[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour 
of 10:15 having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 4, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4) to promote the industrial competitiveness and 
     economic growth of the United States by strengthening and 
     expanding the civilian technology programs of the Department 
     of Commerce, amending the Stevensson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 to enhance the development and 
     nationwide deployment of manufacturing technologies, and 
     authorizing appropriations for the Technology Administration 
     of the Department of Commerce, including the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Kassebaum Amendment No. 1477, to establish a 15-year 
     statute of repose for those aircraft with fewer than 20 seats 
     that are used in scheduled service.

  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand there could be some 
separate activity relative to the Kassebaum amendment. We are not sure 
at this particular point. I am told the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi now has an amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran].
  Mr. COCHRAN. May I inquire of the Chair if it would be in order to 
send an amendment to the desk at this point, or do I need to seek 
unanimous consent to temporarily set aside another pending amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair advises the Senator from 
Mississippi that the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. 
Kassebaum] is now the pending business of the Senate. The Senator from 
Mississippi can either ask that that amendment be set aside or offer 
his amendment to the amendment currently pending from the Senator from 
Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 1480

   (Purpose: To extend certain compliance dates for pesticide safety 
                  training and labeling requirements)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment of the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] be laid aside for 
the purpose of offering this amendment, which I will now send to the 
desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment offered now by the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1480.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.    . COMPLIANCE DATES FOR PESTICIDE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Worker Protection Standards.--
       (1) In general.--The compliance date for the worker 
     protection standard set forth in part 170 of subchapter E of 
     chapter I of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be 
     October 23, 1995.
       (2) Pesticide safety training.--Not later than April 23, 
     1995, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'') 
     shall--
       (A) develop and distribute pesticide safety training 
     materials that convey, at a minimum, the information referred 
     to in section 170.230(c)(4) of such title; and
       (B) assist the appropriate Federal, State, and tribal 
     agencies in implementing pesticide safety training programs 
     required under section 170 of such title.
       (b) Labeling requirements.--
       (1) Enforcement.--
       (A) In general.--During the period ending on October 23, 
     1995, the labeling requirements for pesticides and devices 
     set forth in subpart K of part 156 of subchapter E of chapter 
     I of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, may be enforced 
     only--
       (i) in a State that has established a worker protection 
     program with respect to pesticides and devices as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act; and
       (ii) for the purpose of enforcing a State program referred 
     to in clause (i).
       (B) Equivalency.--During the period ending on October 23, 
     1995, each worker protection program referred to in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) shall be considered to meet the 
     requirements of the worker protection standard set forth in 
     part 170 of such subchapter. After such date, the 
     Administrator shall reassess whether the program meets the 
     standard.
       (2) Notification of purchasers.--Beginning on April 22, 
     1994, each registrant of pesticides shall provide information 
     for point-of-sale notification to inform purchasers of 
     pesticides that the applicable compliance date for the 
     labeling requirements referred to in paragraph (1)(A) is 
     October 23, 1995.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi has 
the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to carry 
out the intent and purpose of the underlying legislation before the 
Senate, to improve competitiveness and to help ensure that America's 
economic well-being is developed without unnecessary burden and 
restriction by Federal Government rules and laws. At the same time, 
this amendment helps the Government recognize that it has a 
responsibility to ensure that its actions serve the interests of our 
economic growth and expansion.
  To that end, I send this amendment to the desk. The Senate will note 
that it is cosponsored by the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and 
the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]. The purpose is to extend a 
deadline that now exists under regulations promulgated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency for the protection of farm workers who 
are handling and using pesticides in agriculture activity.
  The reason I am offering this amendment is that unless Congress acts 
before an April 15 deadline provided by current EPA regulations, State 
departments of agriculture will be required to enforce regulations 
dealing with worker protection procedures. These regulations will have 
to be followed, in turn, on farms, in nurseries, and in timberland 
pursuits throughout the United States.
  The reason the April 15 deadline is a problem is very accurately 
described in a letter that I received back in early September from a 
farmer in my home county of Hinds County, MS. The letter is signed by 
Mr. Randolph Smith, president of the board of directors of the Hinds 
County Farm Bureau and a person I have known all my life. As a matter 
of fact, he is a distant cousin, and I hope the Senate will not hold 
that against me for responding to his request for some assistance in 
this matter.
  He basically outlines the problem in the letter as follows:

       The farmers of Hinds County Farm Bureau are very concerned 
     about some of the new regulations regarding the use of 
     personal protective equipment and also the upcoming rules on 
     restricted entry intervals. These regulations are included in 
     the new worker protection standard that was issued by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.

  He says:

       It is our belief that many of these rules are much too 
     complicated, in some cases, and very impractical in others.
       We as farmers have more exposure to ag chemicals than 
     anyone else. Therefore, we are keenly aware of the need for 
     caution when applying them. It is in our best interest as 
     well as the general public's best interest to see that these 
     chemicals are handled in a safe manner for everyone involved. 
     That's why it is our hope that some of the rules that have 
     been passed down to us concerning the application and use of 
     ag chemicals can be looked at so that we can change them to 
     be more practical.

  He then goes on to describe a lot of the specifics and problems that 
the farmers in my county think should be addressed by the EPA. I sent 
this letter over to the Environmental Protection Agency for its 
information and asked the agency to respond to the concerns that have 
been raised. I also asked the EPA to indicate whether or not there 
would be any possibility for extending the effective date of these 
regulations beyond April 15, if these concerns could not be dealt with 
in a satisfactory manner.
  I received a letter from the EPA dated October 26, 1993. It is a long 
letter. I will not take up the time of the Senate to read it. I will 
put both of these letters in the Record for the information of 
Senators.
  But I am going to read the last paragraph.

       EPA recognizes that not all provisions of the WPS--

  That is the worker protection standards

     are equally applicable across American agriculture, and, 
     while establishing minimum requirements for worker/handler 
     protection, has provided great flexibility in how and when 
     that protection is to be provided. I hope this responds to 
     your concerns. If I may be of further service, please let me 
     know. Sincerely yours, Victor Kimm, Acting Assistant 
     Administrator.

  After receiving this letter, my concerns, and those I was seeking to 
help, were heightened and increased. If you read the letter, you will 
understand that EPA is talking about flexibility in the enforcement of 
these regulations. EPA officials say they are going to have flexibility 
in how and when these regulations are enforced. I suppose that means 
they will randomly select some people against whom to enforce the 
regulations and then let others have a grace period in which they will 
be free from compliance requirements under the regulations. That is the 
only conclusion that a fair reading of this letter allows you to form.
  At this point, for the purpose of clarity of the record, Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of both of these 
letters, the one to me from Mr. Randolph Smith, and the other I 
received from the Environmental Protection Agency in October 1993, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      Hinds County


                                       Farm Bureau Federation,

                                                      Raymond, MS.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Hon. Thad Cochran: The farmers of Hinds County Farm 
     Bureau are very concerned about some of the new regulations 
     regarding the use of Personal Protective Equipment and also 
     the upcoming rules on Restricted Entry Intervals. These 
     regulations, as you know, are included in the new Worker 
     Protection Standard that was issued by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency. It is our belief that many of these rules 
     are much too complicated in some cases and very impractical 
     in others. We as farmers have more exposure to ag chemicals 
     than anyone else; therefore, we are keenly aware of the need 
     for caution when applying them. It is in our best interest as 
     well as the general public's best interest to see that these 
     chemicals are handled in a safe manner for everyone involved. 
     That is why it is our hope that some of the rules that have 
     been passed down to us concerning the application and use of 
     ag chemicals can be looked at so that we can change them to 
     be more practical.
       One of the areas in which we should like to see some 
     modification is the rules concerning the use of Personal 
     Protective Equipment. We believe certainly, that this 
     equipment should be available and that all workers should be 
     trained to use it. The decision as to when and where to use 
     this equipment should be up to the particular individual. 
     Some of the reasons for this opinion are as follows:
       1. Wearing the PPE clothing in the extreme heat that we 
     have here in summer can be more hazardous than the actual 
     chemicals.
       2. If an employee did not wear the equipment even after he 
     was instructed to, then would the farmer have liability?
       3. Some employees may become more careless because they 
     would feel they were fully protected with the clothing on.
       Another area that we believe should be reviewed is the fact 
     that all agricultural crops are treated the same under these 
     guidelines. There is a considerable difference in the way 
     that fruits and vegetables are raised as opposed to a crop 
     such as cotton or soybeans. It is our opinion that these 
     differences should be considered when the regulations are 
     written. Crops that are handled by hand should be treated 
     differently from crops that are worked completely 
     mechanically.
       Finally, the rules regarding Restricted Entry Intervals is 
     something that we are very concerned about. This regulation 
     mandates the placing of hazardous chemical signs at all 
     entrances of a field for a certain period of time before and 
     after a chemical is applied. We believe that many of the 
     rules in this section are unnecessary. Some of the reasons 
     are:
       1. Chemicals are almost exclusively applied on private 
     property, therefore anyone who would enter the property 
     without the owners permission would be guilty of trespassing.
       2. Employees of a farmer who applies a chemical should be 
     aware of the timing of the application and of the 
     restrictions of any chemicals.
       3. Hazardous chemical signs posted all through the 
     countryside will cause unnecessary alarm among the general 
     public.
       In closing we would like to thank you for all your support 
     that you have provided to agriculture over the years. We hope 
     that you will be able to help us in this effort to modify the 
     rules and regulations that we are concerned with. Let us 
     assure you that there is no one who is any more concerned 
     with the safe application and use of agricultural chemicals 
     than the farmer. We are the ones who are using these tools 
     and our livelihood depends on them being used safely and 
     effectively.
       Thank you again for your help and support.
           Sincerely,

                                               Randolph Smith,

                               President, Hinds County Farm Bureau
                                               Board of Directors.
                                  ____



                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1993.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: Thank you for your letter of 
     September 15 on behalf of the Hinds County Farm Bureau 
     Federation, expressing their concern at certain provisions of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Worker Protection 
     Standard (WPS). This regulation was issued in August 1992, 
     and will be fully implemented in April 1994.
       The Farm Bureau is concerned about several aspects of the 
     WPS, in particular the provisions for personal protective 
     equipment (PPE) and field posting requirements.
       With respect to PPE, the Farm Bureau rightfully recognizes 
     the possibility that PPE worn in high heat and humidity may 
     result in heat stress. EPA also recognizes the heat stress 
     problems associated with protective clothing, a potential 
     problem which is by no means confined to southern states such 
     as Mississippi. The WPS specifically provides that employers 
     should take appropriate precautions to prevent heat stress 
     when using PPE. Moreover, they are required to include in 
     training for pesticide handlers information on how to 
     recognize the symptoms of heat stress. The Agency has 
     prepared a guidance document discussing the recognition and 
     management of heat stress, now in the process of being 
     finalized. This brochure will be made widely available to the 
     user community. Notwithstanding these provisions, however, 
     EPA believes that PPE is an essential protection that should 
     not be withheld, and that with proper awareness and 
     management of heat stress conditions, PPE can generally be 
     used without increasing risks.
       The Farm Bureau also asks whether the farmer would have 
     liability if a worker failed or refused to wear appropriate 
     PPE. This rule creates responsibilities based upon the 
     employer/employee relationship, and it is primarily the 
     responsibility of the employer to ensure compliance with its 
     provisions, including the wearing of PPE. However, 
     enforcement officials have authority to consider the facts of 
     the case before making a determination of whether a violation 
     has occurred.
       EPA cannot speculate whether a worker wearing PPE would 
     become careless or ignore safety measures because the PPE 
     gives a feeling of protection. Certainly a worker wearing 
     appropriate PPE is better protected against the hazards of 
     pesticide exposure than one who is not. Nonetheless PPE 
     cannot entirely substitute for other risk reduction measures, 
     such as restricted entry intervals. A key element to ensure 
     that workers do not become complacent is proper training as 
     to the hazards of pesticides, the ability of PPE to prevent 
     such hazards, and the limitations of PPE. In training, 
     emphasis should be placed upon taking advantage of all of the 
     protections (PPE, Restricted entry intervals, training, 
     notification, decontamination) as means of reducing risk, and 
     not placing reliance on any one in particular.
       The Farm Bureau raised the point that the farming of fruits 
     and vegetables differs significantly from that of cotton and 
     soybeans, expressing the belief that EPA did not take these 
     differences into account in developing the WPS. I assure you 
     the Agency has fully considered that many crops are grown 
     almost entirely mechanically, and has built into the WPS 
     exceptions that minimize the burdens of the rule for such 
     agricultural operations. The provisions of the WPS are 
     intended for the protection of agricultural workers and 
     pesticide handlers. If workers or pesticide handlers are 
     never used in the production of an agricultural crop, clearly 
     the provisions of the WPS never apply. Even where workers are 
     used, the provisions of the WPS are based upon the potential 
     for worker/handler exposure: where such exposure does not 
     occur, as might be the case in cotton or soybean farming, the 
     provisions are minimal and non-burdensome. I encourage the 
     Farm Bureau to familiarize their members with the various 
     exposure based exceptions of the WPS, which will relieve them 
     of a number of its provisions based upon ``no exposure.''
       Finally, the Farm Bureau believes that the posting of 
     fields is unnecessary, arguing that posting would 
     unnecessarily alarm the general public, that employees of a 
     farm know or should be aware of the chemical applications and 
     restrictions, and that others who enter private fields are 
     trespassers (and presumably posting should not be required 
     for their protection). EPA cannot agree with these arguments.
       First, fields are required to be posted only for 
     applications of pesticides that are of highest toxicity 
     (Toxicity Category I). There will not be a vast number of 
     posted fields because many pesticides are not in Toxicity 
     Category I. When less toxic pesticides are used, employers 
     may use signs or oral warnings to notify workers of pesticide 
     applications. Posting or other notification is not required, 
     however, if no worker will enter, work, or pass on foot 
     within \1/4\ mile of a treated area. In the case of field 
     crops such as cotton, soybeans, wheat, and corn, which are 
     not generally harvested by hand, it may well be that no 
     workers would be in or near the treated areas.
       Moreover, the WPS is intended for the protection of workers 
     and not trespassers or the general public. Therefore, fields 
     are required to be posted at usual points of worker entry 
     only. Signs would not be expected to be necessary along 
     public roads unless workers routinely use the road to gain 
     access to a treated field, and then only at the field 
     entrance. If there are no usual points of worker entry, 
     signs would normally be placed in the corners of treated 
     fields. The signs will neither be so numerous nor so 
     directed that they should create public alarm by their 
     presence. To the extent that the public is informed of 
     pesticide-treated fields by warning signs, they benefit 
     indirectly.
       Second, one of the principal reasons for the WPS is that, 
     contrary to the Farm Bureau's statement, workers and handlers 
     generally are not informed about pesticide hazards, trained 
     in safety measures, or informed of pesticide applications. On 
     farms with small numbers of workers or permanent workers 
     (such as may be the case for cotton, soybeans, and other 
     large mechanized crop operations), it may be true that the 
     workers are as well informed as the Farm Bureau assets. If 
     this is the case, the WPS will reinforce those notification 
     and training practices that already exist. However, the vast 
     majority of workers are migrant, seasonal or contract workers 
     who are not aware or informed of which pesticides have been 
     used, or of the hazards they pose. For these workers, the WPS 
     is of paramount importance to ensure that employers provide 
     such basic information.
       EPA recognizes that not all provisions of the WPS are 
     equally applicable across American agriculture, and, while 
     establishing minimum requirements for worker/handler 
     protection, has provided great flexibility in how and when 
     that protection is to be provided. I hope this responds to 
     your concerns. If I may be of further service, please let me 
     know.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Victor J. Kimm,
                                   Acting Assistant Administrator.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I do not want to delay the Senate too long, but I do 
want to put in perspective what the problem is and why we are here in 
March 1994 asking to suspend the effective date of these enforcement 
regulations.
  We have come a long way since we first understood the complexity of 
the issues involved. The dangers include added costs to American 
agriculture, compliance expenses, uncertainties about whether some of 
the regulations will be enforced or ignored, and the inconsistencies 
among different kinds of agriculture pursuits regarding the use of 
chemicals. There are also concerns over whether farmers will have to 
wear protective clothing when applying chemicals. If so, which ones 
will and which ones will not.
  These are questions that concern American agriculture. I think what I 
will have to say over the next few minutes will illustrate that point.
  Following some additional discussions and meetings at EPA, on 
December 13 a letter was written by me and Senator Bennett Johnston of 
Louisiana, which was signed by other Senators, to the President in 
regard to the regulations that were about to be implemented. It was in 
connection with the fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill that was being 
considered by the Senate. There was report language we had suggested to 
include to help EPA understand the problems. What we basically said in 
this letter is as follows:

       While we strongly support a program which provides a high 
     level of protection for farm workers from pesticides, a 
     substantial concern has been raised over the complexity of 
     these requirements and the potential for confusion or 
     uncertainty by State regulatory agencies and agriculture 
     users. We are concerned with reports that EPA is seriously 
     behind schedule in developing training materials, educational 
     outreach programs, and implementation guidance to States on 
     how to regulate the program.

  I will ask at this point, Mr. President, that this December 13 letter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 13, 1993.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing you with regard to 
     S.Rpt. 103-137, which accompanies H.R. 2491, the fiscal year 
     1994 appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies. The report language refers to the implementation of 
     the Environment Protection Agency's (EPA) Worker Protection 
     Standard (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides. While we strongly 
     support a program which provides a high level of protection 
     for farmworkers from pesticides, a substantial concern has 
     been raised over the complexity of these requirements and the 
     potential for confusion or uncertainty by state regulatory 
     agencies and agricultural users. We are concerned with 
     reports that EPA is seriously behind schedule in developing 
     training materials, education outreach programs, and 
     implementation guidance to states on how to regulate the 
     program.
       The Senate report language suggests that the ``EPA review 
     their implementation schedule of these standards to permit 
     adequate educational and outreach activities.'' The National 
     Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), the 
     association representing the state agencies, which in most 
     cases, will be responsible for the enforcement of the 
     program, has proposed a solution to EPA which tracks the 
     Senate language. That proposal is to delay the enforcement 
     until October 23, 1995. In the interim, the state agencies 
     have suggested that an increased level of education and 
     training should occur in order to prepare the regulated 
     community for the new pesticide labels which would be on the 
     market October 23.
       In a recent meeting between EPA and NASDA, six ``ideal 
     goals'' of the program were agreed to by both parties: to 
     protect farmworkers; to provide effective training of 
     employers prior to the program implementation (worker 
     training after implementation); to obtain effective and 
     timely label changes; to develop quality compliance programs 
     in all states; to create an environment for acceptance of the 
     program in ``the field'' (by farmers); and to resolve the 
     major issues of concern still surrounding the program (e.g., 
     reentry interval, personal protective equipment, 
     notification, etc.). It is our opinion that these goals 
     cannot be met if implementation occurs as scheduled on April 
     21, 1994. Moreover, we are told EPA has failed to provide a 
     host of educational materials to the regulated community, and 
     has failed to provide the state regulators with the 
     information and answers necessary to regulate the program. 
     Also, we understand much of this material was due prior to 
     April 21, 1993, and either has yet to be provided or was 
     provided at inadequate levels.
       In light of the complexity of the regulation and serious 
     deficiencies in the program implementation preparation, we 
     strongly encourage you to delay the labeling requirements 
     until October 23, 1995. This will allow EPA, the states, 
     farmworker representatives and farmers to discuss the areas 
     of concern and develop the necessary material for proper 
     implementation. Only then will a program be ready to provide 
     the protection farmworkers deserve.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     J. Bennett Johnston.
     Chuck Grassley.
     Mitch McConnell.
     Thad Cochran.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is important to understand this issue because we are 
now describing a State regulatory responsibility. Even though it is a 
Federal regulation that EPA has promulgated and will take effect, 
unless we act, on April 15, the States are under an obligation under 
the regulations--and I suppose the law, even though the law is very 
vague about this--to enforce the regulations.
  This means that State governments all over the country will have to 
train staff to understand the EPA regulations, when they apply, when 
they do not apply, and what all the materials mean. As a result of 
these regulations, they will have the responsibility to impose fines 
and penalties and to ensure farm workers, farmers, nurserymen, and 
timberland owners who grow pine trees and other kinds of timber in 
production agriculture environments to comply with these very detailed 
and very technical regulations.
  We did not receive any kind of satisfactory response to our letter of 
December 13. Because of this lack of response, 10 other Senators raised 
this same issue in a letter to the President dated February 16 of this 
year. It was either drafted by Senator Helfin of Alabama or Senator 
Faircloth of North Carolina. Their two names appear as the first two 
signatures. By sending the letter to the President, the Senators wanted 
to ensure that somebody in the administration understand the 
seriousness of the same problem that Senator Johnston and I had raised 
in December. I am going to read another highlight of this letter as an 
example of the kind of anxiety that was being manifested by the Senate 
as recently as February 16.

       This is not a debate about the regulations themselves.

  I am reading from the letter.

       As you know, the goals of the program have been agreed to 
     by all participants. The EPA and the States wish to (1) 
     protect farm workers; (2) provide effective training of 
     employers prior to program implementation; (3) obtain 
     effective and timely label changes; (4) develop quality 
     compliance programs in all States; (5) create an environment 
     for acceptance of the program locally; (6) and to resolve the 
     major issues of concern still surrounding the program.
       It is our opinion, and that of many of the States, that 
     these goals cannot be met if implementation occurs as is 
     scheduled on April 21, 1994.

  And then in the last paragraph the Senators say this.

       In light of the complexity of the regulation and serious 
     deficiencies in the program implementation preparation, we 
     strongly encourage you to delay enforcement of the program. 
     This will allow the EPA, the States, farm worker 
     representatives, and farmers to discuss the areas of concern 
     and develop the necessary material for proper implementation. 
     Only then will a program be effective in providing protection 
     to farm workers.

  And the Senators' names appear. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. 
President, that this letter of February 16 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                February 16, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to you today in regard 
     to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation 
     of the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) for agricultural 
     pesticides.
       While we all understand the importance of a program which 
     protects farm workers from pesticides, substantial concern 
     has been raised nationwide over the complexity of these 
     requirements and the potential for confusion by state 
     regulatory agencies and agricultural users, including farm 
     workers themselves.
       Members of the National Association of State Departments of 
     Agriculture (NASDA), the association representing the state 
     agencies, will be responsible for the enforcement of this 
     program, and NASDA has proposed a feasible solution to 
     potential disaster. We would request that you postpone 
     enforcement of new WPS standards until their concerns have 
     been addressed.
       This is not a debate about the regulations themselves. As 
     you know, the goals of the program have been agreed to by all 
     participants. The EPA and the states wish to (1) protect farm 
     workers; (2) provide effective training of employers prior to 
     program implementation; (3) obtain effective and timely label 
     changes; (4) develop quality compliance programs in all 
     states; (5) create an environment for acceptance of the 
     program locally; (6) and to resolve the major issues of 
     concern still surrounding the program. It is our opinion, and 
     that of many of the states, that these goals cannot be met if 
     implementation occurs as is scheduled, on April 21, 1994.
       In fact, although the EPA and state Departments of 
     Agriculture have been working together on this project, the 
     EPA has continued to ignore the concerns of state pesticide 
     regulators regarding the complexity of the new standards, and 
     the logistical problems that will result from implementation 
     on April 21, 1994. While ongoing dialogue between all 
     effected parties is now progressing, it will be impossible to 
     resolve the outstanding issues and provide the educational 
     and training material needed for proper implementation by 
     April 21.
       In light of the complexity of the regulation and serious 
     deficiencies in the program implementation preparation, we 
     strongly encourage you to delay the enforcement of the 
     program. This will allow the EPA, the states, farm worker 
     representatives and farmers to discuss the areas of concern 
     and develop the necessary material for proper implementation. 
     Only then will a program be effective in providing protection 
     to farm workers.
       Thank you for you time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Lauch Faircloth, Larry E. Craig, Dirk Kempthorne, Dave 
           Duenberger, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Howell Heflin, Jesse 
           Helms, Pete V. Domenici, Larry Pressler, Strom 
           Thurmond.

  Mr. COCHRAN. As I mentioned, the States are charged under the 
regulations with enforcing these new regulations.
  The people at the local level in the State departments of agriculture 
will be charged with the day-to-day responsibilities for implementing 
these regulations. This group itself is against these regulations.
  I have a letter that I will put in the Record to illustrate the 
seriousness of this situation, and how it is viewed by the States and 
those who will be called upon to carry out these things on a daily 
basis.
  At their annual mid-year meeting the National Association of State 
Departments of Agriculture, representing all 50 States and four 
territories, unanimously approved a resolution asking the 
administration to delay enforcement implementation of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's new Worker Protection Standard for agricultural 
pesticides. They asked that this be delayed until October 23, 1995.
  The details of their concerns are expressed very well in a letter 
dated February 27, which has been signed by almost all of the members 
of this association who were attending this meeting. Over 40 state 
commissioners of agriculture, or whatever other title they have, signed 
this letter. It very clearly asks that this be considered a matter--I 
will use their phrase--``of utmost urgency'' that the administration 
act to delay the enforcement of these standards.
  It says:

       We, as the heads of the State-led pesticide agencies, 
     believe it is time for EPA to listen to our concerns and act 
     in a responsible manner.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the February 27 letter 
that I just referred to be printed in its entirety in the Record, and 
showing the signatures of all of those who signed it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                             State Departments of Agriculture,

                                                February 27, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President:  At its annual mid-year meeting, the 
     National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 
     (NASDA), representing all fifty states and four territories 
     (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands), 
     unanimously approved a resolution once again asking you to 
     delay enforcement implementation of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA) new Worker Protection Standard 
     (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides until October 23, 1995. In 
     the interim, NASDA believes that increased education and 
     training efforts should be conducted by the states with 
     material just now becoming available from EPA (though 
     quantities are still inadequate). In almost every case, the 
     state departments of agriculture will be required to 
     implement this new standard on April 21, 1994 under a 
     cooperative agreement with EPA and consistent with state laws 
     requiring us to enforce the label.
       Mr. President, a major train wreck is about to occur. It is 
     simply impossible for us as state regulators and farmers to 
     implement this program nationwide as currently designed and 
     scheduled. We have been working with EPA, USDA, Members of 
     Congress, farmers, and farmworkers attempting to fix the 
     serious problems with the program and to educate the 
     regulated community. Our efforts, as well as those of the 
     agricultural production community, have been rebuffed by EPA 
     and have failed to resolve this serious problem. A 
     combination of the lateness of EPA in providing educational 
     material--almost ten months late by their own schedule, and 
     now arriving to the states after farmers have already entered 
     the field for this planting season--and parts of the 
     regulation which will be impossible to implement have created 
     a situation primed for disaster.
       EPA has suggested that enforcement of the standard should 
     be ``flexible'' in the beginning stages of the program. We do 
     not believe that it is in the best interest of pesticide 
     regulation to tell farmers to ignore the law--the label is 
     the law. Beyond that, we as regulators cannot ignore the 
     label once it is on the product. It is the law, so we must 
     enforce the standard on April 21, 1994.
       Dr. Lynn Goldman, Assistant EPA Administrator for 
     Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, addressed our 
     meeting. We were seriously disappointed with her remarks on 
     WPS and continued lack of regard for our concerns as state 
     regulators. EPA has consistently failed to address our 
     problems in a genuine way even though we have come to the 
     table in good faith.
       Mr. President, it is of the utmost urgency that you act to 
     delay the enforcement of the standard to October 23, 1995. We 
     as the heads of the state lead pesticide agencies believe it 
     is time for EPA to listen to our concerns and act in a 
     responsible manner.
           Sincerely,
         Bob Odom, Louisiana; Gus R. Douglass, West Virginia; W. 
           Greg Nelson, Idaho; Don Rolston, Wyoming; Phillip A. 
           Fishburn, Kansas; L.H. Ivy, Tennessee; ------ ------, 
           Colorado; Bernard W. Shaw, Maine; Keith Kelly, Arizona; 
           Henry J. Voss, California; Rick Perry, Texas; Clinton 
           V. Turner, Virginia; Arthur R. Brown, Jr., New Jersey; 
           Richard T. McGuire, New York; Fred L. Dailey, Ohio; 
           Yukio Kitagawa, Hawaii; Bruce Andrews, Oregon; David L. 
           Tompkins, South Carolina; ------ ------, Puerto Rico; 
           James A. Graham, North Carolina; ------ ------, 
           Minnesota; Charles W. Anderson, Oklahoma; Alan T. 
           Tracy, Wisconsin; Rebecca Doyle, Illinois; John L. 
           Saunders, Missouri; Leo A. Giacometto, Montana; A.W. 
           Todd, Alabama; John W. Cramer, Alaska; Frank A. DuBois, 
           New Mexico; Thomas W. Ballow, Nevada; Gerald King, 
           Arkansas; Boyd E. Wolff, Pennsylvania; James R. 
           Moseley, Indiana; Dale M. Cochran, Iowa; Ed Logsdon, 
           Kentucky; Jay C. Swisher, South Dakota; John F. 
           Tarburton, Delaware; Stephen H. Taylor, New Hampshire; 
           Thomas Irvin, Georgia; Gary G. Peterson, Utah; Larry E. 
           Sitzman, Nebraska; Jim Buck Ross, Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope it is obvious to Senators by now 
that we are at a point where there have been a lot of meetings. These 
meetings have been at the highest levels in the administration, 
involving Cabinet level officials who are trying to resolve some of 
these concerns and issues. But we have not really gotten anywhere.
  The reason the February 27 letter was written was to create a policy 
statement from all of these discussions. It was obviously written in an 
effort to assuage concerns and tell everyone that everything was going 
to be all right. It emphasized that nobody was going to get in trouble; 
there would be a lot of flexibility; there would be a grace period 
while everybody learned what the words meant in all of these 
regulations; and, there would only be occasional enforcements, with 
nobody new being targeted or exempt.
  So, rather than contribute to a feeling of comfort, it increased 
concerns.
  This policy statement is dated February 22. I have a copy here under 
the title of ``Enforcement of the Agricultural Worker Protection 
Standard Under FIFRA.'' It is a three-page statement. I am going to 
ask, at this point, Mr. President, that a copy of the policy statement 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   [Policy statement from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
                     Washington, DC, Feb. 22, 1994]

 Enforcement of the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Under FIFRA

       The Agency has received a number of questions regarding 
     delaying enforcement of the Federal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Standard (40 CFR part 170 and related labeling 
     regulations at 40 CFR part 156). We have never proposed 
     delaying enforcement of this rule; to do so would seriously 
     undermine the protections afforded pesticide handlers and 
     agricultural workers, the very people the rule was designed 
     to protect.
       We are committed to using the flexibilities that we do 
     have, in terms of guidance and implementation, to reach the 
     underlying goals of the revised Worker Protection Standard 
     while addressing the concerns. We have clearly demonstrated 
     our willingness to listen to concerns and to bring all 
     parties together to find solutions.
       On enforcement of the Standard, EPA's position has been one 
     of advocating phased-in, risk-based targeting of inspectional 
     activities. We have also consistently supported state 
     flexibility to address state priorities through State 
     Implementation Plans (SIPs) and Enforcement Response Policies 
     (ERPs) reflecting the nature of violations and their risk. 
     Given the flexibility provided, the importance of the safety 
     provisions of the revised rule and the amount of work 
     completed and underway with the states and regulated parties, 
     we do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to 
     delay the enforcement of the revised rule.
       We would like to describe specifically the tenor of the 
     enforcement guidance currently being used by the states for 
     this rule, and to point out areas where the states are 
     encouraged to set priorities and target activities based on 
     state-specific needs.
       In planning for the implementation of the WPS, the Agency 
     prepared guidance on the national approach for compliance 
     monitoring and enforcement and shared the guidance, in draft 
     form, with the states so that they could provide their 
     perspective and comments before the national guidance was 
     finalized. The Agency received significant input from the 
     states and took serious steps to incorporate the majority of 
     the states' comments into the national guidance. This 
     guidance includes a National Compliance Monitoring Strategy, 
     a WPS component in the National Cooperative Agreement 
     Guidance, assistance to the states in their development of 
     State Implementation Plans, worker protection inspection 
     guidance, and worker protection inspector training which is 
     being piloted this week with state representatives at the 
     National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI).
       The National Compliance Monitoring Strategy for WPS 
     recommends that the states strike a balance between 
     activities used to prevent violations from occurring in the 
     first place (i.e. guidance, training, outreach and compliance 
     assistance) and activities used to correct and deter 
     violations (i.e. inspections, and enforcement actions). The 
     Strategy and the other guidance issued by the Agency 
     recommend that the states focus on outreach and compliance 
     assistance prior to the enforceable dates of the rule. Once 
     the effective dates of the rule have passed, EPA encourages 
     the states to target their inspections based on: (1) the 
     phased-in compliance dates associated with different 
     components of the rule; and (2) factors associated with the 
     risk posed at different inspection sites, including 
     information on product toxicity, crops grown, harvest methods 
     used at specific sites, worker exposure, historical problems 
     with products, and compliance history of sites. Enforcement 
     priorities for the initial compliance dates focus on 
     pesticide product label compliance.
       Our inspection guidance recognizes that many states already 
     have an inspection targeting scheme in place, and therefore 
     recommends ``. . . that states and regional offices: 
     incorporate worker protection specific factors into their 
     schemes based on available information, and tailor targeting 
     schemes to meet particular needs and local concerns.'' EPA 
     provided a risk-based inspection targeting approach to the 
     states simply as an example of the type of approach we 
     recommend be developed on a state-by-state basis. Our 
     guidance goes on to state that compliance assistance can 
     still be provided following the completion of both routine 
     and targeted inspections in order to inform the regulated 
     community of the WPS provisions, as well as to clarify 
     requirements. People need to understand what is expected of 
     them, and we will continue to emphasize communication and 
     training for the next few years.
       With regard to enforcement actions themselves as a result 
     of violations identified during inspections, many first time 
     FIFRA violations by individuals such as farmers who are not 
     certified commercial applicators may receive a notice of 
     warning for their first violation. The Agency's FIFRA 
     Enforcement Response Policy incorporates the statutory 
     minimum penalties and adjusts any penalty for violations 
     based on risk and other factors such as whether the violator 
     has a history of violations. Each state may either adopt the 
     Federal ERP or, more commonly, adjust its penalties to state 
     law. Each new regulation, such as the Worker Protection 
     Standard, offers a state the opportunity to adjust its ERP to 
     new provisions. States currently have written Enforcement 
     Response Policies (ERPs) reflecting the appropriate penalties 
     for violations of individual state law. We have indicated to 
     the Regions that states should be following their own ERPs 
     for violations of the WPS.
       Beyond the guidance discussed above, under the state 
     Enforcement Cooperative Agreements, the states were asked to 
     develop State Implementation Plans which address: 1) outreach 
     and communication; 2) training; 3) coordination with other 
     state and Federal agencies; and 4) state-specific compliance 
     monitoring strategy based on the National Strategy. States 
     submitted these SIPs to the Regions with their enforcement 
     priorities articulated. Regions have been working with the 
     states to implement their SIPs. The FY 95 State Cooperative 
     Agreement Guidance will request states to continue to update 
     their SIPs. Since FY 90, a major component of the Cooperative 
     Enforcement Agreement program has been to provide funds for 
     the development of a program for enforcement of WPS. The 
     Agency received earmarked funds from Congress for each of 
     those fiscal years to award to the states and tribes for 
     implementation planning of the WPS. We should note that the 
     State Enforcement Cooperative Agreements are negotiated 
     between the regions and states annually and revised to 
     reflect changing priorities at both the state and National 
     level.
       We fully intend to go forward with all of the training, 
     education, compliance assistance and flexible focused 
     enforcement activities planned for the Worker Protection 
     Standard. We continue to be committed to working with all 
     interested parties in ensuring responsible and reasonable 
     implementation of this important regulation.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I will read the last paragraph again to 
show you that we have not come very far since that first exchange of 
correspondence that I had with EPA back in September of last year. Here 
is the last paragraph:

       We fully intend to go forward with all of the training, 
     education, compliance assistance and flexible--

  Flexible--

     focused enforcement activities planned for the Worker 
     Protection Standard. We continue to be committed to working 
     with all interested parties in ensuring responsible and 
     reasonable implementation of this important regulation.

  Everything in there sounds pretty good unless you stop to think about 
this phrase: ``* * * flexible focused enforcement activities.'' Nobody 
knows what that means. After all of these months trying to understand 
the EPA's intentions, and whether there would be a period for training 
and developing equipment designed to meet the regulations that are 
being implemented, farmers and agriculture agencies around the country 
are still perplexed.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, and those who have joined in writing 
these letters, that Senators ought to cosponsor this amendment and 
delay the enforcement of these regulations for a period of time within 
which we can do these things that EPA says are necessary.
  I am going to again read what we want to have done. It is in the last 
paragraph of this policy statement:

       * * * training, education, compliance assistance.

  That is what we need before the regulations are in enforced. What 
they are saying is we are going to begin enforcing the regulations in a 
``flexibly, focused'' manner--whatever that is--and while we are doing 
that, we are going to proceed with ``training, education, and 
compliance assistance.''
  The whole point is that for almost 2 years now EPA has had an 
opportunity to do those things: ``training, education, and compliance 
assistance.'' EPA officials could have held workshops around the 
States, assisted people who will have the job of day-to-day 
enforcement, and explain to farmers what the phrases mean.
  For example, you are supposed to have full protective clothing worn 
if you are a farm worker and you are applying a pesticide. Think about 
this. You are in Mississippi in July, and you are a crop duster. I was 
just trying to think what all of this means in practical, everyday 
terms and how people deal with these things out in the real world. You 
are going to have a crop duster look like he is going on a space ship 
to the Moon.
  Maybe that is what EPA is going to require. Maybe not. But if you 
read what the protective clothing requirements are for pesticide 
applicators, you could reach that conclusion without stretching your 
imagination much at all.
  I do not know what effect it will have on people who apply pesticides 
from the air in the Mississippi Delta or throughout the country. But it 
is bound to have some new requirement. These are persons who handle and 
apply pesticides. Here is a whole list of things that they are going to 
have to do beginning in April of this year.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, that this requires some action by the 
Congress that says, in effect, ``Hey, wait a minute, let's don't get 
the cart before the horse. Let's don't start fining people and imposing 
penalties on folks before they know how to comply with the 
regulations.''
  That is the whole point of this. Those of us who have been raising 
these concerns and trying to have meetings and iron these issues out 
are not against protecting farmers. But we think they have a right to 
be treated fairly and to be put on notice, understand the rules. That 
is at the core of our system of justice and it ought to be at the core 
and at the heart of the way Government treats its citizens.
  Here we are talking about improving competitiveness, helping improve 
our economic ability to compete as a Nation, and we are going to put on 
the necks and backs of American agriculture some of the most 
potentially costly and disruptive requirements and regulations than we 
have ever seen. And agriculture has had its fair share of burdensome 
requirements and regulations.
  I am not saying we do not need to be careful. That is not the point. 
People need to be educated, and they need to be protected.
  But if we turn loose an agency of the Federal Government to direct 
State departments of agriculture to enforce regulations and impose 
sanctions on farmers, agriculture producers, nursery people and folks 
who grow pine trees, we need to make sure that they fully understand 
what the consequences of all of these regulations will be, how they are 
going to be enforced, and how they should comply.
  The other day, my friend and our distinguished Secretary of 
Agriculture, Mike Espy, was in Mississippi, and he also had an 
opportunity to talk to an agriculture group meeting in New Orleans. 
This issue came up at the meeting, and he discussed it, and said he 
would try to get an extension of this deadline.
  The whole thing is that we are at the point where the deadline is 
almost here--April 15, almost a month from now. This will become a fact 
of life for agriculture throughout this Nation, unless the Congress 
acts or unless the administration changes its mind. But they keep 
saying they are not going to do anything.
  This policy statement which I just put in the Record, and other 
responses that we have had, indicate that they are not going to do 
anything. Here are some newspaper articles, in addition to the one I 
mentioned about Secretary Espy's visit to New Orleans and to 
Mississippi. Here is one in the Farm Bureau News, which also brings 
everybody up to date, a February article, and then one as recently as 
March 7, where the Farm Bureau brought this matter to the attention of 
President Clinton himself at its meeting in Washington.
  According to reports, they do not expect to delay implementation of 
these standards, and they expect States to crack down on violators.
  I ask unanimous consent that these newspaper articles from the Farm 
Bureau News be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Farm Bureau News, Feb. 7, 1994]

                    Ag Officials Seek Delay in Regs

       Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups are urging a 
     delay in implementation of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's farm worker pesticide protection regulations, saying 
     more time is needed for education and training.
       The new worker protection standard is scheduled to be 
     implemented this year on April 21. Farm Bureau and the 
     National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 
     (NASDA) have asked EPA to delay implementation until Oct. 23, 
     1995.
       The state agricultural officials and other groups say they 
     are committed to protecting farm workers, but that the 
     program, as currently developed, does not achieve that goal. 
     They say EPA has failed to provide information, educational 
     materials and training in order for the agricultural 
     community to comply with the new rules.
       A large portion of the material either has yet to be 
     provide or has been provide at inadequate levels, they say.
       ``Unfortunately it appears EPA is more committed to its 
     arbitrary date of April 21, 1994, than it is to protecting 
     farm workers and ensuring the education of the agricultural 
     community,'' said a letter from NASDA to President Clinton, 
     urging him to resolve the issue.
       The new regulations expand the scope of protection 
     standards to include not only field workers performing hand 
     labor operations, but also forestry, nursery and greenhouse 
     workers and pesticide handlers. The rules apply to all 
     operations that hire one or more workers.
       The agriculture industry is not asking that EPA abandon its 
     regulatory scheme, said Libby Whitley, an American Farm 
     Bureau Federation governmental relations director. She said 
     farmers--who will bear the brunt of these regulations--are 
     prepared to comply, but need extensive training.
       A delay in implementation to October 1995 would provide a 
     more realistic timeframe for the agricultural community to 
     comply with the complex new regulations, she said.
                                  ____


               [From the Delta Farm Press, Feb. 11, 1994]

       Wants Delay on Implementation: Espy Vows Fight on WPS Date

                            (By Forest Laws)

       Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy says he will seek 
     postponement of the April 15 deadline for full implementation 
     of the new Worker Protection Standards.
       Although EPA officials have indicated on several occasions 
     recently that there will be no delays in the April 15 
     effective date, Espy said he will discuss the issue with 
     other cabinet officials to try to buy more time for farmers 
     to learn how to cope with the complicated standards.
       ``I am sensitive to their (farmers') concerns, particularly 
     with something as important as this,'' Espy said during a 
     press conference at the National Cotton Council's annual 
     meeting in New Orleans.
       The secretary said he wants to talk to Labor Secretary 
     Robert Reich and EPA Administrator Carol Browner about 
     ``easing in'' WPS regulations that require extensive worker 
     training and use of personal protective equipment for some 
     agricultural chemicals.
       ``In the South, it doesn't make much sense, in some cases, 
     to mandate the heavy protective clothing,'' he said. ``As 
     desirable as the intent may be, down here it gets hot, 100 
     degrees plus. The health effects may be more adverse from 
     requiring that level of protective clothing than from the 
     pesticide itself.''
       Espy said USDA is not the primary agency for implementing 
     the WPS regulations. ``But whenever agriculture is discussed, 
     we have said we are going to be there.''
       That is the tack Espy took in December when he was able to 
     keep agriculture's foot in the door on the reformulated 
     gasoline issue--a door the petroleum industry had attempted 
     to close.
       Espy, WHO REPORTS have said was at home sick at the time, 
     came to his office and arranged to meet with EPA officials on 
     the eve of the announcement of their new reformulated 
     gasoline policy. The result: Ethanol could account for 30 
     percent of that market in the years ahead.
       In his speech to Cotton Council delegates, Espy said he had 
     promised then President-elect Clinton that he would position 
     USDA for the future, that he would make it more farmer 
     friendly and that he would help to foster a ``different 
     attitude'' within the department bureaucracy.
       ``I said that we would create a different climate, that we 
     would move USDA from being just a Department of Agriculture 
     to being a Department for Agriculture,'' he noted. ``And 
     we're doing that--we're changing USDA from top to bottom.''
       As part of the streamlining or reinvention of government 
     that is underway, Espy said USDA will reduce itself from 43 
     agencies to 30. He is proposing that an ``early buyout'' 
     program be offered to 8,500 full-time employees.
       The proposal was scheduled for mark-up in a House 
     Agriculture subcommittee on Feb. 8, and Espy said he has 
     received assurances from Senate Agriculture Committee leaders 
     that they would begin work on the proposal soon after. The 
     legislation could be enacted by March, he said.
       Following passage, USDA, will begin the process of closing 
     approximately 1,300 field offices nationwide and 
     consolidating many of its functions into ``one-stop'' service 
     centers.
       ``We're trying to save you money; we're trying to become 
     more service oriented and less acronym-oriented,'' he said. 
     ``It's all about being farmer friendly, streamlined, 
     consolidated, doing what we promised.''
       Espy said he was pleased with the way USDA worked with the 
     council on the 1994 acreage reduction program (ARP) 
     requirement.
       ``At the time we announced it in November, the preliminary 
     17.5 percent ARP for upland cotton made sense in terms of 
     projected U.S. supply and demand balance and the requirements 
     of the law,'' he said.
       ``But the final ARP that we announced earlier this month is 
     11 percent, and it's based on lower production estimates for 
     the 1993 crop and improved export prospects stemming from 
     reduced foreign production. Because we reduced the ARP, U.S. 
     producers will benefit from the better export prospects and 
     that means higher farm income.''
       Espy pledged to continue to fight for farmers on a variety 
     of fronts, citing such issues as wetlands delineation, 
     endangered species, reauthorization of the clean water act, 
     and pesticide policy debates.
       ``This administration inherited a set of pesticide laws and 
     regulations that don't work,'' he said. ``We must work to 
     harmonize often contradictory attitudes. Consumers demand 
     constant assurances that our food supply is safe. They have 
     trepidations about the harmful effects of pesticides.
       ``Producers, on the other hand, also demand constant 
     assurances the regulatory system will give them the tools 
     they need to raise their crops. And so we must work with both 
     sets of attitudes to harmonize them.''
       The former congressman from Mississippi also said he wanted 
     to publicly thank council staff member Bill Gillon for his 
     assistance during confirmation hearings last winter.
       Gillon, general counsel for the NCC, was detailed to Espy 
     to brief him on USDA policy issues and accompany him during 
     his round of visits with members of the Senate Agriculture 
     Committee prior to the hearings.
                                  ____


               [From the Farm Bureau News, Mar. 7, 1994][

              FB Encourages Clinton to Delay Worker Rules

       A delay in implementing new farm worker pesticide 
     protection regulations is needed to give the agricultural 
     industry adequate time to comply, Farm Bureau told President 
     Clinton last week.
       In a letter, American Farm Bureau Federation President Dean 
     Kleckner urged Clinton to push back the enforcement date of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations to Oct. 23, 
     1995. The current schedule calls for enforcement to begin 
     this April 15.
       The rules would require, among other things, that farm 
     workers who handle pesticides wear protective clothing, be 
     informed about the chemicals they handle and be prohibited 
     from returning to fields too soon after chemicals are 
     applied.
       Kleckner said Farm Bureau is not asking EPA to abandon the 
     new regulations, but rather to provide more time, education 
     and training so state regulatory agencies and farmers can 
     comply.
       ``These regulations are precedent-setting,'' Kleckner said. 
     ``They mandate vast new responsibilities and costs for 
     farmers and ranchers. They create significant new liabilities 
     both for pesticide users and manufacturers. Further, they are 
     a sizable new unfunded federal mandate for state enforcement 
     agencies.
       ``Farmers, who will bear the brunt of the regulations, will 
     comply,'' Kleckner said. ``To do so, however, will require 
     extensive education and employer compliance training.''
       EPA has been slow to distribute training materials to 
     states, and has not yet decided whether to implement a worker 
     training certification program, he said.
       ``EPA has stated it believes that compliance will come 
     about only through a trained work force,'' he said. ``If it 
     truly believes this, then the training activities must be 
     focused at the basic employment level--on the farm.''
       State agriculture departments are strongly seeking the 
     delay, citing the potential cost of enforcing the rules and 
     inadequate preparation time. In addition, members of 
     Congress, farm groups, state regulators, and farm worker 
     groups and unions have asked EPA to delay implementation of 
     the new standards.
       Reps. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.) and John Boehner (R-Ohio) filed 
     legislation last week asking Congress to delay enforcement of 
     the rules to Oct. 23, 1995. They are concerned about the 
     heavy financial burdens that could be placed on states and 
     agribusinesses.
       According to news reports, EPA assistant administrator Lynn 
     Goldman said information on the rules is being circulated to 
     farmers and states. She said the agency would not expect 
     states to immediately crack down on violators.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will grant some relief 
in this situation and grant our request, which this amendment would do, 
to extend the deadline for this regulation.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me compliment my friend from Mississippi 
for this amendment. My farmers are very concerned, and they have told 
me of their concern. They do not have time to do the training and get 
ready for the requirements and the regulations, and they have never 
seen Government be flexible when a regulation is in place and when they 
are in jeopardy. They are very concerned, and I compliment the Senator 
on his position.
  But, Mr. President, may I make a point here. It may be that under the 
circumstances, this amendment may never see the light of day. I feel 
sorry for the chairman of the Commerce Committee, who is leading a 
fight for a bill that has been passed through the Senate unanimously at 
least twice. It came out of the Commerce Committee unanimously, and now 
we see all kinds of nongermane amendments being put on this 
legislation. They keep going on and on and on.
  I think it is time we step back and begin to look at how we are 
operating legislatively here in the Senate. It may be that at some 
point we would just go ahead and let everybody have their say for a few 
minutes and move to table, and we will take these potential amendments 
off the bills one at a time, if necessary. But I think we are making 
this bill a Christmas tree, and that is very unfortunate.
  I know, and others will say, ``This is the only way I can get it up; 
I could not get it up any other way.'' I understand that part. But it 
does jeopardize the operation of the Senate to get to other bills that 
are important, and I hope that we will be able, through the leadership, 
to try to work out something, not only to accommodate those who have 
legislation that is necessary, but also to accommodate those that come 
to the Senate floor with a piece of legislation that comes out of 
committee unanimously, and you talk for a week on it, and you never get 
to the guts of the legislation that is brought out of the committee.
  So I would like to put my colleagues on notice that I am going to be 
giving serious consideration to trying to see if there is something 
that cannot be worked out where we do not find ourselves in the 
position of getting a ``Christmas tree'' every time we have a piece of 
legislation up.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to join in complimenting my 
colleague from Mississippi for introducing this amendment.
  Three weeks ago, I held a farm advisory meeting in South Dakota. The 
meeting was held on a farm in Hamlin County near the small town of 
Hazel, SD. The meeting was held on a Friday night and well over 40 
farmers, ranchers, and small businessmen were in attendance. Some 
farmers drove over 100 miles to attend.
  The meeting was held in the basement of the home of Donald Christman. 
I hold several of these kinds of listening meetings. It is one of those 
times when a Senator gets home and listens directly to constituents at 
the grassroots level. This direct input lets me know exactly what is on 
the minds of farmers and ranchers in South Dakota.
  One of the first things they raised with me was a concern about the 
Environmental Protection Agency's regulations on worker protection 
standards. The most startling fact was that only one or two of the 
farmers in attendance were aware that the new regulations would become 
effective on April 15, 1994.
  These farmers wondered how they could possibly comply with these 
regulations if they had not been told what they will have to do. Many 
wondered how the regulations came about in the first place. Now that 
was an excellent point.
  I explained to them: ``Well, Congress did not do this. This was the 
Government bureaucracy.'' They asked, ``Who do we talk to? You are our 
Senator. We need your help.'' I said I would return to Washington and 
try to do something about it. I wish to join my colleague from 
Mississippi in sponsoring this amendment, because it directly addresses 
a main concern of South Dakota farmers and ranchers.
  It is a problem that we need to attach this amendment to the pending 
business, but time is of the essence. Yet April 15, 1994, is just a few 
weeks away, and many farmers in South Dakota do not want to be fined or 
have legal action taken against them for not complying with regulations 
they know little, if anything, about. The EPA has even admitted that 
getting the word of the new regulations to the public has been a 
problem.
  However, at times, this is the way the legislative process works. The 
amendment is very timely. Without some action by Congress, the 
regulation will go into effect and possibly jeopardize many farmers and 
ranchers. This should not be allowed to happen. Time must be granted to 
educate the public on what action is needed on their part. The 
regulations should not be shoved onto them. Time is also needed to 
thoroughly review how these regulations will impact the daily 
operations of farmers and ranchers. What may work in Maine may not work 
in South Dakota. What may work in South Dakota may not work in 
Mississippi. We need time to work this out as well.
  My colleague from Mississippi has carefully analyzed the current 
situation and has developed an appropriate response. I hope the 
amendment will pass. It is greatly needed. I think most Members of the 
House and Senate should be in favor of this.
  So I compliment my friend from Mississippi. This is exactly one of 
the main concerns the farmers and ranchers raised with me in my 
agriculture advisory listening meeting in the basement of a farmer's 
home near Hazel, SD.
  I would like to join my colleague in sponsoring this amendment, and 
ask that he add me as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from South Dakota be added as a cosponsor to the 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it could very well be a meritorious 
initiative or amendment, but it is certainly not timely or appropriate 
on this bill. Let me first say that I share a great deal of sentiment 
for the initiative by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. But 
not on S. 4. We have a technology bill; we have advance technology 
programs; we have the manufacturing technology centers, the extension 
services, and the small business loans. There is not a word in this 
bill about pesticides or the Department of Agriculture regulations on 
pesticides. So Senator Cochran's amendment is absolutely not germane 
whatsoever.
  Nonetheless, as I said, I sympathize with the Senator's cause. I 
harken back to 1967, when my State's peach farmers faced a similar 
problem. They were confronted with rules and regulations requiring that 
they wear a white cape, a hood with eye slits opened up in it, and 
little white gloves; at that time they looked like Klansmen running 
around in the peach orchard. We had signs every 25 yards, and under the 
regulations, it was safe to eat the peach, but unsafe to go in and pick 
the peach.
  I vividly recall Senator George Aiken, of Vermont, who joined with 
this freshman Senator in resolving this problem.
  So I am sympathetic, but I am not prepared to talk on pesticides and 
rulings and regulations at this particular time. I am concerned by the 
procedural gridlock on this bill. As the distinguished majority whip 
has pointed out, we are getting into a sort of open sesame as to the 
offering of non-germane amendments; there is no discipline.
  This has to be solved, I take it, at the top level by the leadership 
on both sides of the aisle as to what the procedures are going to be.
  In times past, a Senator would not dare attempt to attach an 
extraneous amendment such as this on a bill. Now, it is virtually 
standard operating procedure around here to just come in at any time 
with any measure, no relation whatsoever to the subject matter. So this 
is not a surprise, you might say, in that we had heard this last 
evening. We notified the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and 
others who seem to be interested and have been working on this matter. 
That was 45 minutes ago. We understand they have other work to do, but 
we have work to do as well.
  I do not know any way to advance this bill than to move to table this 
amendment. Everybody wants to be courteous and indulgent, but we will 
only be indulgent for a short period of time around here and then we 
will move for a vote. If the Senator gets his vote on the motion to 
table and we do not table it, that will tell us something. Then it is 
accepted and we will put it on the bill.
  This open sesame on S. 4 began, unfortunately, with a sponsor of the 
bill who contributed to unanimous support for it in committee. We 
worked out problem areas together to make sure that it was not pork, 
that it was not picking winners and losers, that it had to be picked by 
the industry, that the industry had to provide the majority of the 
funds and, thereby, we provided for peer review by the National Academy 
of Engineering.
  Now, because the Senator is disillusioned with the negotiations on 
GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in December signals 
are switched, and I am hearing that same member who supported the bill 
over the years now talking about pork and claiming that now we have a 
new philosophy, a new departure in industrial policy.
  Then in the next breath he said, in effect, ``By the way, I like the 
industrial policy for the aircraft industry.''
  If we had to pick the No. 1 industrial policy for any private sector, 
it would be the aircraft industry. I mean we do not debate on NASA or 
whether we have a space station. We go forward, increase the budget, 
relative to space. I am chairman of that authorization committee and am 
totally familiar with that. We come and talk about the spinoffs. And 
the No. 1 spinoff is this. Why get a man up in space when you cannot 
afford to support the safety of a man walking on the streets.
  Well, you have to understand here is the leading industry with 
respect to most of our balance of trade, our productivity, our lead in 
the manufacture of aircraft, and all of that comes from the space 
program. It all comes from research in the Department of Defense.
  Yes, we have the Export-Import Bank financing to promote sales around 
the world in aircraft.
  So I believe, yes, that is an industrial policy. But when it comes 
here to helping small business in technology, he says, oh, we better 
not, now we have a new departure, and it is time. I have talked to a 
Senator. The gentleman said he had not thought of that, and now we have 
to start a whole new debate because the distinguished Senator is 
disillusioned with the GATT negotiations back in December.
  That is no way. It is gridlock. It is, I guess, in keeping with this 
idea that since we are the most deliberative body, yes, we can have 
extended debate. But this is not extended debate. This is extended 
shenanigans. Anybody can come at any time, and once you get your 
amendment up, you can get recognized; when you are talking about 
technology, and small business, and research you get veer off into 
discussion of regulations on pesticides in agriculture.
  As manager of this bill I will go along with the general norms. But I 
put everybody on notice that we are not going to sit here all day long 
just to indulge Senators who are busy elsewhere and have work to do and 
then we are supposed to go to 11 and 12 o'clock at night until everyone 
gets exhausted and wants to go home on the weekend. I mean, come on. I 
will stay here through the weekend. It suits me fine.
  But we need some discipline and understanding on both sides of the 
aisle so that we can move legislation that is agreed on by everyone and 
worked out by all the committees--the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources, the Committee on Rules and Administration, the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, plus the committees on the House 
side.
  So with that understanding, I understand that two or three Senators 
are on the floor who still want to be recognized. I understand the 
Senator from Mississippi has an important initiative here. However, it 
is an important initiative on an agricultural measure, and it is not 
relevant to this bill
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran].
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me quickly say it is not the purpose 
of this Senator to delay the Senate in consideration of this 
legislation or this amendment. If the Senator wishes to proceed to a 
vote on the amendment, I have no objection to that.
  We have made our argument. We have talked about the problem. We have 
tried to explain it as succinctly as we can and put it in perspective 
so the Senate will know what the issue is and understand what the vote 
will be about if we do have a vote on the amendment.
  So, I just want Senators to understand that the request for delay in 
considering the amendment or voting on it or disposing of it is not 
coming from the proponent of the amendment.
  We made our case. We have made the best argument we can make. We put 
in the Record all the supporting documentation of why we think this is 
a serious matter and one of some urgency.
  So we certainly do not want to delay. We want to impose the will of 
the Senate on the process so that we can ensure that fairness and due 
process and advanced notice of the effect of these regulations are well 
understood. The whole point is for the EPA to recognize we need to have 
the training, the discussion of the procedures, and all of the rest in 
advance of the enforcement. We should not just randomly pick out 
someone to nail, start cracking down on violators and putting sanctions 
on State departments of agriculture who are the victims in many ways of 
the mandates of the Federal Government.
  They have not been given any money to train or hire staff to carry 
out the enforcement. They have just been told by the Federal 
Government: ``You do it. We are going to tell you generally what is 
against the rules and what is not, and if you cannot understand, we 
will just come in and enforce and fine you and then you will understand 
it.''
  That creates an awful lot of anxiety. If there is anything that is 
going to hurt our competitiveness, it is that kind of Government action 
that adds unnecessary costs, impedes our ability to efficiently operate 
farms, agriculture, timber growing operations, nurseries, and other 
operations. We ought to take action. That is the whole point of this 
amendment. `
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to address the bill before us today, S. 4, and 
to offer my strong support, not only for the substance of S. 4, the 
National Competitiveness Act, but to echo the appeals of the chairman 
of the committee, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] and others that we exercise some self-restraint, which I know 
is often difficult, and focus on what is in S. 4 and not let it get 
sidetracked with a lot of amendments.
  I say that without casting any judgment on the particular amendment 
pending now or any others being offered. But I say it with a particular 
sense of urgency since S. 4 addresses two problems that it is important 
for us to address--job creation and competitiveness.
  Mr. President, we have a lot of problems in our country, but I can 
tell you, at least from the point of view of my constituents in 
Connecticut, there is no more serious problem than getting on with the 
task of getting our economy moving again, and creating and protecting 
jobs.
  In the 5 years since 1989 when the recession began, my State of 
Connecticut has lost something on the order of 200,000 jobs. That is a 
lot of jobs. Connecticut has not been the only victim of job loss--as 
my colleagues in this Chamber know, Connecticut's experience with job 
loss is a story that has repeated itself in many places around the 
country.
  But the sad part of the story is that this recession, which may be 
over in the minds of some economists, is not over in the lives of a lot 
of Americans: it is not like other recessions. This was not a temporary 
reduction in demand that led to people being laid off in the bad times 
and rehired in better times.
  There are a lot of people out there who were laid off because of 
changes in the structure of our economy, because of downsizing, because 
of the reduction in our defense budget. These are people --many of whom 
are in midcareer--capable, qualified people--frankly, the kinds of 
people who never expected to be laid off and now worry about whether 
they will ever be rehired. And their worries resonate throughout much 
of the rest of the population--among their neighbors and their former 
coworkers who wonder whether they will be next.
  This bill, in a way that would be hard to put on a bumper sticker, 
really deals with the heart of protecting and creating jobs in America 
by putting the Government in a partnership with business to improve our 
competitiveness and the available supply of good jobs in this country.
  We use a lot of initials in talking about this bill--NIST, ATP's, 
MTC's. For me, what this bill is all about is j-o-b-s; jobs.
  In the debate over how to improve the competitiveness in American 
manufacturing, we have spent a lot of time addressing the high cost of 
capital, the low rate of savings and investment, chronic trade and 
budget deficits, and failure of our educational system then to prepare 
our workers. All of those are obviously critical and important to 
protecting and creating jobs.
  But this bill really confronts the basic question, which is: How do 
we keep this country on the leading edge of manufacturing and 
technology?
  The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] has really been a 
pioneer in this. He was way out front before a lot of others saw the 
opportunity for the Government to be constructive in a partnership 
relationship with business.
  I was privileged to serve on an economic task force a couple of years 
ago that the majority leader put together to continue some of these 
programs. In the various committees, we had bipartisan support. We 
worked to put together a package of economic initiatives and when that 
package passed, we had bipartisan support.
  And we have had bipartisan support again in bringing this bill out of 
committee, because it is the right thing to do and the sensible thing 
to do. It is beyond politics, beyond partisanship. It is, in a 
practical sense, what the business community of America is asking the 
Federal Government to do to help them remain competitive by protecting 
and creating good jobs.
  Let me talk in concrete terms about what this bill does.
  This act expands the number of centers where small manufacturers can 
go to get hands-on training in the latest technology.
  S. 4 also expands the Advanced Technology Program--that is ATP--at 
the National Institutes for Standards and Technology--that is NIST. The 
ATP matches funds for industry-led efforts to solve industrywide 
problems. And, for those with the idea that will take technology 
forward, the conceptual technological breakthrough, but who do not have 
the resources to carry it forward, this bill has the Critical 
Technologies Financing Pilot Program. I do not think we have even 
reduced this program to letters or an acronym yet, Mr. President, but 
it is important to people with the bright idea that could lead to the 
employment of thousands of people in the future.
  Let me state there are three simple reasons to support this bill.
  The first is to promote and improve American technology. The key to 
global competitiveness is the ability to deliver a better product at a 
better price. Obviously, this could be achieved in a number of ways. 
For example, we can artificially hold down wages or we can sell 
products more cheaply in foreign markets than we sell them at home. But 
there really is only one way to deliver a superior product at a cheaper 
cost without sacrificing the living standards of American workers or 
punishing American consumers. That is to increase productivity. And the 
way to get increased productivity is through advances in technology.
  Technological advances can drive an economy by creating new goods, 
new services, new jobs, new capital, even new industries. When applied 
to existing systems, advanced technology can improve productivity and 
the quality of products. Anyone with the most basic computer can 
confirm that advanced technology can indeed make a job easier and 
faster.
  Technological advances can help compensate for competitive 
disadvantages that American firms may face overseas, including 
comparatively higher costs of capital and labor.
  We should take pride in the fact that the United States remains the 
world leader in basic research and in many areas of applied research. 
At the same time, research in and of itself does not lead to improved 
productivity and economic growth. R&D is merely the first step. It is 
commercialization, the process of moving products from our laboratories 
to our factories, that leads to increased productivity, continued 
economic growth, and the ultimate rise in our standard of living.
  But, unfortunately, that is also where we too often fail. We must, as 
our competitors do, aggressively support emerging technologies so they 
can be transformed into the commercially viable products, the job-
creating businesses for the international marketplace.
  Reason two relates to manufacturing and small manufacturers.
  Mr. President, manufacturing currently employs approximately nearly 
19 million Americans and adds about $1.3 trillion to the economy each 
year. The export of manufactured goods account for nearly 67 percent of 
the total value of U.S. exports of goods and services.
  As anyone who has visited a machine tool shop or a ball bearing plant 
can tell you, most of these manufacturers are hardly giants--there are 
an estimated 360,000 small and midsized manufacturing firms in the 
United States. But in terms of being job generators, these firms are 
giants. By way of illustration, during the years 1988 through 1992 
manufacturing firms with fewer than 20 employees added 220,000 jobs, 
while manufacturing firms with more than 500 employees lost nearly 1 
million jobs.
  While the small companies employ millions of Americans, they lag 
behind virtually all our competitors in adapting new manufacturing 
equipment and technology. These companies need a sophisticated 
manufacturing extension service, much like the extensive system we have 
set up for agriculture. For comparison: While agriculture represents 
about 2 percent of our total GDP, U.S. manufacturing represents nearly 
12 times that much--about 23 percent. At the same time, the U.S. spends 
over a billion dollars on agricultural extension programs while we 
spend one-tenth of that on manufacturing extension programs--about $100 
million.
  Mr. President, a robust and technologically advanced network of small 
business manufacturers are our best hope for staying competitive. ``Few 
and far between'' is the best description of the public and private 
institutions in the U.S. getting the word out on new technologies. This 
causes particular concern for small manufacturers who do not have the 
resources to keep up with technological developments taking place in 
the United States, never mind overseas. Contrast this with Japan--where 
technology dissemination and technical assistance is commonplace. For 
example, the Japanese Government provides $235 million for a nationwide 
network of 185 technology extension centers.

  Reason three relates to information technology.
  Mr. President, the ``information superhighway'' has become the new 
``buzzword'' of the nineties. It has come to signify the frontier of 
technological innovation. It is also likely to become the frontier of 
international trade and competition. The U.S. is well positioned to set 
the standard, to be the ``pace car'' on this new information 
superhighway. However, that leadership role will require partnerships 
between government, universities, and the private sector.
  By putting information about advanced technology onto the 
superhighway, S. 4 envisions benefits in any number of fields--
including health, education, and medicine.


                          answers to criticism


                           industrial policy

  Mr. President, there has been some suggestion that S. 4 puts the 
Federal Government in the position of picking winners and losers in the 
marketplace--so called industrial policy. Industrial policy conjures up 
images of Government bailouts for inefficient smokestack industries. 
That is not what this bill is about. What we are talking about is 
industry-led, not Government-led, initiatives that occur at the 
technology development stage, not after products go to market.
  The National Competitiveness Act does not replace the free market. 
What it does do is carve out a constructive role for the Government to 
play in technology policy--particularly in the precompetitive, 
precommercial, developmental stages of technological advancement. That 
means that S. 4 does not meddle in the market. Indeed, S. 4 puts 
Government behind the private sector. S. 4 requires the private sector 
to match any Federal grant to ensure that it is the market--not the 
Government choosing the winners and losers.
  Mr. President, the recognition of the importance of certain 
industries cuts across party lines. Even under President Bush, the 
National Critical Technologies Panel, which was part of the Office of 
Science and Technology policy, prepared a list of 22 key technologies 
and a report which stressed ``the need for increased cooperation 
between Government and corporations.'' In their report, the National 
Critical Technologies Panel stated:

       The failure to maintain world class manufacturing 
     capabilities would compromise the nation's ability to compete 
     in domestic and international markets, and would threaten our 
     ability to obtain access to the full range of components and 
     equipment required for a strong national defense.

  In these days of shrinking defense budgets, the civilian sector is 
increasingly leading the military in research and development. In the 
old, cold days it was very much the other way around with the military 
providing the research and developments for civilian spinoffs.


                                  gatt

  I would also like to address the GATT issue. Let us be clear--the 
Europeans spend heavily on industrial R&D and industrial subsidies. 
That is the status quo. That is the situation we face today. Under the 
new GATT rules, they will be limited in their ability to subsidize 
products and product development. That is good news. The new GATT 
subsidy rules will help level the playing field for U.S. firms. In a 
March 7 letter to Majority Leader Mitchell, John Gibbons, the 
President's science and technology advisor, had this to say about the 
subsidies code in the GATT agreements:

       It puts real teeth in disciplining unfair, trade-distorting 
     production and export subsidies. At the same time, it 
     protects economically desirable U.S. government investment in 
     research and development from potential challenge by foreign 
     countries.

  Mr. President, our GATT negotiators should be congratulated, not 
castigated, for the progress they have made in this area. The agreement 
will not open the subsidy floodgate--it is a precise, surgical approach 
which will impose discipline on our trading partners in the subsidy 
area. S. 4 clearly falls within the precise parameters set forth by our 
GATT negotiators.


                                 budget

  I am concerned about the budget deficit. I have been saying for 
months that we must make hard choices--if we add programs, we must cut 
or eliminate others. And that is what this bill does.
  Every new dollar this proposal authorizes is matched by cuts in the 
President's budget. More importantly, because S. 4 requires an industry 
dollar for dollar match for every award. S. 4 leverages both private 
sector and State dollars. For every dollar we spend we know we are 
moving at least twice as much into the economy. So not only are we 
making the hard choices, we are also spending wisely. I could not put 
it better than the President did in a letter he sent to Majority Leader 
Mitchell on Monday:

       S. 4's leveraged investment offers this nation a high rate 
     of return: by helping industry to create jobs and compete 
     successfully in the global marketplace, we will grow the 
     economy.


                               conclusion

  If maintaining a world class manufacturing capability--as the Bush 
administration suggested--is critical to both our national defense and 
economic security, then we should not be expending our time on the 
question of whether or not the Federal Government should be supporting 
technological advances. What we should be asking is ``What is the best 
way for us to keep and maintain that advances?'' How can we put the 
resources and leverage capacity of the Federal Government directly 
behind American industrial technologies to improve our industrial 
competitiveness over the long term? I believe the National 
Competitiveness Act provides us with the answer to these questions. I 
am grateful for the work of Senator Hollings and others in bringing 
this bill to the floor and I encourage my colleagues to support me in 
supporting S. 4.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut has really been part and parcel of this bill. He has headed 
up an economic leadership group of Senators from both sides of the 
aisle. They have been working. They have been vitally interested in 
technology. They have been vitally interested in the commercialization 
of our technology. They have been vitally interested in the research 
necessary for us to be kept on the cutting edge. In that light, no one 
could be more grateful than myself for his particular contribution over 
the last 1\1/2\ to 2 years that we have been working on this particular 
measure. So I thank him for his comments here this morning and his 
contribution.
  Mr. President, I think we can move back to the Kassebaum amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
for his kind words and longtime leadership in the whole process of how 
the Government can create a partnership with business to create jobs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of my remarks be 
printed in the Record as if read and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] 
is recognized.


                           amendment no. 1477

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand this particular matter now 
has been worked out with the distinguished Senator from Kansas. In this 
unanimous-consent request I will be referring to the text of the 
language attached. I will yield to the Senator from Kansas at that time 
to submit that language and to indicate her approval.

                          ____________________