by the 
Senate whose functions are transferred will terminate on the 
effective date of this act.
    Section 605. Savings Provisions.--This section provides for 
the orderly continuation (with certain exceptions) of legal 
arrangements (regulations, contracts, administrative actions, 
etc.) made by affected agencies until superseded by later 
actions.
    Section 606, 607 and 608.--This section provides for 
severability of actions, cross-references in existing laws to 
affected agencies. The heads of agencies receiving transferred 
functions are authorized access to resources of the affected 
agencies for transitional purposes.
    Section 609. Additional Conformation Amendments.--This 
section requires agency heads receiving transferred functions 
to submit additional conforming legislation within six months 
of enactment.

                        Title VII: miscellaneous

    Section 701. Effective Date.--This Act takes effect 180 
days after enactment (except Section 608, providing for 
transitional assistance, which takes effect upon enactment). 
The officers provided for in the Act may be nominated and 
appointed at any time after enactment.
    The Secretary of Commerce, the USTR, and the head of 
agencies receiving functions under the Act are authorized to 
promulgate regulations upon enactment. Interim compensation and 
expenses are provided upon approval of the Director of the OMB.
    Section 702. Interim Appointments.--The President is 
authorized to appoint interim presidential appointees prior to 
permanent appointments taking effect under the Act.
    Section 703. Management of Property by General Services 
Administration.--GSA is authorized to perform transition 
management functions required in implementing this Act.
    Section 704. Buy Out Authority for Department of 
Commerce.--This section authorizes the Department of Commerce 
to offer incentive payments to employees for voluntary 
separation prior to September 30, 1996.
    Section 705. Reports by The Office of Management and 
Budget.--OMB is directed to assess further consolidation of 
OPIC, Ex-Im Bank and TDA within the USTA; streamlining and 
privatization of various NOAA functions; consolidation of 
environmental research functions performed by NOAA, EPA and 
other natural resources agencies; and further consolidation of 
statistical functions into a single Federal statistics agency.
    Section 706. Personnel and Funding Reductions Resulting 
from Reorganization.--This section directs OMB, in consultation 
with the USTR and heads of affected agencies, to ensure that 
the total of savings from programs transferred or terminated 
from the Commerce Department under this Act achieve at least a 
ten percent reduction in the first year after the Act takes 
effect, and a 35 percent reduction in the second year. These 
reductions apply only to programs associated with the 
dismantled Commerce Department and are to be measured against 
the post-rescissions ``baseline'' of the Department's FY 1995 
appropriation (i.e., the appropriation level that existed at 
the time of the mark-up). OMB is directed to prepare a funding 
reduction implementation plan.
    Section 707. Authorization of Appropriations.--The Act 
authorizes appropriations of sufficient funds to carry out the 
purposes of the Act.

                    VI. Regulatory Impact Statement

    Pursuant to paragraph 11(b), rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, the Committee, after due consideration, 
concludes that S. 929 will have only minor regulatory impact. 
However, the commission established by this Act may have 
significant regulatory impact via the recommendations it makes 
and their possible enactment into law.

                           VII. Cost Analysis

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 20, 1995.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 929, the Commerce 
Department Termination and Government Reorganization Act of 
1995.
    Enacting S. 929 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office--cost estimate

    1. Bill number: S. 929.
    2. Bill title: Commerce Department Termination and 
Government Reorganization Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Governmental Affairs on September 7, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: S. 929 would abolish the Department of 
Commerce by terminating some of its agencies and transferring 
the functions of others. Specifically, the bill would:
          Establish a United States Trade Administration 
        (USTA), which would carry out the current functions of 
        the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the 
        International Trade Administration (ITA), the Bureau of 
        Export Administration (BXA), the Export-Import Bank, 
        the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the United 
        States Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA), and 
        the Trade and Development Administration;
          Abolish the Economic Development Administration 
        (EDA), the Minority Business Development Administration 
        (MBDA), the Technology Administration, the Advanced 
        Technology Program (ATP), the Manufacturing Extension 
        Programs (MEP), the Office of Chief Economist and the 
        grant functions of the National Telecommunications and 
        Information Administration (NTIA);
          Direct the General Services Administration (GSA) to 
        sell the property of the National Technical Information 
        Service (NTIS);
          Transfer the Bureau of the Census and most of the 
        Bureau of Economic Analysis to the Department of Labor;
          Establish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration (NOAA) as an independent agency;
          Establish the Office of Patents, Trademarks, and 
        Standards (PTSO) to carry out the functions of the 
        Patent and Trademark Office and the National Institute 
        of Standards and Technology (NIST); and
          Establish a Government 2000 Commission to examine the 
        organization of the federal government and to develop 
        recommendations to reduce the costs and increase the 
        productivity of federal departments and agencies.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming 
appropriations at the 1995 level for those commerce-related 
functions that would continue to be carried out under this 
bill, CBO estimates that outlays for these activities would 
total $20.6 billion over the 1996-2000 period. Most of the 
functions of the Department of Commerce are not authorized 
through 1995 under current law. Measured against the existing 
authorizations for the 1996-2000 period, we estimate that the 
$20.6 billion would represent additional spending of $8.9 
billion over the five-year period. We also estimate that the 
bill would result in asset sale receipts of $13 million in 
1997. The table on the following page summarizes the CBO's 
estimates of the budgetary effects of these proposals, relative 
to current law, for the 1996-2000 period.
    By comparison, continuing the funding of all the affected 
programs at the same levels as provided for fiscal year 1995--
that is, assuming that no programs or functions are 
eliminated--would result in a five-year spending total of about 
$23 billion. (The year-by-year components of this figure are 
shown as a memorandum item in the table.) Measured against 
these current funding levels, S. 929 would allow for a 
reduction in spending on the commerce programs affected by this 
bill of about $2.4 billion over the 1996-2000 period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1995     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          RECEIPTS FROM ASSET SALES \1\                                         
                                                                                                                
Estimated budget authority................................  .......  .......      -13  .......  .......  .......
Estimated outlays.........................................  .......  .......      -13  .......  .......  .......
                                                                                                                
                                    SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION                                   
                                                                                                                
Spending under current law:                                                                                     
    Authorization level \2\...............................    4,823    4,031    1,509      649      649      636
    Estimated outlays.....................................    4,072    4,023    3,069    2,127    1,438      980
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Estimated authorization level.........................  .......      476    2,320    3,164    3,150    3,145
    Estimated outlays.....................................  .......      254    1,357    2,064    2,470    2,774
Spending under proposal:                                                                                        
    Estimated authorization level.........................    4,823    4,507    3,829    3,813    3,799    3,781
    Estimated outlays.....................................    4,072    4,277    4,426    4,191    3,908    3,754
Memorandum:                                                                                                     
    Spending assuming continued funding at 1995 levels                                                          
        Estimated authorization level.....................    4,823    4,800    4,807    4,792    4,776    4,760
        Estimated outlays.................................    4,072    4,351    4,622    4,671    4,661    4,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the 1996 budget resolution, proceeds from asset sales are counted in the budget totals for purposes of
  Congressional scoring. Under the Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset sales are not counted in   
  determining compliance with the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go requirement.                   
\2\ The 1995 level is the amount appropriated for that year. The 1996 level includes amounts assumed to be      
  appropriated for program continuations until the provisions of S. 929 would become effective around the end of
  the third quarter of fiscal year 1996. The amounts shown for the remainder of 1996 and for 1997 through 2000  
  reflect authorizations under current law. Some commerce programs are currently authorized beyond 1995 while   
  others are not.                                                                                               

    The costs of this bill fall within budget functions 150, 
300, 370, 450, 500, and 800.
    6. Basis of estimate: This estimate assumes that S. 929 
will be enacted by the end of calendar year 1995 and that all 
amounts authorized are appropriated for each fiscal year. 
Authorizations of spending for new and continued programs are 
shown for three-quarters of fiscal year 1996. The estimate 
would change if the bill is enacted later. The amounts 
estimated for spending subject to appropriations could change 
if appropriations for any of these programs are enacted prior 
to enactment of S. 929. The estimate assumes that outlays would 
follow historical rates of spending for the affected programs. 
Because the bill's provisions would not become effective until 
six months after enactment, potential savings in fiscal year 
1996 are minimal. Moreover, relatively low rates of spending 
for some of the affected programs means that most of the 
potential reductions in commerce appropriations would not 
translate into outlay savings until after fiscal year 1997.

Asset sales

    CBO estimates that the sale of NTIS would yield about $13 
million in asset sale receipts during fiscal year 1997. In 
estimating the proceeds from the sale of NTIS, CBO examined 
such factors as the increasing availability of federal 
documents over the internet and the efficiency savings that 
might result if a private firm owned NTIS. We expect that GSA 
would be able to dispose of this property without incurring 
significant costs.

Spending subject to appropriations

    CBO estimates that S. 929 would provide new authorizations 
of appropriations of about $12.3 billion over the 1996-2000 
period, assuming that the authorized programs continue to be 
funded at the 1995 level. Several agencies or programs that are 
not currently authorized would be reauthorized by this bill, 
including NOAA and agencies that would be consolidated into the 
proposed PTSO. The costs of continuing these programs are shown 
in the table as proposed changes--relative to authorizations 
under current law--in spending subject to appropriations 
action.
    As indicated by the estimated authorization levels in the 
table, we estimate that by fiscal year 1997, annual funding 
requirements would decline by about $1 billion from the 1995 
level, reflecting the elimination of some agencies and 
programs. Because the bill would not go into effect until the 
end of the third quarter of fiscal year 1996, we have assumed 
appropriations comparable with fiscal year 1995 levels for the 
first three quarters of the year.
    Creation of New Agencies.--S. 929 would create the United 
States Trade Administration (USTA), which would be responsible 
for conducting trade negotiations and advising the President on 
international trade policy. The bill would transfer to the new 
agency the USTR, ITA, USTTA, most of BXA, and the policy 
functions of NTIA, as well as other agencies currently outside 
of the Department of Commerce. The bill authorizes 
appropriations as necessary for the new agency. Assuming annual 
appropriations at the 1995 levels for the functions being 
continued (about $1.35 billion), CBO estimates that outlays 
would total $4.2 billion for these trade-related activities 
over the 1996-2000 period.
    The bill also would create the Office of Patents, 
Trademarks, and Standards and would authorize appropriations as 
necessary for the new agency. Assuming annual appropriations at 
the 1995 levels for the functions being continued (about $0.4 
billion), CBO estimates that outlays would total $1.8 billion 
over the 1996-2000 period.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also 
would be established as an independent agency under S. 929. 
NOAA would retain its current mission and goals under the bill 
but would be required to reduce the number of its employees and 
the size of its fleet. For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that these cost reductions would be offset by increased 
contracting expenditures. Assuming annual appropriations at the 
1995 levels for the functions being continued (about $1.9 
billion) would result in discretionary spending totaling $9.6 
billion over the 1996-2000 period.
    S. 929 would authorize $5 million in fiscal year 1996 for 
the proposed Government 2000 Commission. The commission would 
develop legislative recommendations to reduce the scope of the 
federal government. In addition, the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) would be authorized to make any other transfers of 
programs and personnel, and resolve any outstanding obligations 
(such as grant outlays) from former programs of the Department 
of Commerce. Based on information from OMB, CBO estimates that 
the agency would incur no significant additional costs to carry 
out these functions.
    Transfer of Department of Commerce Functions.--S. 929 would 
transfer the Bureau of the Census and most of the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis to the Department of Labor. It also would 
transfer the spectrum management functions of NTIA to the GSA. 
Because the bill does not specify any increase or decrease in 
authorizations for these agencies or provide guidelines for 
structuring their operations, CBO estimates that there would be 
no significant budgetary impact of these transfers.
    The bill also would transfer aeronautical charting 
functions currently performed by NOAA to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA). Based on information provided by the 
Department of Commerce and the FAA, CBO estimates that this 
transfer would not affect mandatory receipts from the sale of 
charts and would not have a significant impact on discretionary 
expenditures.
    Elimination of Agencies and Programs.--S. 929 would abolish 
several agencies and programs within the Department of 
Commerce. Several of the agencies or programs, including the 
MEP, ATP, MBDA, EDA, and NTIA, are not currently authorized 
beyond fiscal year 1995.
    Terminations would take effect six months after enactment; 
therefore, any termination costs would likely be paid from 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996. CBO estimates that the 
federal government would spend $33 million for program 
terminations in fiscal year 1996. Termination costs would arise 
from the government's obligation to provide federal employees 
with severance pay and payments for accrued annual leave, and 
for other necessary costs to close an agency.
    In general, termination costs may trigger direct spending 
if there are insufficient funds appropriated to cover such 
costs. However, S. 929 includes a provision authorizing 
appropriations of amounts necessary to cover termination costs 
and specifically makes terminations contingent upon the 
appropriation of the necessary funds. Hence, CBO estimates that 
enacting S. 929 would not cause any direct spending for program 
terminations.
    Section 704 of the bill would authorize the Department of 
Commerce (DOC) to make voluntary separation incentive payments 
to those employees who voluntarily separate on or before 
September 30, 1996. Although DOC cannot predict whether it 
would offer separation incentives, CBO assumes that use of 
incentive payments would be limited to agencies within the DOC 
that are not being terminated. Agencies that are being 
terminated do not need to seek voluntary separations when they 
know the positions are being terminated anyway.
    CBO estimates that about 1,000 incentive payments would be 
paid in fiscal year 1996 with an average payment of about 
$24,000. Since exercise of this authority is conditional on the 
provision of funds in advance in an appropriations act, we 
estimate that implementing section 704 would result in $24 
million in discretionary costs in 1996 only.
    CBO does not estimate a cost to the civilian retirement 
system resulting from eliminating positions at the Department 
of Commerce. Although some of the employees who lose their jobs 
would be eligible for retirement, CBO expects that some of 
these individuals would find work elsewhere in the federal 
government. Others would retire, but no so many as to exceed 
the number of retirements assumed in CBO's baseline as a result 
of expected government downsizing for fiscal years 1996 through 
2000.
    Funding Reductions.--Subsection 706 of S. 929 would direct 
the Office of Management and Budget to take any action 
necessary to reduce the funding of all agencies and programs 
under this act by 10 percent in the year following enactment 
(fiscal year 1997), and 35 percent in the second year (fiscal 
year 1998), compared to funding for the Department of Commerce 
in fiscal year 1995. However, the language does not provide any 
enforcement measures if appropriations do not conform to this 
directive. Therefore, we did not incorporate, any potential 
effect of this language in our estimate of spending under the 
bill.
    Our estimates of total authorization amounts for fiscal 
years 1997 and 1998 are both slightly less than 80 percent of 
the 1995 appropriated total. Hence, CBO's estimates of 
authorization amounts would allow for meeting the first-year 
goal of a 10 percent cut in fiscal year 1997, but would not 
conform to the goal of a 35 percent cut in fiscal year 1998.
    7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: A number 
of provisions of the bill would directly affect state and local 
government budgets. The biggest effect would be from the 
termination of the Economic Development Administration (EDA), 
which provides hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to 
states and localities each year. The bill also would abolish 
other, smaller grant programs as well as an extension program 
that is jointly funded by the federal government and state and 
local governments.
    The bill would terminate the EDA, which provides public 
works grants, other financial assistance, and planning and 
coordination assistance to economically distressed areas of the 
country. These programs, which were funded at $418 million in 
fiscal year 1995, are generally administered by state or local 
development agencies.
    The bill also would abolish the Information Infrastructure 
Grants Program and the Public Telecommunications Facilities 
Program of the NTIA. Funding for these programs in fiscal year 
1995 was $64 million and $29 million, respectively. A 
significant portion of these funds are allocated to public 
institutions, including universities and colleges.
    The bill would abolish the State Technology Extension 
Program and the Manufacturing Extension Centers Program of 
NIST. The State Technology Extension Program provides planning 
grants to states to develop or revitalize their technology 
programs. The fiscal year 1995 funding for this program was $6 
million. The Manufacturing Extension Centers Program transfers 
technology to small- and medium-sized businesses through 
government-industry partnerships and extension services. It 
involves cooperative agreements between the federal government 
and nonprofit institutions that are often funded by state or 
local development agencies or universities. These agreements 
can last up to six years and provide up to 50 percent funding 
for the manufacturing centers in the first three years and a 
declining percentage in subsequent years. Thus, the elimination 
of federal funding might result in the need for additional 
state or local funding to continue operation of the centers. 
The fiscal year 1995 funding for this program was $69 million.
    Finally, the bill would abolish the Clearinghouse for State 
and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and 
Innovation and the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology 
Transfer. The clearinghouse was created to help state and local 
governments develop technology transfer programs. The 
consortium was created to help private industry and state and 
local governments take advantage of technology developed in 
federal laboratories. While these changes would eliminate 
sources of information and technical assistance for state and 
local governments, they would not directly affect state and 
local government budgets.
    8. Estimate comparison: None.
    9. Previous CBO estimate: On October 6, 1995, CBO prepared 
a cost estimate for the reconciliation recommendations of the 
House Committee on Commerce, which included a subsection that 
would dismantle the Department of Commerce. While somewhat 
similar to S. 929, it differs from S. 929 in some significant 
ways. For instance, under the Commerce Committee's 
recommendations, several NOAA programs would be either 
transferred to other agencies or abolished, and the 
laboratories of NIST and NTIA, as well as the functions of 
NTIS, would be sold. By comparison, S. 929 would keep NOAA 
intact as an independent agency and would privatize NTIS, 
though not the NIST or NTIA labs.
    We estimated that the House Commerce provisions would 
authorize appropriations of about $13 billion over fiscal years 
1996 through 2000, slightly more than what we estimate in new 
authorizations for S. 929. Further, we estimated that the House 
Commerce Committee's reconciliation recommendations would cause 
$452 million in direct spending. Most of that amount would 
result from a proposal to allow direct spending of the 
surcharge fees collected by the Patent and Trademark Office, 
which would become a wholly owned government corporation under 
the House Commerce provisions. In contrast, S. 929 would not 
incur any direct spending. S. 929 would keep Patent and 
Trademark spending subject to appropriations, and it would not 
require any immediate terminations, as would the House Commerce 
reconciliation provisions. Finally, CBO estimated net receipts 
from asset sales of $7 million for the House Commerce 
reconciliation provisions. Such net receipts would occur from 
offsetting the cost of selling the EDA loan portfolio against 
the receipts from selling NTIS functions. S. 929 would direct 
the sale of NTIS functions only.
    10. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Rachel 
Robertson, Rachel Forward, and Gary Brown; and--for retirement 
issues--Wayne Boyington.
    State and Local Cost Estimate: Pepper Santalucia.
    11. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
                VIII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR COHEN

    While I voted to report S. 929, the Commerce Department 
Termination Act, to the Senate, I did so with some 
reservations, and I cannot guarantee that I will vote for this 
bill if it reaches the Senate floor.
    As I indicated during mark-up of this legislation, one of 
my primary concerns with this bill is the provision to 
consolidate some Economic Development Administration programs 
into the Departments of Defense and Agriculture. The EDA plays 
a vital role in Maine, especially in areas hard hit by defense 
budget cutbacks. EDA programs are among the most successful 
federal economic development efforts in my state, and my 
preference would be to simply maintain the Economic Development 
Administration as a district entity.

                                                        Bill Cohen.
 IX. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS GLENN, NUNN, LEVIN, PRYOR, LIEBERMAN, 
                           AKAKA, AND DORGAN

    We oppose the Roth substitute to S. 929.
    We live in an economically inter-dependent world--a world 
in which trade and technology--the two primary missions of the 
Commerce Department--are playing an increasingly important 
role. We are strong supporters of the current Commerce 
Department for those reasons. We need a strong advocate for 
U.S. business at the Cabinet table and we believe that 
Secretary Brown has been very effective in playing that role. 
During the two days of hearings before this Committee, he was 
praised by both Republicans and Democrats alike for his 
performance. The Majority even notes in the Committee report 
that Secretary Brown ``has received high marks for his active 
promotion of American exports.'' Under his leadership, the 
Commerce Department has been transformed from a bureaucratic 
backwater into an export promotion dynamo. For example, the 
Wall Street Journal reported just over a month ago how he and 
the Department made an all-out effort to secure a $1.4 billion 
contract in Brazil for a consortium of U.S. companies. If you 
ask the executives in those companies, they'll tell you that 
they would have lost that contract to foreign competition if it 
hadn't been for the personal efforts of the Secretary.
    The Department spends about $250 million a year in trade 
promotion, which in 1994 yielded $20 billion in exports for 
U.S. companies. That amount supports about 300,000 U.S. jobs. 
The Department's International Trade Administration has done an 
outstanding job back in our home states--it has a network of 73 
U.S. offices and 130 offices overseas--and ITA estimates that 
for every taxpayer dollar it spends on export promotion, $10.40 
is returned to the Federal treasury through tax revenues 
generated by exports. Also, the Department has very capably 
assisted the USTR in our Uruguay Round and NAFTA trade 
negotiations on issues ranging from auto parts, to textiles, to 
international copyright law. Not surprisingly these efforts, 
combined with a sound Clinton administration economic policy, 
have helped lead to a 17 percent increase in U.S. exports for 
the first five months of this year.
    We are entering the information age, spurred by rapid 
changes in information technology. It's an exciting time. The 
private sector is leading the way into the information economy. 
And that's as it should be. But are our colleagues aware that 
the Federal government established the first computer 
information network? It was developed by the Department of 
Defense and was called the ARPAnet. The ARPAnet was the 
predecessor to today's Internet. In so many other areas of 
technological advancements that we readily take for granted, 
the Federal government took the initial role of funding the R & 
D for technologies that later ended up powering our economy and 
improving our way of life. The Commerce Department is playing a 
key part in this development. NIST's Advanced Technology 
Program has been funding R & D in a cooperative partnership 
with the private sector to develop the technologies of 
tomorrow. The National Telecommunications Information 
Administration has been providing grants to develop the 
National Information Infrastructure, the so-called Information 
Superhighway. And the Technology Administration is coordinating 
interagency R & D on building the automobile of the 21st 
century. But the Roth substitute rejects this approach in 
investing in the technologies of the future. It terminates 
NIST's Advanced Technology Program, the Technology 
Administration and the NTIA. And it ends the Manufacturing 
Extension Program, a program designed to help U.S. small 
manufacturers adjust to the rapid changes in technology and our 
economy.
    This is not to say that Commerce could not be reorganized 
so as to strengthen its mission and improve its effectiveness. 
We have sponsored or cosponsored legislation in the past to 
reorganize the trade and technology functions of the Federal 
government, to bring them together under one roof in a Cabinet 
Department of Trade, or Department of Trade and Technology. 
However, we did not propose destruction of the Department and 
the scattering of its component parts.
    We are advocates of looking at the need to restructure and 
reorganize the entire Federal government, and to do it 
carefully and in an integrated way, not just on a piecemeal 
basis. That's why we favor the approach taken in Title V of the 
Roth substitute--the establishment of a bi-partisan commission 
to design the government of the 21st Century. The basic 
structure of the Federal government really hasn't changed much 
over the last 25 years. And we don't believe its current 
structure reflects the changes that our economy and society has 
undergone recently. So it needs to be examined and a bi-
partisan, expert commission is really the best approach to 
take. Two years ago we supported the creation of such a 
commission to submit legislative recommendations on 
restructuring the Federal government that Congress would have 
to consider on a ``fast-track'' basis. We still support this 
approach and we voted for the Glenn amendment in markup to 
establish such a commission as a substitute to the Roth 
substitute. Unfortunately, that amendment lost on a party-line 
vote.
    If Titles I through IV of this legislation were about 
reorganizing the Commerce Department, or about implementing a 
rational downsizing plan for the Department, then we believe 
that we could work together with the Majority to produce good 
legislation. But this legislation isn't about reorganizing the 
Federal government's trade and technology programs to better 
coordinate them and improve their efficiency. Nor is this 
legislation about a rational downsizing of the Department. 
That's underway now. The Department is reducing its 35,000 
person workforce in line with the President's plan to reduce 
the overall Federal workforce by 272,000 positions by 1999. 
Under the leadership of the National Performance Review, the 
Department is examining the privatization of the National 
Technical Information Service, parts of NOAA, as well as other 
programs. It is phasing out the Travel and Tourism 
Administration and modernizing Census collection.
    What this debate is about is the elimination of a Cabinet 
Department for purely symbolic and political reasons. The Roth 
substitute applies a blowtorch to $1 billion worth of Federal 
agencies and programs in the Department, melts them down, and 
terminates them. Agencies that survive will be hobbled by a 10 
percent cut the first year and a 35 percent cut the second.
    Most of that cut will fall on NOAA, at $1.9 billion the 
largest remaining agency and the home of the National Weather 
Service. And we're considering these draconian cuts at a time 
when the Florida coast continues to be battered by hurricanes. 
That's just plain foolish. Further, both House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees have rejected such deep cuts in 
NOAA's budget. Those Committees also preserved the Economic 
Development Administration, recognizing its value to 
economically-distressed regions of the nation, especially those 
that have been negatively impacted by base closing. Yet this 
Committee has decided to terminate the EDA.
    The Roth substitute transfers the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, and the 
Trade and Development Agency into the new U.S. Trade 
Administration, consolidations that we've supported in past 
legislation. But unfortunately these agencies are being 
transferred into an ``administration'' and not a Cabinet 
Department. When our companies are fighting for large 
government contracts overseas and are competing against a Team 
Japan, or a Team Germany, we think it makes a difference when 
the respective foreign government gets the call from a U.S. 
Cabinet Secretary, as opposed to a lower ranking Administrator.
    In the Committee report, the Majority discusses how 
downsizing and streamlining has been taking place in the 
private sector. We believe that an examination of the 
restructuring undertaken by the private sector is relevant in 
this context. Independent studies of private sector 
restructuring efforts show that their success is a hit or miss 
proposition and depends on several factors. A 1993 survey of 
over 500 U.S. companies by the Wyatt Company revealed that only 
60 percent of the companies actually were able to reduce costs 
in their restructuring efforts. Both the Wyatt Survey and a 
similar one conducted by the American Management Association 
concluded that successful restructuring efforts must be planned 
carefully with a clear vision of their goals and objectives, 
and that proper attention be given to maintaining employee 
morale and productivity. Otherwise, the costs of reorganization 
may outweigh its benefits.
    We believe that government reorganization is a complicated 
task that cannot be successfully accomplished without serious 
study and deliberation, especially if it is going to achieve 
the dual goal of improving government efficiency and reducing 
costs. That means reorganization should follow not precede the 
recommendations of a bi-partisan commission. We should not be 
reorganizing the Commerce Department first and then forming a 
government commission to restructure the rest of government, as 
the Roth substitute proposes. That doesn't make any sense. Our 
hope is that the Majority will abandon its narrow focus on the 
Commerce Department and focus instead on the more important 
issue of reorganizing and streamlining the Federal government 
to improve its efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Until then, 
we will continue to oppose this legislation.
                    MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR LEVIN

    In addition to endorsing the minority views of Senator 
Glenn, I want to highlight three key flaws in the Roth 
substitute to S. 929.
    The first is the approach the bill takes to dismantling the 
Department of Commerce. The bill's stated goal is to streamline 
government. But replacing this one department with three new 
agencies isn't a plan that will simplify or shrink government.
    Two of the new agencies, NOAA and the Office of Patents, 
Trademarks and Standards, are characterized in the Committee 
report as temporary solutions pending a more comprehensive 
government reorganization. Such piecemeal, short-term box-
shuffling of programs may produce little more than red tape, 
confusion and disruption.
    The bill also eliminates key industry programs critical to 
U.S. exports. Almost 90% of U.S. exports are manufactured goods 
which provide the high-wage jobs American families need, yet 
the bill slashes cost effective, proven ways to improve 
manufacturing. Slashing these programs strikes at the heart of 
American competitiveness.
    The bill eliminates, for example, the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership program which supports 42 centers across 
the country that help small and mid-sized manufacturers compete 
globally. It eliminates the Advanced Technology Program that 
leverages hundreds of millions of dollars from business for 
cooperative research into state-of-the-art technologies 
critical to future exports. It eliminates the Economic 
Development Administration which targets federal economic 
assistance to distressed areas, including communities crippled 
by the closing of a military base. It eliminates the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration which helps 
schools, hospitals and others get onto the information 
superhighway. It separates the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST) from the rest of the Commerce 
Department's trade programs even though NIST leads the fight to 
lower non-tariff trade barriers to U.S. goods by negotiating 
international industry standards and winning acceptance of U.S. 
standards.
    The bill demolishes or fragments every one of the 
Department's industry programs. It also threatens surviving 
Commerce programs by mandating an overall funding cut of 35% 
over two years. The United States is already dead last among 
its major trading partners in spending to build exports. 
Germany, for example, spends twice as much as we do. Japan 
currently invests 35% more than the U.S. on a per capita basis 
in civilian technology and plans to double the country's R&D 
spending by the year 2000. Yet this bill slashes U.S. 
manufacturing and technology development.
    We've spent weeks on the Senate floor talking about the 
need for cost effective federal programs. The Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership cost $71 million in FY94. A study of just 
500 manufacturing companies that used the program to improve 
their operations found that these companies had experienced 
$167 million in new sales, investments and cost savings and 
generated 3,400 new jobs. Taxpayers are getting a significant 
return on every dollar spent on this program.
    The Advanced Technology Program has been in operation only 
a few years so conclusive numbers aren't in, but initial data 
shows the program is accelerating technology development, 
encouraging productive partnerships between American firms, and 
producing new jobs at 90% of the small firms surveyed.
    The Commerce Department industry programs represent a small 
percentage of the Department's entire budget, yet produce 
enviable results and the praise of business and community 
members alike. These are exactly the low-cost, high customer 
satisfaction programs that we want from government. It defies 
common sense to put them on the chopping block.
    The bill's ill-advised treatment of the Commerce Department 
highlights a second basic flaw in this bill. It puts the horse 
before the cart. It dismantles the Commerce Department and 
scatters or eliminates important programs before obtaining the 
plan for overhauling the executive branch. The Committee 
justifies this action by citing a provision in the 1996 budget 
plan that targets the Commerce Department for dismantlement. 
But that explanation fails to take into account subsequent 
actions in both Houses reaffirming Commerce Department 
programs. Just last month, for example, the Senate Commerce 
Committee approved a bipartisan bill reauthorizing the very 
industry and technology programs terminated here.
    Dismantling the Commerce Department in advance of obtaining 
the overall government reorganization plan which the bill also 
mandates is like saying ``ready, fire, aim.'' It creates 
confusion, misdirects resources and produces new bureaucracies 
that no one wants to sustain.
    Finally, the bill provisions creating the Government 2000 
Commission need improvement. In practical terms, the bill 
provides only about 6 months to draft a new masterplan for 
overhauling the federal government. There is no requirement or 
formal mechanism for Presidential input or for public comment 
on an initial draft.
    Congress is the primary check on the Government 2000 
Commission's work, yet the bill severely limits the scope of 
Congressional review. The bill provisions imposing expedited 
procedures for Congressional consideration are modeled after 
those in the legislation that created the military base closing 
commission. But in this case Congress won't be reviewing 
recommendations to close specific military installations; it 
will be reviewing a single blueprint for a whole new executive 
branch.
    One ticking time-bomb in the bill's expedited procedures is 
a germaneness requirement that will restrict not only 
amendments offered on the floor in the House and Senate, but 
also in every Congressional committee.
    A germaneness restriction on a proposal of this scope--
reforming virtually every facet of the executive branch--is 
dangerous and unnecessary. Germaneness is a rigid rule, far 
more limiting than a requirement for relevant amendments; among 
other constraints, it prohibits broadening the scope of a bill. 
Suppose, for example, commission provisions revamping veteran 
programs inadvertently eliminate an important health program 
which the commission agrees should continue. A germaneness 
requirement could preclude restoring that program, even in 
committee. The bill's tight time restrictions already severely 
limit Congressional consideration of the commission's proposed 
masterplan; the germaneness restriction would hamstring the 
amendment process and could even preclude sensible and widely 
supported alterations. The germaneness restriction should be 
dropped.
    Government reform is needed. For that reason I support 
forming a bipartisan commission at this time to propose an 
executive branch overhaul. However, the commission and the 
Congress need the time and tools to do it right. Proposals for 
reforming the Commerce Department should come after, not 
before, a new masterplan is drawn.
                                                        Carl Levin.
               ADDITIONAL MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR PRYOR

    The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has been 
crucial to rebuilding distressed rural and urban communities in 
every state across America. Not by providing Government 
handouts, but by helping communities become economically self-
sufficient. EDA's goal is to invest limited Federal dollars in 
communities so that they can attract new industry, spur private 
investment, and encourage business expansion.
    EDA has had strong bipartisan support since it was created 
in 1965. In fact, during this year's debate on the FY 1996 
Commerce, State, and Justice Appropriations bill, the House of 
Representatives approved a $348.5 million appropriation for 
EDA. When the bill reached the House floor, an amendment was 
introduced to eliminate funding for EDA. This vote failed by an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 315-110.
    Similarly, during the debate on this bill in the Senate, 
Senator Olympia Snowe and I introduced a Sense of the Congress 
amendment supporting the House-passed appropriation over the 
Senate mark of $100 million. This amendment had 18 bipartisan 
co-sponsors. The amendment was unanimously accepted by the 
Senate on September 29.
    EDA gets more ``bang for the buck'' by creating 
partnerships with local, county, and State governments and 
economic development entities. These partnerships help to 
provide planning, financial, technical, and specialized 
assistance to help develop infrastructure and create jobs in 
these distressed areas.
    In fact, for every EDA dollar invested, more than $3 in 
outside investment has been generated. In the last 30 years, 
EDA has invested over $15 billion in local communities in need 
of financial assistance. This investment has resulted in the 
creation or the retention of more than 2.8 million American 
jobs.
    Perhaps the largest and best-known mission of EDA is in the 
field of defense conversion. EDA is life support for base 
closure towns searching for new direction and new life after 
the Cold War.
    In 1988, 1991, and 1993, we closed 250 military bases 
across America. Just months ago, the 1995 Base Closure 
Commission recommended the closing or realignment of another 
130 bases. Communities surrounding these bases and defense 
factories being downsized face massive revenue and job losses. 
EDA is often the only place cities and towns can turn for help 
in getting back on their feet.
    Since 1992, EDA has provided 173 grants, matched by local 
funds, totalling almost $288 million to these communities. The 
Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and provide 
a helping hand to communities that face the loss of a military 
base or a defense production facility.
    The Committee has recommended preserving EDA's defense 
conversion authority by transferring this authority to the 
Department of Defense. This action breaks off one of EDA's 
important functions, and appears to contradict recent 
Congressional actions opposing the creation of new programs in 
the Defense Department that benefit non-defense causes, such as 
economic development. EDA is the only Federal agency with the 
resources and tools that can help defense-impacted communities 
implement plans for base reuse and locally-identified recovery 
plans. These defense conversion activities must remain at EDA 
so their experienced staff can completely perform the critical 
role of rebuilding communities that lose defense installations.
    EDA is made up of many vital community assistance programs 
including the Public Works Program, Economic Adjustment 
Assistance Program, Planning and Technical Services, Trade 
Adjustment Assistance, and Post Disaster Assistance. All of 
these programs serve a defined need and they cannot efficiently 
and effectively operate if they are dispersed to different 
agencies and or eliminated. These programs must be kept 
together under the EDA umbrella.
    The Committee has also recommended moving EDA's non-defense 
infrastructure grant authorities to the Rural Development 
Administration in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
Unfortunately, this action implies that EDA provides assistance 
to rural areas only, despite the tremendous contributions EDA 
makes to the economies of non-rural areas across America.
    There has been criticism in the past about EDA's management 
and about certain grants that have been made. EDA, along with 
other government agencies has reinvented itself and has become 
more effective and efficient. The EDA has trimmed application 
processing down to 60 days, cut regulations by 62%, reduced 
administrative expenses in half from 13.6% in fiscal year 1989 
to 6.6% in fiscal year 1995, and in fiscal year 1995 will 
further reduce its staff from 350 to 309 positions.
    Eliminating EDA and its many functions and transferring 
other programs within EDA to other departments would be 
shortsighted and costly to the taxpayers. EDA has aided and 
given hope to many distressed urban and rural areas around the 
United States that would otherwise not have been provided 
funding through traditional sources. EDA works and should be 
continued as a Federal program at the Department of Commerce.
    I believe that the Department of Commerce, as well as all 
other Federal agencies, can be streamlined. This bill, however, 
is an assortment of transfers and terminations that does 
nothing to achieve this goal.

                                                       David Pryor.
                       X. Changes to Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 
italic, existing law to which no change is proposed is shown in 
roman):

                           UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

                         TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT

            CHAPTER 1--PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

          * * * * * * *
    3 U.S.C. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice 
President; officers eligible to act. * * *
    (d)(1) * * *
        * * * [Secretary of Commerce]
          * * * * * * *

             TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

          * * * * * * *

   October 18, 1988, P.L. 100-504, 5 U.S.C.S. Appx sec. 3 Inspector 
                          General Act of 1978

    AN ACT To reorganize the executive branch of the Government and 
    increase its economy and efficiency by establishing Offices of 
  Inspector General within the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 
Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, 
  and within the Community Services Administration, the Environmental 
 Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, the National 
       Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Small Business 
    Administration, and the Veterans' Administration, and for other 
                                purposes

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
Act be cited as the ``Inspector General Act of 1978''.

                         purpose; establishment

    Sec. 2. In order to create independent and objective 
units--
          (1) to conduct and supervise audits and 
        investigations relating to programs and operations of 
        the Department of Agriculture, the Department of 
        Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban 
        Development, the Department of the Interior, the 
        Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, 
        the Community Services Administration, the 
        Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services 
        Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration, the Small Business Administration, and 
        the Veterans' Administration;
          (2) to provide leadership and coordination and 
        recommend policies for activities designed (A) to 
        promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the 
        administration of, and (B) to prevent and detect fraud 
        and abuse in, such programs and operations; and
          (3) to provide a means for keeping the head of the 
        establishment and the Congress fully and currently 
        informed about problems and deficiencies relating to 
        the administration of such programs and operations and 
        the necessity for and progress of corrective action;
thereby is hereby established in each of such establishments an 
office of Inspector General.
          * * * * * * *

                         transfer of functions

    Sec. 9. (a) There shall be transferred--
          (1) to the Office of Inspector General--
                  (A) of the Department of Agriculture, the 
                offices of that department referred to as the 
                ``Office of Investigation'' and the ``Office of 
                Audit'';
                  [(B) of the Department of Commerce, the 
                offices of that department referred to as the 
                ``Office of Audits'' and the ``Investigations 
                and Inspections Staff'' and that portion of the 
                office referred to as the ``Office of 
                Investigations and Security'' which has 
                responsibility for investigation of alleged 
                criminal violations and program abuse.]
                  [(C)] (B) of the Department of Housing and 
                Urban Development, the office of that 
                department referred to as the ``Office of 
                Inspector General'';
                  [(D)] (C) of the Department of the Interior, 
                the office of that department referred to as 
                the ``Office of Audit and Investigation'';
                  [(E)] (D) of the Department of Labor, the 
                office of that department referred to as the 
                ``Office of Special Investigations'';
                  [(F)] (E) of the Department of 
                Transportation, the offices of that department 
                referred to as the ``Office of Investigations 
                and Security'' and the ``Office of Audit'' of 
                the Department, the ``Offices of Investigations 
                and Security, Federal Aviation 
                Administration'', and ``External Audit 
                Divisions, Federal Aviation Administration'', 
                the ``Investigations Division and the External 
                Audit Division of the Office of Program Review 
                and Investigation, Federal Highway 
                Administration'', and the ``Office of Program 
                Audits, Urban Mass Transportation 
                Administration'';
                  [(G)] (F) of the Community Services 
                Administration, the offices of that agency 
                referred to as the ``Inspections Division'', 
                the ``External Audit Division'', and the 
                ``Internal Audit Division'';
                  [(H)] (G) of the Environmental Protection 
                Agency, the offices of that agency referred to 
                as the ``Office of Audit'' and the ``Security 
                and Inspection Division'';
                  [(I)] (H) of the General Services 
                Administration, the offices of that agency 
                referred to as the ``Office of Audits'' and the 
                ``Office of Investigations'';
                  [(J)] (I) of the National Aeronautics and 
                Space Administration, the offices of that 
                agency referred to as the ``Management Audit 
                Office'' and the ``Office of Inspections and 
                Security'';
                  [(K)] (J) of the Small Business 
                Administration, the office of that agency 
                referred to as the ``Office of Audits and 
                Investigations''; and
                  [(L)] (K) of the Veterans' Administration, 
                the offices of that agency referred to as the 
                ``Office of Audits'' and the ``Office of 
                Investigations''; and
                  (L) of the United States Trade 
                Representative, all functions of the Inspector 
                General of the Department of Commerce and the 
                Office of the Inspector General of the 
                Department of Commerce relating to the 
                functions transferred to the United States 
                Trade Representative by section 232 of the 
                Commerce Department Termination and Government 
                Reorganization Act of 1995.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act--
          (1) the term ``head of the establishment'' means the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, * * * the Attorney General; 
        the United States Trade Representatives; * * * the 
        Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National 
        Community Service; the Director of the Office of 
        Patents, Trademarks and Standards * * * or the 
        Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security 
        Administration, or the Administrator of the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; as the case may 
        be;
          (2) the term ``establishment'' means the Department 
        of Agriculture, [Commerce] * * * the Corporation for 
        National and Community Service, the Office of Patents, 
        Trademarks, and Standards * * * or the Treasury, United 
        States Trade Administration, * * * or the Social 
        Security Administration, or the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration; as the case may be;
          * * * * * * *

                   CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS

          * * * * * * *

              Subchapter II--Executive Schedule Pay Rates

          * * * * * * *
    5 U.S.C. 5312. Positions at level I.--Level I of the 
Executive Schedule applies to the following positions for which 
the annual rate of pay shall be the rate determined with 
respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted 
by section 5318 of this title:
          * * * * * * *
          [Secretary of Commerce]
          [Special Representative for Trade Negotiations]
          The United States Trade Representative of the United 
        States Trade Administration
          * * * * * * *
    5 U.S.C. 5313. Positions at Level II.--Level II of the 
Executive Schedule applies to the following positions for which 
the annual rate of pay shall be the rate determined with 
respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted 
by section 5318 of this title:
          * * * * * * *
          [Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce]
          Deputy Administrator of the United States Trade 
        Administration
          Deputy United States Trade Representatives, United 
        States Trade Administration
          * * * * * * *
    5 U.S.C. 5314. Positions at Level III.--Level III of the 
Executive Schedule applies to the following positions for which 
the annual rate of pay shall be the rate determined with 
respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted 
by section 5318 of this title:
          * * * * * * *
          [Under Secretary of Commerce.]
          [Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs.]
          [Under Secretary of Commerce for Export 
        Administration.]
          [Under Secretary of Commerce for Travel And Tourism.]
          [Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
        Atmosphere.]
          [Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology.]
          Assistant Administrators, United States Trade 
        Administration (4)
          Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration
          Director of the Office of Patents, Trademarks, and 
        Standards
          Director General of the Commercial Service, United 
        States Trade Administration
          * * * * * * *
    5 U.S.C. 5315. Positions at Level IV.--Level IV of the 
Executive Schedule applies to the following positions for which 
the annual rate of pay shall be the rate determined with 
respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted 
by section 5318 of this title:
          * * * * * * *
          [Assistant Secretaries of Commerce (11).]
          [General Counsel of the Department of Commerce.]
          [Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
        Atmosphere.]
          [Director, National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology, Department of Commerce.]
          [Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General 
        of the United States Foreign Commercial Service.]
          [Inspector General, Department of Commerce.]
          [Director, Bureau of the Census, Department of 
        Commerce.]
          [Chief Financial Officer, Department of Commerce.]
          General Counsel, United States Trade Administration.
          Inspector General, United States Trade 
        Administration.
          Chief Financial Officer, United States Trade 
        Administration.
          Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration.
          Director of the Bureau of the Census, Department of 
        the Treasury.
          General Counsel, Office of Patents, Trademarks, and 
        Standards.
          Inspector General, Office of Patents, Trademarks and 
        Standards.
          Chief Financial Officer, Office of Patents, 
        Trademarks and Standards.
          Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology, Office of Patents, Trademarks and 
        Standards.
          * * * * * * *
    5 U.S.C. 5316. Positions at Level V.--Level V of the 
Executive Schedule applies to the following positions for which 
the annual rate of pay shall be the rate determined with 
respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted 
by section 5318 of this title:
          * * * * * * *
          [Commissioner of Patents, Department of Commerce.]
          [Director, United States Travel Service, Department 
        of Commerce.]
          [National Export Expansion Coordination, Department 
        of Commerce.]
          [Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone 
        Management.]
          [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
        Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.]
          [Assistant Administrators, National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration.]
          Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, United States 
        Trade Administration.
          Assistant Administrators, National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration.
          * * * * * * *

                            TITLE 13--CENSUS

          * * * * * * *
    13 U.S.C. 1. Definitions.--As used in this title, unless 
the context requires another meaning or unless it is otherwise 
provided--
          (1) ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of the Census;
          (2) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of [Commerce] 
        Labor;
          * * * * * * *
    13 U.S.C. 2. Bureau of the Census.--The Bureau is continued 
as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the 
Department of [Commerce] Labor.

    Note.--For all of title 13: [Secretary of Commerce] 
Secretary of Labor; [Department of Commerce] Department of 
Labor as each appears.

                                TITLE 15

          * * * * * * *

                  P.L. 100-418; 15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.

         The National Institute of Standards of Technology Act

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT, FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES.

    (a) Establishment of National Institute of Standards and 
Technology.--There is established within the [Department of 
Commerce] Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards a 
science, engineering, technology, and measurement laboratory to 
be known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Institute'').
    (b) Functions of Secretary and Institute.--[The Secretary 
of Commerce (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
``Secretary'')] The Director of the Office of Patents, 
Trademarks and Standards acting through the Director of the 
Institute (hereafter in this section known as the ``Director'') 
and, if appropriate, through other officials, is authorized to 
take all actions necessary and appropriate to accomplish the 
purposes of this chapter, including the following functions of 
the Institute--
          * * * * * * *
    (d) Institute Management of Extramural Funding Programs.--
In carrying out the extramural funding programs of the 
Institute[, including the programs established under sections 
25, 26, and 28 of this Act], the Secretary may retain 
reasonable amounts of any funds appropriated pursuant to 
authorizations for these programs in order to pay for the 
Institute's management of these programs.

    Note.--In Section 2, [Department of Commerce] Office of 
Patents, Trademarks and Standards; and [Secretary of Commerce] 
Director of the Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards as 
each appears.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 10. VISITING COMMITTEE ON [ADVANCED] STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.

    (a) Establishment; Appointment; Membership and Composition; 
Review and Recommendations.--There is established within the 
institute a Visiting Committee on [Advanced] Standards and 
Technology (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the 
``Committee''). The Committee shall consist of nine members 
appointed by the Director, at least five of whom shall be from 
United States industry. The Director shall appoint as original 
members of the Committee any final members of the National 
Bureau of Standards Visiting Committee who wish to serve in 
such capacity. In addition to any powers and functions 
otherwise granted to it by this chapter, the Committee shall 
review and make recommendations regarding general policy for 
the Institute, its organization, its budget, and its programs 
within the framework of applicable national policies as set 
forth by the President and Congress.
          * * * * * * *
          [Section 24. Studies by the National Research 
        Council]
          [Section 25. Regional Centers for the Transfer of 
        Manufacturing Technology]
          [Section 26. Assistance to State Technology Programs]
          * * * * * * *
          [Section 28. Advanced Technology Program]
          * * * * * * *

                     15 U.S.C. 1501, 1511, and 1516

 CHAP. 552.--AN ACT To establish the Department of Commerce and Labor.

    [Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
there shall be at the seat of government an executive 
department to be known as the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
and a Secretary of Commerce and Labor, who shall be the head 
thereof, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall receive a 
salary of eight thousand dollars per annum, and whose term and 
tenure of office shall be like that of the heads of the other 
Executive Departments; and section one hundred and fifty-eight 
of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended to include such 
Department, and the provisions of title four of the Revised 
Statutes, including all amendments thereto, are hereby made 
applicable to said Department. The said Secretary shall cause a 
seal of office to be made for the said Department of such 
device as the President shall approve, and judicial notice 
shall be taken of the said seal.]
    Sec. 2. That there shall be in said Department an Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor, to be appointed by the 
President, who shall receive a salary of five thousands dollars 
a year. He shall perform such duties as shall be prescribed by 
the Secretary or required by law. There shall also be one chief 
clerk and a disbursing clerk and such other clerical assistants 
as may from time to time be authorized by Congress; and the 
Auditor for the State and other Departments shall receive and 
examine all accounts of salaries and incidental expenses of the 
office of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and of all 
bureaus and offices under his direction, all accounts relating 
to the Light-House Board, Steamboat-Inspection Service, 
Immigration, Navigation, Alaskan fur-seal fisheries, the 
National Bureau of Standards, Coast and Geodetic Survey, 
Census, Department of Labor, Fish Commission and to all other 
business within the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce 
and Labor, and certify the balances arising thereon to the 
Division of Bookkeeping and Warrants and send forthwith a copy 
of each certificate to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor.
    Sec. 3. That it shall be the province and duty of said 
Department to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and 
domestic commerce, the mining, manufacturing, shipping, and 
fishery industries, the labor interests, and the transportation 
facilities of the United States; and to this end it shall be 
vested with jurisdiction and control of the departments, 
bureaus, offices, and branches of the public service 
hereinafter specified, and with such other powers and duties as 
may be prescribed by law. All unexpended appropriations, which 
shall be available at the time when this Act takes effect, in 
relation to the various offices, bureaus, divisions, and other 
branches of the public service, which shall, by this Act, be 
transferred to or included in the Department of Commerce and 
Labor, or which may hereafter, in accordance with the 
provisions of this Act, be so transferred, shall become 
available, from the time of such transfer, for expenditure in 
and by the Department of Commerce and Labor and shall be 
treated the same as though said branches of the public service 
had been directly named in the laws making said appropriations 
as parts of the Department of Commerce and Labor, under the 
direction of the Secretary of said Department.
    [Sec. 4. That the following-named offices, bureaus, 
divisions, and branches of the public service, now and 
heretofore under the jurisdiction of the Department of the 
Treasury, and all that pertains to the same, known as the 
Light-House Board, the Light-House Establishment, the 
Steamboat-Inspection Service, the Bureau of Navigation, the 
United States Shipping Commissioners, the National Bureau of 
Standards, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Commissioner-
General of Immigration, the commissioners of immigration, the 
Bureau of Immigration, the immigration service at large, and 
the Bureau of Statistics, be, and the same hereby are, 
transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, and the same shall hereafter 
remain under the jurisdiction and supervision of the last-named 
Department; and that the Census Office, and all that pertains 
to the same, be, and the same hereby is, transferred from the 
Department of the Interior to the Department of Commerce and 
Labor, to remain henceforth under the jurisdiction of the 
latter; that the Department of Labor, the Fish Commission, and 
the Office of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, and all that 
pertains to the same be, and the same hereby are, placed under 
the jurisdiction and made a part of the Department of Commerce 
and Labor; that the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, now in the 
Department of State, be, and the same hereby is, transferred to 
the Department of Commerce and Labor and consolidate with and 
made a part of the Bureau of Statistics, hereinbefore 
transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, and the two shall constitute 
one bureau, to be called the Bureau of Statistics, with a chief 
of the bureau; and that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
shall have control of the work of gathering and distributing 
statistical information naturally relating to the subjects 
confided to his Department; and the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor is hereby given the power and authority rearrange the 
statistical work of the bureaus and offices confided to said 
Department, and to consolidate any of the statistical bureaus 
and offices transferred to said Department; and said Secretary 
shall also have authority to call upon other Departments of the 
Government for statistical data and results obtained by them; 
and said Secretary of Commerce and Labor may collate, arrange, 
and publish such statistical information so obtained in such 
manner as to him may seem wise.
    That the official records and papers now on file in and 
pertaining exclusively to the business of any bureau, office, 
department, or branch of the public service in this Act 
transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor, together 
with the furniture now in use in such bureau, office, 
department, or branch of the public service, shall be, and 
hereby are, transferred to the Department of Commerce and 
Labor.]
    Sec. 5. That there shall be in the Department of Commerce 
and Labor a bureau to be called the Bureau of Manufactures, and 
a chief of said bureau, who shall be appointed by the 
President, and who shall receive a salary of four thousand 
dollars per annum. There shall also be in said bureau such 
clerical assistants as may from time to time be authorized by 
Congress. It shall be the province and duty of said bureau, 
under the direction of the Secretary, to foster, promote, and 
develop the various manufacturing industries of the United 
States, and markets for the same at home and abroad, domestic 
and foreign, by gathering, compiling, publishing, and supplying 
all available and useful information concerning such industries 
and such markets, and by such other methods and means as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary or provided by law. And all 
consular officers of the United States, including consuls-
general, consuls, and commercial agents, are hereby required, 
and it is made a part of their duty, under the direction of the 
Secretary of State, to gather and compile, from time to time, 
useful and material information and statistics in respect to 
the subject enumerated in section three of this Act in the 
countries and places to which such consular officers are 
accredited, and to send, under the direction of the Secretary 
of Commerce and Labor of the information and statistics thus 
gathered and compiled, such reports to be transmitted through 
the State Department to the Secretary or the Department of 
Commerce and Labor.
    Sec. 6. That there shall be in the Department of Commerce 
and Labor a bureau to be called the Bureau of Corporations, and 
a Commissioner of Corporations who shall be the head of said 
bureau, to be appointed by the President, who shall receive a 
salary of five thousand dollars per annum. There shall also be 
in said bureau a deputy commissioner who shall receive a salary 
of three thousand five hundred dollars per annum, and who shall 
in the absence of the Commissioner act as, and perform the 
duties of, the Commissioner of Corporations, and who shall also 
perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor or by the said Commissioner. 
There shall also be in the said bureau a chief clerk and such 
special agents, clerks, and other employees as may be 
authorized by law.
    The said Commissioner shall have power and authority to 
make, under the direction and control of the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor, diligent investigation into the 
organization, conduct, and management of the business of any 
corporation, joint stock company or corporate combination 
engaged in commerce among the several States and with foreign 
nations excepting common carriers subject to ``An Act to 
regulate commerce,'' approved February fourth, eighteen hundred 
and eighty-seven, and to gather such information and data as 
will enable the President of the United States to make 
recommendations to Congress for legislation for the regulation 
of such commerce, and to report such data to the President from 
time to time as he shall require; and the information so 
obtained or as much thereof as the President may direct shall 
be made public.
    In order to accomplish the purposes declared in the 
foregoing part of this section, the said Commissioner shall 
have and exercise the same power and authority in respect to 
corporations, joint stock companies and combinations subject to 
the provisions hereof, as is conferred on the Interstate 
Commerce Commission in said ``Act to regulate commerce'' and 
the amendments thereto in respect to common carriers so far as 
the same may be applicable, including the right to subpoena and 
compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
production of documentary evidence and to administer oaths. All 
the requirements, obligations, liabilities, and immunities 
imposed or conferred by said ``Act to regulate commerce'' and 
by ``An Act in relation to testimony before the Interstate 
Commerce Commission,'' and so forth, approved February 
eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, supplemental to 
said ``Act to regulate commerce,'' shall also apply to all 
persons who may be subpoenaed to testify as witnesses or to 
produce documentary evidence in pursuance of the authority 
conferred by this section.
    It shall also be the province and duty of said bureau, 
under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, to 
gather, compile, publish, and supply useful information 
concerning corporations doing business within the limits of the 
United States as shall engage in interstate commerce or in 
commerce between the United States and any foreign country, 
including corporations engaged in insurance, and to attend to 
such other duties as may be hereafter provided by law.
    Sec. 7. That the jurisdiction, supervision and control now 
possessed and exercised by the Department of the Treasury over 
the fur-seal, salmon and other fisheries of Alaska and over the 
immigration of aliens into the United States, its waters, 
territories and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, 
are hereby transferred and vested in the Department of Commerce 
and Labor: Provided, That nothing contained in this Act shall 
be construed to alter the method of collecting and accounting 
for the head-tax prescribed by section one of the Act entitled 
``An Act to regulate immigration,'' approved August third, 
eighteen hundred and eighty-two. That the authority, power and 
jurisdiction now possessed and exercised by the Secretary of 
the Treasury by virtue of any law in relation to the exclusion 
from and the residence within the United States, its 
territories and the District of Columbia, of Chinese and 
persons of Chinese descent, are hereby transferred to and 
conferred upon the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and the 
authority, power and jurisdiction in relation thereto now 
vested by law or treaty in the collectors of customs and the 
collectors of internal revenue, are hereby conferred upon and 
vested in such officers under the control of the Commissioner-
General of Immigration, as the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
may designate therefor.
    [Sec. 8. That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall 
annually, at the close of each fiscal year, make a report in 
writing to Congress, giving an account of all money's received 
and disbursed by him and his Department, and describing the 
work done by the Department in fostering, promoting, and 
developing the foreign and domestic commerce, the mining, 
manufacturing, shipping, and fishery industries, and the 
transportation facilities, of the United States, and making 
such recommendations as he shall deem necessary for the 
effective performance of the duties and purposes of the 
Department. He shall also from time to time make such special 
investigations and reports as he may be required to do by the 
President, or by either House of Congress, or which he himself 
may deem necessary and urgent.]
    Sec. 9. That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall have 
charge, in the buildings or premises occupied by or 
appropriated to the Department of Commerce and Labor, of the 
library, furniture, fixtures, records, and other property 
pertaining to it or hereafter acquired for use in its business; 
and he shall be allowed to expend for periodicals and the 
purposes of the library, and for the rental of appropriate 
quarters for the accommodation of the Department of Commerce 
and Labor within the District of Columbia, and for all other 
incidental expenses, such sums as Congress may provide from 
time to time: Provided, however, That where any office, bureau, 
or branch of the public service transferred to the Department 
of Commerce and Labor by this Act is occupying rented buildings 
or premises, it may still continue to do so until other 
suitable quarters are provided for its use: And provided 
further, That all officers, clerks, and employees now employed 
in or by any of the bureaus, offices, departments, or branches 
of the public service in this Act transferred to the Department 
of Commerce and Labor are each and all hereby transferred to 
said Department at their present grades and salaries, except 
where otherwise provided in this Act: And provided further, 
That all laws prescribing the work and defining the duties of 
the several bureaus, offices, departments, or branches of the 
public service by this Act transferred to and made a part of 
the Department of Commerce and Labor shall, so far as the same 
are not in conflict with the provisions of this Act, remain in 
full force and effect until otherwise provided by law.
    Sec. 10. That all duties performed and all power and 
authority now possessed or exercised by and head of any 
executive department in and over any bureau, office, board, 
branch, or division of the public service by this Act 
transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor, or any 
business arising therefrom or pertaining thereto, or in 
relation to the duties performed by and authority conferred by 
law upon such bureau, officer, office, board, branch or 
division of the public service, whether of an appellate or 
revisory character or otherwise, shall hereafter be vested in 
and exercised by the head of the said Department of Commerce 
and Labor.
    All duties, power, authority and jurisdiction, whether 
supervisory, appellate or otherwise, now imposed or conferred 
upon the Secretary of the Treasury by Acts of Congress relating 
to merchant vessels or yachts, their measurement, numbers, 
names, registers, enrollments, licenses, commissions, records, 
mortgages, bills of sale, transfers, entry, clearance, 
movements and transportation of their cargoes and passengers, 
owners, officers, seamen, passengers fees, inspection, 
equipment for the better security of life, and by Acts of 
Congress relating to tonnage tax, boilers on steam vessels, the 
carrying of inflammable, explosive or dangerous cargo on 
vessels, the use of petroleum or other similar substances to 
produce motive power and relating to the remission or refund of 
fines, penalties, forfeitures, exactions or charges incurred 
for violating any provision of law relating to vessels or 
seamen or to informer's shares of such fines, and by Acts of 
Congress relating to the Commissioner and Bureau of Navigation, 
Shipping Commissioners, their officers and employees, 
Steamboat-Inspection Service and any of the officials thereof, 
shall be and hereby are transferred to and imposed and 
conferred upon the Secretary of Commerce and Labor from and 
after the time of the transfer of the Bureau of Navigation, the 
Shipping Commissioners and the Steamboat-Inspection Service to 
the Department of Commerce and Labor, and shall not thereafter 
be imposed upon or exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury. 
And all Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with this Act are, 
so far as inconsistent, hereby repealed.
    Sec. 11. A person, to be designated by the Secretary of 
State, shall be appointed to formulate, under his direction, 
for the instruction of consular officers, the requests of the 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor; and to prepare from the 
dispatches of consular officers, for transmission to the 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor, such information as pertains 
to the work of the Department of Commerce and Labor; and such 
person shall have the rank and salary of a chief of bureau, and 
be furnished with such clerical assistants as may from time to 
time be authorized by law.
    [Sec. 12. That the President be, and he is hereby, 
authorized, by order in writing, to transfer at any time the 
whole or any part of any office, bureau, division or other 
branch of the public service engaged in statistical or 
scientific work, from the Department of State, the Department 
of the Treasury, the Department of War, the Department of 
Justice, the Post-Office Department, the Department of the Navy 
or the Department of the Interior, to the Department of 
Commerce and Labor; and in every such case the duties and 
authority performed by and conferred by law upon such office, 
bureau, division or other branch of the public service, or the 
part thereof so transferred, shall be thereby transferred with 
such office, bureau, division or other branch of the public 
service, or the part thereof which is so transferred. And all 
power and authority conferred by law, both superivory and 
appellate, upon the department from which such transfer is 
made, or the Secretary thereof, in relating to the said office, 
bureau, division or other branch of the public service, or the 
part thereof so transferred, shall immediately, when such 
transfer is so ordered by the President, be fully conferred 
upon and vested in the Department of Commerce and Labor, or the 
Secretary thereof, as the case may be, as to the whole or part 
of such office, bureau, division or other branch of the public 
service so transferred.]
    Sec. 13. That this Act shall take effect and be in force 
from and after its passage: Provided, however, That the 
provisions of this Act other than those of section twelve in 
relation to the transfer of any existing office, bureau, 
division, officer or other branch of the public service or 
authority now conferred thereon, to the Department of Commerce 
and Labor shall take effect and be in force on the first day of 
July, nineteen hundred and three, and not before.
    Approved, February 14, 1903.
                              ----------                              --
--------

          * * * * * * *

                             15 U.S.C. 1501

           CHAP. 141.--AN ACT To create a Department of Labor

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there 
is hereby created an executive department in the Government to 
be called the Department of Labor, with a Secretary of Labor, 
who shall be the head thereof, to be appointed by the 
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; 
and who shall receive a salary of twelve thousand dollars per 
annum, and whose tenture of office shall be like that of the 
heads of the other executive departments; and section one 
hundred and fifty-eight of the Revised Statutes is hereby 
amended to include such department, and the provisions of title 
four of the Revised Statutes, including all amendments thereto, 
are hereby made applicable to said department; [and the 
Department of Commerce and Labor shall hereafter be called the 
Department of Commerce, and the Secretary thereof shall be 
called the Secretary of Commerce, and the Act creating the said 
Department of Commerce and Labor is hereby amended 
accordingly]. The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be 
to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners 
of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and 
to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. The 
said Secretary shall cause a seal of office to be made for the 
said department of such device as the President shall approve 
and judicial notice shall be taken of the said seal.
          * * * * * * *

                        15 U.S.C. 1502 and 1503

 AN ACT To establish the position of Under Secretary in the Department 
                              of Commerce

    [Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
there is hereby established in the Department of Commerce the 
position of Under Secretary of Commerce with compensation at 
the rate of $10,000 per annum and with appointment thereto by 
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate.]
    [Sec. 2. Such Under Secretary shall perform the duties of 
the Secretary of Commerce in the case of absence or sickness of 
the Secretary, or in the case of the death or resignation of 
the Secretary until a successor is appointed.]
          * * * * * * *

                       96 Stat. 115; U.S.C. 1503a

AN ACT To authorize an Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That [(a) 
there shall be in the Department of Commerce an Under Secretary 
of Commerce for Economic Affairs who shall be appointed by the 
President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The 
Under Secretary shall perform such duties as the Secretary of 
Commerce shall prescribe.]
    (b)(1) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting before ``and Under'' in the item relating 
to the Under Secretaries of Commerce: ``, Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Economic Affairs,''.
    (2) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
in the item relating to the Assistant Secretaries of Commerce 
by striking out ``(7)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(8)''.
    (c)(1) Section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish 
the Departments of Commerce and Labor'', approved February 14, 
1903, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1504) is amended by striking out 
the first two sentences.
    (2) Section 8 of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 
568; 52 Stat. 1029) is hereby repealed.
    (3) Section 601(a) of the Public Works and Economic 
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3201) is amended by striking 
out ``and shall be compensated at the rate provided for level 
IV of the Federal Executive Salary schedule''.
    (4) Section 9(a) of the Maritime Appropriation 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1978 (15 U.S.C. 1507b) is 
amended by striking out ``shall receive compensation at the 
rate prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of Commerce, 
and''.
    (5) Section 4 of the Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1977 
(91 Stat. 1633; 5 U.S.C. Appendix) is amended by striking out 
``, and who shall be entitled to receive compensation at the 
rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for level IV of the 
Executive Schedule''.
    (6) Section 2(d) of Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1979 
(93 Stat. 1382; 5 U.S.C. Appendix) is amended by striking out 
``shall receive compensation at the rate payable for level IV 
of the Executive Schedule, and''.
          * * * * * * *

                             15 U.S.C. 1505

   AN ACT To provide for the appointment of one additional Assistant 
             Secretary of Commerce, and for other purposes

    [Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
there shall be in the Department of Commerce one additional 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce, who shall be appointed by the 
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
The Secretary of Commerce may assign to his Assistant 
Secretaries such duties, including the direction of the Bureau 
of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, as he shall presecribe, or 
may be required by law. The Assistant Secretaries of Commerce 
shall be without numerical distinction of rank and shall have 
salaries of $10,000 per annum.
    [Approved July 15, 1947.]
          * * * * * * *

                             15 U.S.C. 1506

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce, and the United States Information Agency, for the fiscal year 
              ending June 30, 1955, and for other purposes

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
State, Justice, and Commerce, and the United States Information 
Agency for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1955, namely:
          * * * * * * *

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

          * * * * * * *

               general provisions--department of commerce

    Sec. 302. During the current fiscal year applicable 
appropriations and funds available to the Department of 
Commerce shall be available for the activities specified in the 
Act of October 26, 1949 (5 U.S.C. 596a), to the extent and in 
the manner prescribed by said Act.
    Sec. 303. Appropriations in this title available for 
salaries and expenses shall be available for expenses of 
attendance at meetings of organizations concerned with the 
activities for which the appropriations are made; hire of 
passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized by section 
15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), but, unless 
otherwise specified, at rates for individuals not to exceed $50 
per diem.
    Sec. 304. [There shall be hereafter in the Department of 
Commerce, in addition to the Assistant Secretaries now provided 
for by law, one additional Assistant Secretary of Commerce, who 
shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, and who shall be subject in all respects 
to the provisions of the Act of July 15, 1947 (61 Stat. 326), 
as amended (5 U.S.C. 592a), relating to Assistant Secretaries 
of Commerce.] Section 3 of Reorganization Plan Numbered 5 of 
1950, as amended (64 Stat. 1263; 66 Stat. 121), is hereby 
repealed.
    Sec. 305. No part of the appropriations made available in 
this title shall be available for management studies except the 
$100,000 authorized for transfer to the Office of the 
Secretary.
    This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce 
Appropriation Act, 1955.''
          * * * * * * *

                      15 U.S.C. 1507; P.L. 87-405

   AN ACT To authorize an additional Assistant Secretary of Commerce

    [Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
there shall be in the Department of Commerce, in addition to 
the Assistant Secretaries now provided by law, one additional 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce who shall be appointed by the 
President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
shall receive compensation at the rate prescribed by law for 
Assistant Secretaries of Commerce, and shall perform such 
duties as the Secretary of Commerce shall prescribe.
    [Approved February 16, 1962.]
          * * * * * * *

                     15 U.S.C. 1507(b); P.L. 95-173

  AN ACT To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1978 for certain 
maritime programs of the Department of Commerce, and for other purposes

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
Act may be cited as the ``Maritime Appropriation Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1978''.
          * * * * * * *
    Sec. 9. [(a) There shall be in the Department of Commerce, 
in addition to the Assistant Secretaries provided by law as of 
the date of the enactment of this Act, one additional Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce who shall be appointed by the President, 
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Such 
Assistant Secretary shall receive compensation at the rate 
prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of Commerce, and 
shall perform such duties as the Secretary of Commerce shall 
prescribe.]
          * * * * * * *

                    15 U.S.C. 1507c; 100 Stat. 3739

 AN ACT To amend certain provisions of the law regarding the fisheries 
              of the United States, and for other purposes

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
          * * * * * * *

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 407. NOAA OFFICERS.

    (a) Under Secretary.--There shall be in the Department of 
Commerce an Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere who shall serve as the Administrator of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration established by 
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. App. 1) and perform 
such duties as the Secretary of Commerce shall prescribe. The 
Under Secretary shall be appointed by the President by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate and shall be compensated 
at the rate now or hereafter provided for Level III of the 
Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5314).
    [(b) Assistant Secretary.--There shall be in the Department 
of Commerce, in addition to the Assistant Secretaries of 
Commerce provided by law before the date of enactment of this 
Act, one additional Assistant Secretary of Commerce who shall 
have the title Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere and shall serve as the Deputy Administrator of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration established by 
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. App. 1) and perform 
such duties and functions as the Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Oceans and Atmosphere shall prescribe. The Assistant 
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere shall be appointed by the 
President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and 
shall be compensated at the rate now or hereafter provided for 
Level IV of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).]
          * * * * * * *

               33 Stat. 135, Chapter 716; 15 U.S.C. 1508

     CHAP. 716.--AN ACT Making appropriations for the legislative, 
executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year 
    ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and five, and for other 
                                purposes

          * * * * * * *

                         department of justice

    [Office of the Solicitor of the Department of Commerce and 
Labor: For Solicitor of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, four thousand five hundred dollars; 
clerk of class three: clerk of class one; and messenger; in 
all, eight thousand one hundred and forth dollars.]
          * * * * * * *

               66 Stat. 758, Chapter 932; 15 U.S.C. 1508

  AN ACT To authorize the participation by certain Federal employees, 
  without loss of pay or deduction from annual leave, in funerals for 
deceased members of the Armed Forces returned to the United States from 
abroad for burial and relating to the General Counsel of the Department 
                              of Commerce

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
Act entitled ``An Act to grant time to employees in the 
executive branch of the Government to participate, without loss 
of pay or deduction from annual leave, in funerals for deceased 
members of the Armed Forces returned to the United States for 
burial'', approved August 16, 1949, is amended to read as 
follows:
    ``That employees in the executive branch of the Government 
who are veterans of any war, campaign, or expedition (for which 
a campaign badge has been authorized), or members of honors or 
ceremonial groups of organizations of such veterans may be 
excused from duty without loss of pay or deduction from their 
annual leave, for such time as may be necessary, but not in 
excess of four hours in any one day, to enable them to 
participate as active pallbearers or as members of firing 
squads or guards of honor in funeral ceremonies for members of 
the Armed Forces of the United States whose remains are 
returned from abroad for final interment in the United 
States.''
    [Sec. 2. The Solicitor of the Department of Commerce shall 
hereafter be designated as the General Counsel of the 
Department of Commerce, and all laws and orders relating or 
referring to the Solicitor of the Department of Commerce shall 
be deemed to relate or refer to the General Counsel of the 
Department of Commerce.]
    Approved July 17, 1952.
          * * * * * * *

                      15 U.S.C. 1509; 59 Stat. 188

  AN ACT Making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, 
  Commerce, the Judiciary, and the Federal Loan Agency for the fiscal 
           year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and the Federal Loan 
Agency for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, namely:
          * * * * * * *

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                        office of the secretary

    Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenses of the 
Office of the Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this title 
referred to as the Secretary) including personal services in 
the District of Columbia; newspapers (not exceeding $500); 
contract stenographic reporting services; lawbooks, books of 
reference, and periodicals; purchase of one passenger 
automobile at not exceeding $1,800, and maintenance, operation, 
and repair of motor vehicles; not exceeding $2,000 for expenses 
of attendance at meetings of organizations concerned with the 
work of the Office of the Secretary; $570,000: [Provided, That 
hereafter the Secretary may designate an officer of the 
Department to sign minor routine official papers and documents 
during the temporary absence of the Secretary, the Under 
Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary of the Department.]
    Printing and binding: For all printing and binding for the 
Department of Commerce, except the Patent Office, the Civil 
Aeronautics Board, and work done at the field printing plants 
of the Weather Bureau authorized by the Joint Committee on 
Printing, in accordance with the Act approved March 1, 1919 (44 
U.S.C. 111, 220), $750,000.
    Salaries and expenses, National Inventors Council Service 
Staff: For all necessary expenses of the servicing staff of the 
National Inventors Council, including personal services in the 
District of Columbia, printing and binding and traveling 
expenses, $75,000.
    Penalty mail, Department of Commerce: For deposit in the 
general fund of the Treasury for cost of penalty mail of the 
Department of Commerce, except the Civil Aeronautics Board, as 
required by section 2 of the Act of June 28, 1944 (Public Law 
364), $485,000.
          * * * * * * *

               37 Stat. 407, Chapter 350; 15 U.S.C. 1511

    CHAP. 350.--An Act Making appropriations for the 
legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government 
for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and 
thirteen, and for other purposes.
          * * * * * * *

                    department of commerce and labor

    [The Bureau of Manufactures and the Bureau of Statistics, 
both of the Department of Commerce and Labor, are hereby 
consolidated into one bureau to be known as the Bureau of 
Foreign and Domestic Commerce, to take effect July first, 
nineteen hundred and twelve, and the duties required by law to 
be performed by the Bureau of Manufactures and the Bureau of 
Statistics are transferred to and shall after that date be 
performed by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.]
          * * * * * * *

               42 Stat. 1109, Chapter 23; 15 U.S.C. 1511

CHAP. 23.--AN ACT To consolidate the work of collecting, compiling, and 
 publishing statistics of the foreign commerce of the United States in 
                      the Department of Commerce.

    [Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
control and with it the expense of operation of the office 
known as the Bureau of Customs Statistics under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasury, now located in 
the customhouse, city of New York, State of New York, including 
all officers, clerks, and other employees of that bureau, 
official records, papers, mechanical and office equipment, 
furniture, and supplies now in use, be, and the same hereby is, 
transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the 
Department of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is hereby 
authorized, if by him deemed advisable, to consolidate the said 
Bureau of Customs Statistics with the Division of Statistics of 
the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce into one office, 
located in either Washington or New York, or partly in either 
place, in the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce; that the 
statistical bureau hereby authorized to be located in New York 
under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of 
Commerce continue to occupy the premises in the New York 
customhouse which are now occupied by the Bureau of Customs 
Statistics, and that additional space as needed be assigned in 
the same building for its use by the Secretary of the Treasury 
upon request of the Secretary of Commerce. All of the 
unexpended appropriations or allotments from appropriations 
available for the maintenance and expense of operation of the 
said Bureau of Customs Statistics are, from the time when this 
Act takes effect, deducted from the appropriation of the 
Department of the Treasury for collecting revenue from customs 
and transferred to the appropriation for the Department of 
Commerce, to be available for the current fiscal year from the 
time of such transfer for expenditure in the District of 
Columbia or elsewhere, under the direction of the Secretary of 
Commerce, for personal services, rental, or purchase of 
mechanical, tabulating, duplicating, and other office 
machinery, devices, furniture, and supplies, including their 
exchange or repair; subsistence, traveling and transportation 
expenses of employees for official purposes; telegraph, 
telephone, and all other contingent expenses not specifically 
included in the foregoing.]
    Sec. 2. That the Department of Commerce will furnish 
monthly to the collectors at the several ports a tabulation in 
detail showing the quantities and values of the merchandise 
imported and exported from their respective districts, and will 
furnish the Treasury Department upon request such special 
reports as may be necessary from time to time.
    Sec. 3. That this Act shall take effect and be in force on 
the 1st day of January, 1923.
          * * * * * * *

               49 Stat. 1380, Chapter 463; 15 U.S.C. 1511

  AN ACT To provide for a change in the designation of the Bureau of 
   Navigation and Steamboat Inspection, to create a marine casualty 
 investigation board and increase efficiency in administration of the 
           steamboat inspection laws, and for other purposes

    [Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
Bureau of Navigation and Steamboat Inspection in the Department 
of Commerce shall hereafter be known as the ``Bureau of Marine 
Inspection and Navigation.'']
          * * * * * * *

                             15 U.S.C. 1521

             Department of Commerce Appropriation Act, 1945

                        office of the secretary

    Salaries: For personal services in the District of 
Columbia, including the Chief Clerk and Superintendent, who 
shall be chief executive officer of the Department and who may 
be designated by the Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this 
title referred to as the Secretary) to sign minor routine 
official papers and documents during the temporary absence of 
the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary 
of the Department, $620,000.
    Contingent expenses: For miscellaneous expenses of the 
offices and bureaus of the Department, except the Patent 
Office, the Office of the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, 
the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the Loan Agencies, including 
those for which appropriations for miscellaneous expenses are 
specifically made, including lawbooks, books of reference, 
periodicals, blank books, pamphlets, maps, newspapers (not 
exceeding $1,500); contract stenographic reporting services; 
purchase of atlases or maps, stationery, furniture and repairs 
to same; carpets, matting, oilcloth, file cases, towels, ice, 
brooms, soap, sponges; fuel, lighting and heating; purchase of 
motortrucks and bicycles; maintenance, repair, and operation of 
motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles (not exceeding 
three) and motortrucks and bicycles; freight and express 
charges; postage to foreign countries; telegraph and telephone 
service; teletype service and tolls (not to exceed $1,000); 
travel and not exceed $2,000 for expenses of attendance at 
meetings of organizations concerned with the work of the Office 
of the Secretary; first-aid outfits for use in the buildings 
occupied by employees of this Department; $69,000.
    Printing and binding: For all printing and binding for the 
Department of Commerce, except the Patent Office, the Civil 
Aeronautics Board, the Loan Agencies, the war training service 
and the development of landing-areas program of the Office of 
the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, and work done at the 
field printing plants of the Weather Bureau authorized by the 
Joint Committee on Printing, in accordance with the Act 
approved March 1, 1919 (44 U.S.C. 111, 220), $440,000.
    Salaries and expenses, National Investors Council Service 
Staff: For all necessary expenses of the servicing staff of the 
National Inventors Council, including personal services in the 
District of Columbia, printing and biding and traveling 
expenses, $125,000.
    [Working capital fund, Department of Commerce: For the 
establishment of a working capital fund, $100,000, without 
fiscal year limitation, for the payment of salaries and other 
expenses necessary to the maintenance and operation of (1) 
central duplicating, photographic, drafting, and photostating, 
services and (2) such other services as the Secretary, with the 
approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, 
determines may be performed more advantageously as central 
services; said fund to be reimbursed from applicable funds of 
bureaus, offices, and agencies for which services are performed 
on the basis of rates which shall include estimated or actual 
charges for personal services, materials, equipment (including 
maintenance, repairs, and depreciation) and other expenses: 
Provided, That such central services shall, to the fullest 
extent practicable, be used to make unnecessary the maintenance 
of separate like services in the bureaus, offices, and agencies 
of the Department: Provided further, That a separate schedule 
of expenditures and reimbursements, and a statement of the 
current assets and liabilities of the working capital fund as 
of the close of the last completed fiscal year, shall be 
included in the annual Budget.]
          * * * * * * *

           15 U.S.C. 1522, 1523, and 1524; Public Law 88-611

   AN ACT To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to accept gifts and 
bequests for the purposes of the Department of Commerce, and for other 
                                purposes

    [Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized to accept, hold, 
administer, and utilize gifts and bequests of property, both 
real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating 
the work of the Department of Commerce. Gifts and bequests of 
money and the proceeds from sales of other property received as 
gifts or bequests shall be deposited in the Treasury in a 
separate fund and shall be disbursed upon order of the 
Secretary of Commerce. Property accepted pursuant to this 
provision, and the proceeds thereof, shall be used as nearly as 
possible in accordance with the terms of the gift or bequest.]
    [Sec. 2. For the purpose of Federal income, estate, and 
gift taxes, property accepted under section 1 shall be 
considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United 
States.]
    [Sec. 3. Upon the request of the Secretary of Commerce, the 
Secretary of the Treasury may invest and reinvest in securities 
of the United States or in securities guaranteed as to 
principal and interest by the United States any moneys 
contained in the fund authorized herein. Income accruing from 
such securities, and from any other property accepted pursuant 
to section 1, shall be deposited to the credit of the fund 
authorized herein, and shall be disbursed upon order of the 
Secretary of Commerce.]
    Sec. 4. (a) The following provisions of law are repealed:
          (1) Section 11 of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
        establish the National Bureau of Standards'' approved 
        March 3, 1901, as amended (15 U.S.C. 278a);
          (2) Section 7 of the Act entitled ``An Act to define 
        the functions and duties of the Coast and Geodetic 
        Survey, and for other purposes'', approved August 6, 
        1947 (33 U.S.C. 883g);
          (3) Subsection (g) of section 216 of the Merchant 
        Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1126(g)).
    (b) All gifts and bequests received under the provisions of 
law repealed by subsection (a) of this section and all funds 
held on the date of enactment of this Act in the United States 
Merchant Marine Academy general gift fund, established by 
subsection (g) of section 216 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 
shall be transferred to the fund authorized by this Act and 
shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this 
Act.
    Approved October 2, 1964.
          * * * * * * *

               Public Law 96-480; 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.

           Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

    It is the purpose of this Act to improve the economic 
environmental, and social well-being of the United States by--
          (1) establishing organizations in the executive 
        branch to study and stimulate technology;
          [(2) promoting technology development through the 
        establishment of centers for industrial technology;]
          [(3)] (2) stimulating improved utilization of 
        federally funded technology through the recognition of 
        individuals and companies which have made outstanding 
        contributions in technology; and
          [(4)] (3) providing encouragement for the development 
        of technology through the recognition of individuals 
        and companies which have made outstanding contributions 
        in technology; and
          [(5)] (4) encouraging the exchange of scientific and 
        technical personnel among academia, industry, and 
        Federal laboratories.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, 
the term--
          [(1) ``Office'' means the Office of Technology Policy 
        established under section 3704 of this title]
          [(2) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce]
          [(3) ``Under Secretary'' means the Under Secretary of 
        Commerce for Technology appointed under section 3707 of 
        this title.]
          [(4) ``Centers'' means the Cooperative Research 
        Centers established under section 3705 or section 3707 
        of this title.]
          [(5)] (1) ``Nonprofit institution'' means an 
        organization owned and operated exclusively for 
        scientific or educational purposes, no part of the net 
        earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private 
        shareholder or individual.
          [(6)] (2) ``Federal Laboratory'' means any 
        laboratory, any federally funded research and 
        development center, or any center established under 
        section 3705 or section 3707 of this title that is 
        owned, leased, or otherwise used by a Federal agency 
        and funded by the Federal Government, whether operated 
        by the Government or by a contractor.
          [(7)] (3) ``Supporting agency'' means either the 
        Department of Commerce or the National Science 
        Foundation, as appropriate.
          [(8)] (4) ``Federal agency'' means any executive 
        agency, as defined in section 105 of Title 5 and the 
        military departments as defined in section 102 of such 
        title, as well as any agency of the legislative branch 
        of the federal government.
          [(9)] (5) ``Invention'' means any invention or 
        discovery which is or may be patentable or otherwise 
        protected under Title 35 or any novel variety of plant 
        which is or may be protectable under the Plant Variety 
        Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.).
          [(10)] (6) ``Made'' when used in conjunction with any 
        invention means the conception or first actual 
        reduction to practice of such invention.
          [(11)] (7) ``Small business firm'' means a small 
        business concern as defined in section 632 of this 
        title and implementing regulations of the Administrator 
        of the Small Business Administration.
          [(12)] (8) ``Training technology'' means computer 
        software and related materials which are developed by a 
        Federal agency to train employees of such agency, 
        including but not limited to software for computer-
        based instructional systems and for interactive video 
        disc systems.
          [(13) ``Clearinghouse'' means the Clearinghouse for 
        State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, 
        Technology, and Innovation established by section 3704a 
        of this title.]
          [Section 5. Commerce and Technological Innovation]
          [Section 6. Centers for Industrial Technology]
          [Section 7. Grants and Cooperative Agreements]
          [Section 8. National Science Foundation Centers for 
        Industrial Technology]
          [Section 9. Administrative Arrangements]
          [Section 10. National Industrial Technology Board]

SEC. 11. UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY.

          * * * * * * *
    (c) Functions of Research and Technology Applications 
Offices.--It shall be the function of each Office of Research 
and Technology Applications--
          * * * * * * *
          (3) to cooperate with and assist the National 
        Technical Information Service [, the Federal Laboratory 
        Consortium for Technology Transfer,] and other 
        organizations which link the research and development 
        resources of that laboratory and the Federal Government 
        as a whole to potential users in State and local 
        government and private industry;
                  [(d) Dissemination of technical information]
                  [(e) Establishment of Federal Laboratory 
                Consortium for Technology Transfer]
                  (f) Agency reporting
                  [(g) Functions of Secretary]
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 17. MALCOM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD.

          * * * * * * *
    (c) Categories in Which Award May Be Given.--(1) [Subject 
to paragraph (2), separate] Separate awards shall be made to 
qualifying organizations in each of the following categories--
          (A) Small Businesses.
          (B) Companies or their subsidiaries.
          (C) Companies which primarily provide services.
    [(2) The [Secretary] Director of the Office of Patents, 
Trademarks and Standards may at any time expand, subdivide, or 
otherwise modify the list of categories within which awards may 
be made as initially in effect under paragraph (1), and may 
establish separate awards for other organizations including 
units of government, upon a determination that the objectives 
of this section would be better served thereby; except that any 
such expansion, subdivision, modification, or establishment 
shall not be effective unless and until the Secretary has 
submitted a detailed description thereof to the Congress and a 
period of 30 days has elapsed since the submission.]
    [(3)] (2) Not more than two awards may be made within any 
subcategory in any year (and no award shall be made within any 
category or subcategory if there are not qualifying enterprises 
in that category or subcategory).
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Funding.--The [Secretary] Director of the Office of 
Patents, Trademarks and Standards is authorized to seek and 
accept gifts from public and private sources to carry out the 
program under this section. If additional sums are needed to 
cover the full cost of the program, the [Secretary] Director of 
the Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards shall impose 
fees upon the organizations applying for the award in amounts 
sufficient to provide such additional sums. The Director is 
authorized to use appropriated funds to carry out 
responsibilities under this section.

    Note.--For all of Section 17, [Secretary] Director of the 
Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards as it appears.
          * * * * * * *

                    Subchapter III--Export Promotion

          * * * * * * *
    [15 U.S.C. 4721(h)--Report by the Secretary.--Not later 
than 1 year after August 23, 1988, the Secretary shall submit a 
report to the Congress on the feasibility and desirability, the 
progress to date, the present status, and the 5-year outlook, 
of the comprehensive integration of the functions and personnel 
of the foreign and domestic export promotion operations within 
the International Trade Administration of the Department of the 
Commerce]
    15 U.S.C. 4721(h)--Assistance to Export-Import Bank._The 
Commercial Service shall provide such services as the Director 
General of the Commercial Service if the United States Trade 
Administration determines necessary to assist the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to carry out the lending, loan 
guarantee, insurance, and other activities of the Bank
          * * * * * * *

                        TITLE 19--CUSTOMS DUTIES

          * * * * * * *

                   PART V--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

          * * * * * * *
    19 U.S.C. 1872. Interagency Trade Organization.--
    (a) Establishment ; Functions; Membership and composition; 
Participation of Representatives of Other Agencies; Meetings * 
* *
          [(3) The interagency organization shall be composed 
        of the following:
                  [(A) the Trade Representative, who shall be 
                chairperson,
                  [(B) the Secretary of Commerce,
                  [(C) the Secretary of State,
                  [(D) the Secretary of the Treasury,
                  [(E) the Secretary of Agriculture,
                  [(F) the Secretary of Labor.]
          (3)(A) The interagency organization established under 
        subsection (a) shall be composed of--
                  (i) The United States Trade representative, 
                who shall be Chairman,
                  (ii) the Secretary of Agriculture,
                  (iii) the Secretary of the Treasury,
                  (iv) the Secretary of Labor,
                  (v) the Secretary of State, and
                  (vi) the representatives of such other 
                departments and agencies as the United States 
                Trade Representative shall designate.
          (B) the United States Trade Representative may invite 
        representatives from other agencies, as appropriate, to 
        attend particular meetings if subject matters of 
        specific functional interest to such agencies are under 
        consideration. It shall meet at such times and with 
        respect to such matters as the President or the 
        Chairman shall direct.
           * * * * * * *

             19 U.S.C. 2171; Public Law 93-618; Stat. 1978

          * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 12--TRADE ACT OF 1974

          * * * * * * *

[Chapter 4--Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiation]

[SEC. 141. STRUCTURE, FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND PERSONNEL.]

            Chapter 4--Representation in Trade Negotiations

SEC. 141. FUNCTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE.

    The United States Trade Representative of the United States 
Trade Administration as established under section 201 of the 
Commerce Department Termination and Government Reorganization 
Act of 1995 shall perform such representation, trade 
negotiation, and other functions as provided under such Act.
          * * * * * * *

              TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE

          * * * * * * *
    22 U.S.C. 286. Acceptance of Membership by United States in 
International Monetary Fund.--
          * * * * * * *
    22 U.S.C. 286a. Appointments.--
          * * * * * * *
    (e) The United States Executive Director of the Fund shall 
consult with the United States Trade Representative with 
respect to matters under consideration by the Fund which relate 
to trade.
          * * * * * * *
    [22 U.S.C. 2121-2129. The International Travel Act of 
1961].--
          * * * * * * *
    22 U.S.C. 3922. Utilization of Foreign Service personnel 
system by other agencies.--
    (a) * * *
          [(3) The Secretary of Commerce may utilize the 
        Foreign service personnel system in accordance with 
        this chapter--
                  [(A) with respect to the personnel performing 
                functions transferred to the Department of 
                Commerce from the Department of State by 
                Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1979, and
                  [(B) with respect to other personnel of the 
                Department of Commerce to the extent the 
                President determines to be necessary in order 
                to enable the Department of Commerce to carry 
                out functions which require service abroad.]
          (3) The United States Trade Representative of the 
        United States Trade Administration may utilize the 
        Foreign Service personnel system in accordance with 
        this Act--
                  (A) with respect to the personnel performing 
                functions--
                          (i) which were transferred to the 
                        Department of Commerce from the 
                        Department of State by Reorganization 
                        Plan No. 3 of 1979; and
                          (ii) which were subsequently 
                        transferred to the United States Trade 
                        Representative by section 232 of the 
                        Commerce Department Termination and 
                        Government Reorganization Act of 1995; 
                        and
                  (B) with respect to other personnel of the 
                United States Trade Administration to the 
                extent the President determines to be necessary 
                in order to enable the United States Trade 
                Administration to carry out functions which 
                require service abroad.
          * * * * * * *

                      TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE

               Chapter 9--Agency Chief Financial Officers

          * * * * * * *
    31 U.S.C. 901. Establishment of Agency Chief Financial 
Officers.--(a) There shall be within each agency described in 
subsection (b) an agency Chief Financial Officer. Each Chief 
Financial Officer shall--
          (1) for those agencies described in section (b)(1)--
                  (A) be appointed by the President, with the 
                advice and consent of the Senate; or
                  (B) be designated by the President in 
                consultation with the head of the agency, from 
                among officials of the agency who are required 
                by law to be so appointed;
          (2) for those agencies described in subsection 
        (b)(2)--
                  (A) be appointed by the head of the agency;
                  (B) be in the competitive service or the 
                senior executive service; and
                  (C) be career appointees; and
          (3) be appointed or designated, as applicable, from 
        among individuals who possess demonstrated ability in 
        general management of, and knowledge of and extensive 
        practical experience in financial management practices 
        in large governmental or business entities.
    (b)(1) The agencies referred to in subsection (a)(1) are 
the following:
          * * * * * * *
          (Q) The United States Trade Administration
    (b)(2) The agencies referred to in section (a)(2) are the 
following:
          * * * * * * *
          (H) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration
          (I) The Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards
          * * * * * * *

               TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

          * * * * * * *

                   Chapter 17--National Ocean Survey

          * * * * * * *
    33 U.S.C. 853g. Retirement or Separation of Officers.--(b) 
Computations.--In any fiscal year, the total number of officers 
selected for retirement or separation under subsection (a) of 
this section plus the number of officers retired for age may 
not exceed the whole number nearest [four percent] ten percent 
of the total number of officers authorized to be on the active 
list except as otherwise provided by law.
          * * * * * * *

                           TITLE 35--PATENTS

    35 U.S.C. 1. Establishment.--The Patent and Trademark 
Office shall continue as an office in the [Department of 
Commerce] Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards, where 
records, books, drawings, specifications, and other papers and 
things pertaining to patents and to trademark registrations 
shall be kept and preserved, except as otherwise provided by 
law.
          * * * * * * *
    35 U.S.C. 3. Officers and Employees.--
          * * * * * * *
    [(d) The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks shall be an 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Shall receive compensation 
at the rate prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of 
Commerce]

    Note.--For all of Title 35, [Secretary of Commerce] 
Commissioner, Office of Patents, Trademarks and Standards; 
[Department of Commerce] Commissioner, Office of Patents, 
Trademarks and Standards as each appears.
          * * * * * * *

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

          * * * * * * *

          [Chapter 38--Public Works and Economic Development]

    [42 U.S.C. Sections]
    [3121. Congressional Finding and Statement of Purpose]
    [3122. Rural Development]
    [3123. Discrimination on basis of sex prohibited in 
Federally assisted programs]
    [Subchapter I--Grants for Public Works and Development 
Facilities]
    [Subchapter II--Loans, Loan Guarantees, and Economic 
Development Revolving Fund]
    [Subchapter III--Technical Assistance, Research, and 
Information]
    [Subchapter IV--Area and District Eligibility]
    [Subchapter V--Regional Action Planning Commissions]
    [Subchapter VI--Administration]
    [Subchapter VII--Miscellaneous]
    [Subchapter VII--Economic Recovery for Disaster Areas]
    [Subchapter IX--Special Economic Development and Adjustment 
Assistance]
    [Subchapter X--Job Opportunities Program]
          * * * * * * *

                   TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

            Subchapter I--Coordination for National Security

          * * * * * * *
    50 U.S.C. 402. National Security Council.--(a) 
Establishment; presiding officer; functions; composition * * *
    The Council shall be composed of--
          (1) the President;
          (2) the Vice President;
          (3) the Secretary of State;
          (4) the Secretary of Defense;
          (5) the United States Trade Representative;
          [(5)] (6) the Director for Mutual Security;
          [(6)] (7) the Chairman of the National Security 
        Resources Board; and
          [(7)] (8) the Secretaries and Under Secretaries of 
        other executive departments and of the military 
        departments, the chairman of the Munitions Board, and 
        the Chairman of the Research and Development Board, 
        when appointed by the President by and with the advice 
        and consent of the Senate, to serve at his pleasure.
          * * * * * * *

             (August 26, 1994 P.L. 103-317, 108 Stat. 1724)

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
                   Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995

          * * * * * * *

       TITLE II--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

                   Operations Research and Facilities

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

    For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including 
acquisition, maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft; not 
to exceed [439 commissioned officers on the active list] the 
number of commissioned officers on the active list provided by 
section 303 of the Commerce Department Termination and 
Government Reorganization Act of 1995; as authorized by 31 
U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; construction of facilities, including 
initial equipment as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 883j; grants, 
contracts, or other payments to nonprofit organizations for the 
purposes of conducting activities pursuant to cooperative 
agreements; and alteration, modernization, and relocation of 
facilities as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 833i; $1,835,000,000, to 
remain available until expended.
          * * * * * * *
           XI. Appendix A: Previous Reorganization Proposals



