[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
VALUES WHICH HOLD COMMUNITIES TOGETHER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. SWETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes
of my time to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Cantwell].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Hampshire?
There was no objection.
tribute to microsoft
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, during the weeks that the House was out of
session, our Nation received a substantial amount of economic good
news. The economy is growing. Unemployment is declining. The budget
deficit picture is improving.
These trends are encouraging. But macro numbers don't tell the whole
story. The new dynamism of our economy is best seen in the
accomplishments of its individual companies and people.
My colleagues from Washington State want to take a few minutes today
in this special order to talk about the recent accomplishments of one
company in our State that is one of the Nation's leading exporters,
will play an integral role in the creation of the information
superhighway and creating unique cultural and educational tools for our
families.
The House certainly is familiar with Microsoft. It is our Nation's
leading software company; a jobs machine and small business generator;
and a leader in helping the U.S. balance of payments.
Now that's new news about Microsoft that demonstrates how vital it
and the software industry are in reestablishing our world
competitiveness and leading the U.S. economy into the next century.
Here is what has happened just since we went home in November:
Microsoft unveiled its new Microsoft Home (R) software, an innovative
package of programs aimed at better educating our children; Fortune
magazine's December 13 issue named Microsoft the Nation's most
innovative company, based on a poll of senior corporate executives; the
Information Technology Association of America awarded
Microsoft its 1993 Quality Award for outstanding customer
support; Microsoft is the only U.S. software company to win this
prestigious award, which is modeled after the Department of Commerce's
Malcolm Baldrige Quality Awards; a Business Week poll selected
Microsoft CEO Bill Gates as the corporate executive for whom
respondents would most like to work; Fortune magazine, after surveying
more than 10,000 business and financial leaders, in its February 7
issue named Microsoft as the Nation's third-most admired corporation,
and as the corporation rated highest for ability to attract, develop
and keep talented people; and Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's senior vice
president for advanced technology and business development, was
appointed by Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown to the National
Information Infrastructure Advisory Council.
These are just the latest entries on a record in which Microsoft,
Washington State and our Nation can take great pride. Certainly the
people of my First District, the home of Microsoft, both take pride and
reap benefits from this record.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to place into the Record
several statements by my Washington State colleagues.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington, my other
colleague from the State who is a member of the Committee on Science,
Space and Technology, to further comment on the accomplishments and
successes of this industry.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
would like to do a bit of bragging too about our leadership in high
technology under the name of Microsoft in Washington State.
Mr. Speaker, the reason that Microsoft and the software
industry has grown so rapidly and continues to grow is because they are
truly innovative.
In some fields, probably most, new developments and new products
enable us to do a task easier or enjoy something a little more. With
the latest stereo system, for example, we can hear the symphony a
little better and perhaps change the recording with less effort.
But in software, new advances are enabling us to do things we
previously couldn't do at all. The quantum leaps of software during the
past two decades define innovation in the finest sense of the term.
As a member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, I see
many examples of the latest devices in one high-technology area or
another. But as a former IBM programmer I can tell you that it is the
software on the inside, not the shiny finish on the outside, that makes
these products innovative. Without the software, most of them aren't
anything more than a modern sculpture.
Until the 1970's, software generally was developed for specific
computers by the computer manufacturer. As a result, the distinction
between hardware and software was not actively perceived.
In the 1970's, however, the computer software industry came to be
recognized as a separate industry from the hardware section. That is
because software came to be developed by companies separate from the
hardware manufacturers. A substantial amount of the software also
became usable on various models of computers.
Microsoft led that structural change by making its operating software
open in two ways: First, it could be used on more than one brand of
computer, thereby establishing itself as a leading industry presence;
and second, applications software from developers other than Microsoft
could be used in harmony with the Microsoft operating software.
That open approach made it possible for thousands of other
companies--most of them entrepreneurial startups--to compete
in the dynamic software market. Microsoft, in fact, has spent millions
of dollars over the years educating and urging other software companies
to develop applications programs to run on Microsoft's MS-DOS and
Windows operating software. In this fiscal year alone, Microsoft will
spend $14 million in support of independent software vendors. Microsoft
also brings these independent software vendors into the very early
stages of its development of new operating systems. Feedback from the
independents frequently has resulted in changes to products.
This broadening of the intellectual resources for software
development has been a major element creating the rapid pace of diverse
innovation.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington's Fourth
District [Mr. Inslee] another member of the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as we are talking about innovation today, it is
appropriate to talk about Microsoft. And I would like to just comment
about why I think their case is demonstrative of why we have such
bright spots in our national economy. There is a lot of talk about
gloom, but I think there are still bright spots, and Microsoft is an
example of that. And I would like to comment on some reasons for
success in their industry and their particular participation.
{time} 1740
I think those reasons are external and internal, and if I could just
address three external reasons why the industry and Microsoft in
particular has been successful.
One is technical, if you will, and that is the expansion of microchip
capacity, and that capacity has allowed expansion to meet the capacity
of software. That has been an external reason Microsoft has been able
to be successful in the industry.
Second, ease of competition and ease of entry into the market: This
particular industry has really shown the wisdom of having ease of entry
and great competition, because no party has been able to stay on the
pedestal long without reinventing their company.
I would like to talk about their efforts in that regard in a minute.
It has been constantly an evolving industry.
Third, the industry has had market-driven standards. They have not
had government-set standards. It has largely been driven by the market,
and that shows the success for the industry.
Let me comment on the internal, if I may. The internal reasons for a
company like Microsoft's success, and I heard the CEO who gave some
comments about the next decade of Microsoft. The thing that really
struck me is their comment that Microsoft has to change every day. They
reinvent their corporation every day, and they urge their employees to
do that. That is something perhaps we need to follow in Government.
That has been very successful. Microsoft has been rated by a survey
by Fortune magazine of senior executives as the most innovative
corporation. Another survey of 10,000 senior executives said it has
been looked at as the most admired corporation for attracting and
keeping talented personnel. That is because they have learned to
reinvent their corporation every day. They have been successful, and it
is a real bright spot that I hope the Government can come to emulate.
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for sharing their
thoughts.
I am proud that my district plays such a central role in this
industry as the home of its leading company, Microsoft.
But I believe it is clear that every one of us and every one of our
constituents benefits in many ways from the products of this industry.
Let us do nothing to stifle any of the dynamism and innovation that
mean so much for all of us.
general leave
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on the subject of my special order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hinchey). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman
from New Hampshire in yielding to us.
Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentlewoman very much. It is my pleasure to
listen to such a cogent and balanced discussion about high technology
and the needs that this country has for that technology for not only
today but the years ahead, and I appreciate the discourse and gladly
yield any time that she would like to so discuss it again in the
future.
Mr. Speaker, tonight is the beginning of a conversation, a dialog,
that I would like to have with my colleagues. I sense the need for a
national dialog about the values which hold communities together and
underlie and support the legislative efforts of those of us who are
honored to be public servants in our Nation's Capitol. I hope that,
through this discussion, we might begin to change the tenor of public
debate from the adversarial and disrespectful discourse that is
sometimes observed, to a more cooperative and respectful interaction
that focuses on solutions instead of dwelling on the points where we
disagree.
Many of the values and principals needed for a strong community and
society are familiar to us all. Some of them may even seem trite.
However, after 3 short years in Congress it has become clear to me that
they have not been focused on nearly enough. We especially have not
heard enough of what Mainstreet America believes and wants for our
country. It is for this reason that I and a number of my colleagues
have committed ourselves to spending some time every Wednesday night
talking about the issues and challenges facing this country in the hope
that we can begin to rebuild bridges of trust between the public and
government, and between different groups around the country.
Too much of the public discourse these days is divisive, destructive,
and negative. It is time to develop a new language that begins to
reconnect a society that today appears to be more divided than it was
during the Civil War. If we are unable to successfully reconstruct a
sense of community in America, we may yet realize the tragic prophecy
of one of our greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, who in 1838, a full
score before the Civil War, uttered these words:
All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with
all the treasure of the earth--our own excepted--in their
military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not
by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the
Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years . . . If
destruction be our lot we must overselves be its author and
finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all
time, or die by suicide.
He was, of course, speaking of the impending evil of Civil War, but
what was spoken over 150 years ago could very easily apply to today;
only today it is a subtler, more insidious virus that pits group
against group, special interest against special interest, ideology
against ideology. The streets of Los Angeles during the riots, the
daily drug killings in our towns, and throwaway kid syndrome exhibited
by too many parents, demonstrates that societal suicide is alive and
well in America. It seems as if, here in Congress, opposition is
tantamount to cooperation. Little attention is given to the greater
good of the whole as special interests fight for their programs and
policy. Our national interests are pitted against the selfish interests
of individuals and groups. It is a win-lose situation where all too
often it the Nation as a whole and the majority of its citizens who are
on the losing side. Surely there must be a new way. A way in which we
all win something, where compromise and agreement can be found so that
the basic values of our society can be maintained and strengthened. And
this will only be possible if we stop fighting about our differences
and start building upon our shared values and similarities.
In a successful community the unspoken need is to build coalitions
and consensus, not factions and dysfunctional debate. These communities
are not successful because there are no differences, it is just that
the members of the community work hard to solve their problems.
Yet, the most prominent product of congressional floor debate seems
to be dysfunctional gridlock. What if the tone, the demeanor, the very
language of debate in Washington were changed? I am not advocating the
elimination of disagreement or debate. Rather I am calling for the
elevation of more fundamental qualities--that can not be legislated--
that would encourage, rather than discourage, resolution of differences
encountered in the legislative process. Is it a crime to seek win-win
solutions?
In architecture, buildings are designed not only as esthetic
sculptures, but as functional structures that serve their inhabitants.
The key is to combine the two in such a way as to provide for both the
pragmatic and inspirational needs of the occupiers. The debate and
discussion in this process reflect mutual respect and most importantly
a desire by all the parties to find agreement. This is really the
approach that is built upon a win-win scenario.
Take the design of a simple house. The client is not one person, but
the entire family. Each person has preferences that are different from
the others. The different preferences, by human nature, inflate or
deflate certain aspects of the house in the eye of the individual.
Those who like to cook want large kitchens, party people want big
living rooms, and so on. The architect's role is to bring balance to
the process and accord each living area its proper due while keeping
the entire project under budget, on schedule, and up to the esthetic
standards set by the architect and client together.
Public buildings go through the same process although in a somewhat
less personal and individualistic way. Public space is a place where
the sense of community is heightened and relationships are promoted
between members of the public. Neutral corners are offered where
specific tasks are carried out or thoughts are gathered. The balance
between the two should make the role each space plays all the more
effective.
As an architect, I like to look not only at the surface and shape of
buildings, but at underlying structures, too. Every building consists
of beams, headers, and multiple other components that are concealed,
yet play the more important role of supporting the structure. As a
legislator I cannot help but see the same process of design underlying
structures in society, except that they are intangible concepts, or
values that connect individuals to their community. Values like
neighbor helping neighbor. That all of us are entitled to equal
opportunity and freedoms. That each of must take responsibility for our
actions and for keeping our Nation strong. That structure is weakening.
What can be done to strengthen the structure?
The lack of a productive dialog, of win-win situations, has allowed
legislation to focus unduly on the problems rather than on finding
meaningful solutions. Too often we are caught up in the debate for the
sake of debate, not for the good it produces. Meanwhile, our society is
struggling and crumbling around the edges.
We cannot allow our communities to disintegrate, where one group is
separated from another, where neighbors no longer know their neighbor,
when families are ripped apart. We are turning our public spaces--the
markets, town greens, and gathering places from places where
relationships are created and nurtured between members of the community
to sites of butchery where lives are mercilessly slaughtered.
So too, are the relationships between these people obliterated and
annihilated. Beyond this destruction is the destruction of all
relationships that touched the lost lives. Their ability to love is
impaired; their ability to hope is hobbled. In short, the underlying
structure of any good and tolerant society is shaken and weakened.
In order to encourage my colleagues and the public at large to
participate in this new democratic community--with a small d--I think
it is only appropriate to first lay what I call the foundations of
agreement. These are the basic values that I think Mainstreet America
would say are necessary to establish a constructive discussion. We have
obviously lost our understanding of the foundation, otherwise why would
our society have splintered into multiple and divided groups?
There are some basic principles that need to be agreed upon. Just as
when I hold town meetings on health care reform, where the first
question I ask is ``who thinks health care needs reforming?'' and
invariably 70 percent of the people attending raise their hands, so too
do we need to ask ``what are the basic principles that need to be
agreed upon in order to start a constructive, society strengthening
dialog in the political arena?'' If we can get a 70 percent agreement
in this area like I can get on the need for health care reform, then we
have come a long way toward starting the dialogue on a positive
footing. Let me offer some ideas I have regarding foundational
principles.
First, our society is based on a profound respect for the individual
and the sacredness of the human being.
Second, that good government serves the greater good by balancing the
needs of the few with the needs of the many through pragmatic,
reasonable decisionmaking and consensus.
Third, in a free society, as individual freedoms increase, so do
individual responsibilities.
Fourth, the Government's role is to provide the policy tools to
increase individual freedom, prosperity and common values--such as the
need for strong families--and that elected officials are the public
servant who fulfills the will of the public for the public good.
I do not think either the extreme left or the extreme right can truly
claim these principles. A whole new paradigm, or way of thinking needs
to be encouraged in Government so that solutions become the norm
instead of rhetoric. It is important for elected officials to talk, but
not for the sake of talking. The electorate must take more
responsibility by demanding that rhetoric becomes reality. The record
of accomplishment should be easily correlated and matched with the
original plans laid out by the elected official. Promises made should
be promises kept. Actions should speak louder than words.
What role does Government have in the connecting of principles to the
issues? Here is an example: Government is neither the ultimate provider
of entitlement nor the blind, standby agent of benign neglect. Another
example might be: Government is poised, in principle, at the center
point of the dynamic polar forces, one which wishes Government to do
everything and the other which wishes Government to do nothing. Both of
these forces are simplistic; both provide false choices; both are
ultimately harmful to society. Locked together as they are today, both
forces are responsible for gridlock and misery.
I hear too often from people about how they wish Government would
stop looking for partisan positions and start implementing solutions.
Government should not define its purpose by reacting to the polarized,
simplistic ideological forces, but rather by ignoring them and
returning to the basic principles upon which, hopefully, we have all
agreed:
First, what is the real situation and problem?
Second, what pragmatic, effective tools can be created to deal with
the situation and/or equip people to solve these problems?
What can we look for in a leader to give us confidence that he or she
is thinking in this fashion? There has to be balance. Partnerships
between the public and private sector at the national and local level
ought to be a common goal. A balanced program creates a win-win
situation for America; an unbalanced program creates winners and
losers, which is what we have too much of today in America.
Effective and productive activity denotes the new leader. Americans
seek results, not rhetoric, and those results are being sought in
health care reform, crime prevention, welfare reform, job creation, and
so on. We must elect and follow people who are clearly identifying
goals and achieving them. Vice President Gore's reinventing Government
is a good example of goal setting and, we hope, accomplishment. Those
not supporting this approach are willing to waste national resources to
maintain ineffective or nonproductive means because they have severed
the relationship between ends and means.
Look for leaders who are interested in results produced by
individuals who are freely empowered to solve problems with useful
tools, not necessarily tied to one party or another. If every problem
is seen as a nail then every solution begins to look like a hammer.
That kind of rigid thinking stifles creativity and narrows options for
not only finding solutions but for articulating the results to
different groups as well. Too many politicians are more interested in
the idea, the ideals, and the end goals, and maintaining a commitment
to them, than they are in producing pragmatic tools for solving
problems. They damage their own stated cause by being rigid and
ideological.
This country is a country of optimists. Our problems are temporal and
specific. Americans embody the values which, with useful tools, can be
used freely by them to solve their problems if only Government and its
leaders will put enough faith in the public to do so. It is an illusion
to claim that Government actually manages the economy. What is more
accurate would be to understand that Government creates tools or
obstacles which when freely used by individuals produces constructive,
progressive results or economic disaster.
Finally, I believe the independence of the American people should not
be underestimated. If they have the tools to solve their problems, they
will do so independently and without the need of interference. ``If it
ain't broke, don't fix it,'' the saying goes. A logical corollary would
be, ``if it is broken, make the tools available for someone to fix it,
and they will.''
I think these values are held by a broader cross-section of the
American public than any other approach. Recognizing these values and
allowing them to be developed and realized is the first step toward
building the bridge of trust. Building bridges of trust are the first
structures necessary for the reconstructing of the sense of community
in this Nation.
The dialog in the country is moving in this direction. Just witness
the number of articles and books being written about the need to build
community.
First, Dan Kemmis--Community and the Politics of Place;
Second, Amatai Etzioni--The Spirit of Community;
Third, John W. Gardner--On Leadership, and
Fourth, Michael Rowan--On the Deterioration of Political Dialogue in
the United States, to name a few.
In Congress there is evidence of this new spirit of cooperation. Look
at the example of the Penny-Kasich amendment. This was an amendment to
cut spending in Government by an additional $90 billion above and
beyond the cuts proposed by President Clinton. This amendment was
crafted by a unique bipartisan group of 15 Democrats--I was one of
them--and 15 Republicans. Could it be that we had a win-win situation
with such bipartisan support? Unfortunately, this reasonable and fair
proposal lost in the waning hours of the session by the close vote of
219 to 213. Although the measure failed, it played an important role in
solidifying an emerging coalition on the Democratic side of the aisle
that has become known as the New Democrats--a group that is determined
to get results, to build individual responsibility into Government
policy, and who are working to see that Americans have the tools they
need to keep this country great. Many people who supported the Penny-
Kasich legislation reflect the mood of a national electorate that is
increasingly skeptical of Washington and hungry for change. It is a
safe bet that this budget coalition will resurface in the future, and
may even hold the balance of power in the House in the coming years.
These were not Members of Congress who wanted to cut every category
of spending simply for the sake of reducing the deficit. However, they
do understand that long-term economic growth requires less Government
borrowing and more private investment. This was the first precursor to
the ideas presented by Robert Shapiro in his article on cutting and
investing which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 17,
1994.
It is time to seriously re-examine the progovernment or
antigovernment extreme ideologies which an increasingly skeptical
middle class does not seem to be buying. It is time for Members of
Congress to start addressing the real problems that have all but
destroyed the public's faith in Government. Homelessness, broken
families, drugs, and irresponsible citizens belong to neither party or
a particular ideology. They are problems all of us share and must
resolve.
Another bipartisan effort to rebuild the bridge of trust between the
public and the Government is a piece of legislation coauthored by
Congressman Chris Shays, a Republican from Connecticut, and myself, a
Democrat from New Hampshire. It is called the Congressional
Accountability Act. It sounds simple enough: Congress should live by
the same laws it sets for the rest of the country.
But, as amazing as it may seem, Congress is partially or wholly
exempt from a host of laws the executive branch and private sector must
comply with, including health and safety standards, information
disclosure, equal employment opportunity and civil rights protections,
labor laws, ethics standards, and even part of Social Security
regulations. This is an outrage and is wrong. More practically
speaking, Congress would write more effective and responsible
legislation if it lived under the same laws it imposes on the executive
branch and private sector.
By exempting themselves from some laws, Members of Congress lose the
opportunity to experience firsthand the effects of the legislation they
adopt. And, in turn, they remove themselves one step further from the
average American, insulating themselves from the frustrations
constituents face every day.
It is no wonder so many feel Congress is out of touch.
Being in touch is what representative government should be all about.
Being in touch is certainly what good community is all about. People in
touch with themselves. People in touch with each other. All of us
working together on common agreements to improve our society through
debate on the details. That is what will keep us from committing
suicide. That is only possible by broadening the language of political
debate to include the rhetoric of responsibility and values.
President Clinton understands this language. A growing number of my
colleagues also understand this language. As President Clinton said in
his State of the Union address,
. . .let us be honest. We all know something else too. Our
problems go way beyond the reach of government. They are
rooted in the loss of values, in the disappearance of work,
and the breakdown of our families and communities. My fellow
Americans, we can cut the deficit, create jobs, promote
democracy around the world, pass the toughest crime bill in
history, and still leave too many of our people behind. The
American people have to want to change from within if we are
going to bring back work and family and community.
We cannot renew our country when within a decade more than
half of our children will be born into families where there
has been no marriage. We cannot renew this country when 13-
year-old boys get semiautomatic weapons to shoot 9-year-olds
for kicks. We cannot renew our country when children are
having children and the fathers walk away as if the kids do
not amount to anything.
We cannot renew our country unless. . . all of us are
willing to join the churches and other good citizens. . . who
are saving kids, adopting schools, making streets safer. All
of us can do that. We cannot renew our country until we
realize that governments do not raise children, parents do,
parents who know their children's teachers, and turn off the
television and help with the homework, and teach their kids
right from wrong. Those kinds of parents can make all of the
difference.
These are powerful words. The problem at the moment is that they are
only words. Rhetoric. In the coming weeks I hope that I, my colleagues
who choose to participate, and Americans from Mainstreet America can
explore more deeply the values that will surely shore up the sagging
foundations of our society.
{time} 1800
Health care reform, welfare reform, crime legislation, and next week
we will be talking about congressional reform; these are all the issues
that need to be focused on, I think, that need to be passed this year
so that we can begin to improve the relationship between Government and
the people. We need to offer examples where the rhetoric has truly been
replaced by reality.
{time} 1810
We need to lay out the modest plan by which we humbly hope to build a
new democratic community, one in which there is shared responsibility,
shared accountability, shared pain and sorrow, shared love, and shared
joy.
I look forward to continuing this dialogue in the weeks ahead. I
thank the Speaker for the opportunity for allowing me to begin it this
Wednesday evening.
____________________