[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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 1481
(Purpose: To provide that a nongovernmental person may use a private
express for the private carriage of any letter determined by such
person to be urgent without being penalized by the Postal Service, and
for other purposes)
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator from Georgia will withhold, I ask
unanimous consent that the pending Cochran amendment No. 1480 be
temporarily laid aside so the Senator from Georgia may offer his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
I now send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1481.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the committee substitute, add the following
new title:
TITLE VII--PRIVATE CARRIAGE OF URGENT LETTERS
SEC. 701. PRIVATE CARRIAGE OF URGENT LETTERS.
(a) Postal Service Administration.--(1) Section 601(a) of
title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``A
letter'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Subject to the
provisions of section 607, a letter''.
(2)(A) Chapter 6 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 606 the following new
section:
``Sec. 607. Administration relating to urgent letters
``In the administration of the provisions of this chapter,
chapter 4 of this title, and sections 1693 through 1699 of
title 18, the Postal Service or the Attorney General of the
United States may not--
``(1) fine or otherwise penalize any person who--
``(A) is not an entity of the United States Government; and
``(B) uses a private express for the private carriage of
any letter which such person determines is urgent; or
``(2)(A) create a presumption of a violation by a private
shipper or carrier with paragraph (1)(B) or any regulation
promulgated thereunder relating to the private carriage of an
urgent letter as determined under such paragraph; or
``(B) establish or shift a burden of establishing the fact
of compliance by a private shipper or carrier with paragraph
(1)(B) or any regulation promulgated thereunder relating to
the private carriage of an urgent letter as determined under
such paragraph.''.
(B) The table of sections for chapter 6 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by adding after the item relating to
section 606 the following:
``607. Administration relating to urgent letters.''.
(b) Private Express Provisions.--(1) Chapter 83 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
1699 the following new section:
``Sec. 1699A. Application of postal service provisions
``The provisions of sections 1693 through 1699 of this
title shall be subject to the provisions of section 607 of
title 39.''.
(2) The table of sections for chapter 83 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 1699 the following:
``1699A. Application of Postal Service provisions.''.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the amendment that I have sent to the
desk clearly falls within the scope of competitiveness. As we and this
Government endeavor to take steps to make American business, both small
and large, more effective, one of the principal concerns we have to
have is the degree to which the Government has become an obstacle, an
intruder, not a partner, but a boss.
There are many issues discussed in these Halls that are immensely
complex. This is very simple. Very simple. We have the U.S. Postal
Department that is engaged in a process that exceeds its authority,
that is intrusive, and is an obstacle for sound business in our
country.
We have discovered in recent months the Postal Department has been
engaged in a practice of isolating private businesses, intruding on
that business, intimidating that business, and fining that business
because it is concluding unilaterally that when the business uses a
private carrier to deliver a message that it is not urgent.
Under the current statutes and regulations, a private business may
use a private carrier to deliver a message if it feels the message to
be urgent--if it feels that the message is urgent. The Postal
Department has concluded that it alone has the jurisdiction to
determine whether the message was urgent or not. I would think that it
would be prima facie evidence that if the private business was willing
to spend double the money to send it, they thought it was urgent.
The Postal Department should cease and desist. There should be no
reason for this amendment. But repeated discussions have left us faced
with the proposition that the Postal Department continues to pursue
this erroneous policy. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Congress of
the United States to clarify the policy for the U.S. Postal Department
and cease and stop this egregious activity.
If I might just take a few more moments, actually the whole matter
ought to be moot and just proves to us how far behind the curve this
arm of the Government is. I guess they are still in the fifties. Maybe
they have never heard of a fax machine or E-mail or computer internets,
or the telecommunications highways we are talking about. Maybe there is
not an understanding that the delivery of messages on printed paper is
probably only historical moments away from being moot.
Instead of engaging in this intimidating practice, which is giving
them another black eye, taking an arm of the Government that already
has serious public relations problems and moving on to an investment in
developing products that American business wants to use, they have
engaged in a bully process of forcing American business to use a system
they find flawed.
It is wrong. They do not have the authority to do what they are
doing. They are damaging their own public relations. They are
interfering with sound business policy, and they are engaged in an
activity that is being made moot by the advances in telecommunications.
Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It is very narrow. It does
not damage the monopoly of the U.S. Postal Department, but it tells
them to disengage from this activity which they have admitted has no
financial ramifications for the delivery of universal mail.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as our former President said, here we go
again. I have the greatest regard for my distinguished colleague from
Georgia, and I understand the idea that he has in mind. I used to serve
on the Post Office Committee when I first came to the U.S. Senate. In
fact, I was the chairman of the Postal Operations Subcommittee. When
they said we are going to put it under Government Operations as a
subcommittee, I said I need the staff that was provided at the time.
You only have so much time you can give and real attention.
It is a very, very important role. So I have some understanding about
the fundamental policy and law itself; namely, that the Post Office
system of the United States, which is the oldest department of
Government, I say to the Senator from Georgia, the Postmaster General,
has what you might call a monopoly on first-class mail. Everyone thinks
their letter is urgent. I do not think it is whether it is urgent or
not. It is whether or not you are going to have private carriage of the
mail in America. And we know what competition does when you compete,
compete, deregulate, deregulate.
In that context, yes, it is like the old saying, you hunt where the
ducks are. The competition goes where the money is. And where the money
is, in the concentrated, easily delivered metropolitan areas of
America. Otherwise, in rural Georgia and rural South Carolina and rural
Montana, up in Alaska and other places, you just could not afford to
deliver.
So in essence we have all over again the long distance telephonic
communications supporting the local. We come around now and we find
that the post office balances off all folks' in order to make possible
universal, affordable mail service here in America.
Now, break that down under the amendment of the distinguished
Senator--and I had not really thought it through recently, but this
comes from a memory over 20 years--to the effect that, yes, the private
entities that come in, they are very enterprising and they have certain
ways of carriage as we know now with the packages, with respect to
Federal Express, United Parcel Service, and so on. If you get right
into that first-class mail, then the ordinary little family letter,
little postcard, little happy birthday card, Christmas card or
whatever, to have those things delivered, the price is going to go
right through the roof. I think they have now a proposal something like
33 cents for first class mail.
Mr. BURNS. Thirty-two cents.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Thirty-two cents. I stand corrected. I can tell you, of
what I understand it to be an initiative or foot in the door, whatever
it is, it goes to $2 and $3 to deliver just a regular letter, and that
is why they have had this provision in law. It is well-founded. It has
been tried and true over the many, many years. Under the quasi-
governmental entity now of the Postal Service, we have had many a post
offices closed. It is for you and me in the Senate to leave it alone.
People still do not understand it is a Federal crime, a felony, for me
to recommend you to be the postmaster, say, of Charleston or for you to
recommend me to be the postmaster of Atlanta, GA. We wanted to make
sure that we got politics out of the Postal Service, and we went to
that extreme, that we would not even have any part in actually
recommending those to be the postmaster.
But otherwise, to the substance of the amendment of the distinguished
Senator, it could well be heard, debated at another time on a bill by
itself in that you see we have over 130 pages here of the Advanced
Technology Program, with no mention of any Postal Service or carriage
or delivery of mail. We have provisions with relation to the
manufacturing centers. We have the intern program of the distinguished
Senator from Montana. We have the matter of the information
superhighway, some initiatives there for the libraries, the schools,
public entities of that nature. We have really a well-conceived bill
under the rubric of technology competitiveness, advanced technology
program, the commercialization of our technology, and we would like to
try to hold it to that.
The Senator has me, in a sense, off base. The Senator is familiar
with his subject. He knows what he is talking about. But we do not have
this subject matter in the Committee of Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. And as a result here we go again. Open sesame. I think
that is really what gets us bogged down as we were yesterday, day
before yesterday, and now apparently today in ancillary matters that
our colleagues are interested in, vitally interested in, and yet not
germane at this particular time on this particular bill.
I do appreciate the Senator coming over because I was asking for an
amendment. I was asking for an amendment to the bill and not on post
office matters. But let me yield the floor and see if there is further
debate.
I wish to make sure that everyone has time to consider it and any
speakers that he has in support or otherwise be heard. We are not
trying to be arbitrary. But as the majority leader said late last
night--we sat around here late last night, and that was in the second
day, without a vote--now we have to start moving to take these matters
up and, if necessary, force a vote by way of tabling and then, if it is
carried, fine, put it on the bill, accept it or otherwise. But I think
everyone understands the rules of the game. I appreciate the Senator's
interest and his leadership on this particular score. I just have to,
as the manager of this bill, try to just hold it to this particular
subject matter.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina for his remarks. I understand the issues with which he
is confronted in terms of the management of this bill. I also know that
he has not had a full opportunity to review the scope of this
amendment.
I am not challenging the monopoly statute as related to the Postal
Service. I am ratifying and certifying what I believe already to be the
law. I believe the postal department has a right to audit private
carriers, but I do not believe it has the right to audit private
companies with regard to its control over monopoly.
We are talking about a situation where a private business, primarily,
is making a decision over whether to pay double or more the price to
forward a message to another party. And I do not believe that will wrap
its arms around the Christmas card or the wish to your family. Clearly,
you are not going to pay double. Our citizens are stepping forward and
in a sense paying a special price, which I think is definitional that
they have concluded it is an emergency. But I do appreciate the
Senator's knowledge of this area, his history in it, and for the
purpose of clarification I ask that we temporarily set the amendment
aside so we might have further discussion between us on it.
I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set it aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me ask, even though it might be set
aside, just as a matter of interest and education, how do you determine
the urgency?
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the urgency is not defined in the
postal department's own clarification, just that they sometime--I guess
it was in 1978--in 1978, in deference to the emergence of private
carriers, concluded that they could be used if it was an urgent matter;
in other words, needed to arrive within 24 or 48 hours or something of
that nature. But at that time it was clearly left up to the user to
determine whether it was urgent or not. And to ratify or certify my
point, you had to pay at least double to do that. So the Postal Service
was setting a standard which was monetary. Now they come forward and
say even though you met that standard, you paid the additional money,
we still do not think it is urgent. They are claiming the right, and I
do not believe this Government has given them that prerogative. So all
this does is you do not take on the issue of monopoly, but we go back
to the original premise that if the private citizen or business was
willing to pay the added cost, they therefore had identified it as
urgent.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with the set-aside of the Coverdell
amendment, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Cochran amendment is the pending business.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I think we almost have enough time. I am double
checking to find exactly where it is. Pending that check, I think, once
again, in answering questions relative to this particular measure, the
studious and very deliberate approach to the actual financing of this
program and awards to be made cannot be overemphasized.
It is unfortunate that the distinguished Senator from Missouri, my
ranking member, in the early stages used the word ``pork,'' even
winners and losers. For the truth of it is, whether it is the industry
itself, there are not any losers. That industry has to come in and pick
itself, not the politician picking. That is absolutely crystal clear.
There is no misunderstanding in this particular bill.
With respect to the matter of pork, we also said, No. 1, the industry
has to put up at least 50 percent. And under the past 2 years, they
have averaged nearer a 65 to 70 percent industry share in the
particular endeavor. Then there is the final hurdle of approval by the
Academy of Engineering.
Right to the point: I have the subcommittee of State, Justice,
Commerce. I have the subcommittee of appropriations. I have been in
this appropriations work for over 20 years. I know how it works. I know
how the demands come to put in a particular project. In fact, I have
had good colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, put this in,
put that in, and I have said we are not going to have a bill if we
start including anything.
I worked this out with Senator Danforth, my ranking member, and other
interested Senators. You have to go on the regular merit basis and peer
review basis if you are going to get a center. It has to come through a
competitive fashion, and go through all the particular hoops there if
you are going to get an advanced technology program. It has to be peer
reviewed by the National Academy of Engineering.
So I have been sort of standing there saying, no, it is not going to
be. That is why I am very sensitive about somebody claiming that we
have a bill here that will deal out moneys ``hither and yon.'' It
cannot be dealt out in that fashion. Otherwise, there are really not
those amounts involved.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the schedule of a summary
of appropriations in S. 4 be printed in the Record at this particular
point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATIONS IN S. 4 FLOOR VERSION, WITH COMPARISONS TO FISCAL YEAR 1994 APPROPRIATIONS AND THE
FISCAL YEAR 1995 REQUESTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY1994appro. BillFY1994 FY1995request BillFY1995 BillFY1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC PROGRAMS
Under sec tech................................. 6 20 11 75 83
Under sec...................................... (6) (6) (11) (11) (14)
Additional\1\.................................. (0) (12) (0) (14) (19)
Financing...................................... (0) (2) (0) (50) (50)
National tech info service..................... 0 0 18 20 20
NIST funding................................... 520 548 935 991 1,150
Laboratory..................................... (226) (241) (316) (320) (350)
ATP............................................ (199) (200) (451) (475) (575)
Extension...................................... \2\(30) (40) (61) (70) (100)
Quality........................................ (3) (2) (7) (10) (10)
Facilities..................................... (62) (62) (100) (110) (112)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wind engr and environ constr................... (0) (3) (0) (6) (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOC subtotal............................... 526 568 964 1,086 1,253
OTHER PROGRAMS
New NSF manuf.................................. 0 50 0 75 75
Info tech\3\................................... 0 108 ............. 209 150
----------------------------------------------------------------
526 726 ............. 1,370 1,478
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Additional Technology Administration activities includes technology training clearinghouse, policy
experiments related to intelligent manufacturing, and competitiveness assessment and technology monitoring.
\2\During fiscal year 1994, NIST also will manage approximately $33 million worth of extension/deployment
projects funded by DOD's Technology Reinvestment Project.
\3\New authorizations (do not include cases in which sums are authorized out of the amounts already authorized):
fiscal year 1995 request numbers is forthcoming.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, just noting from that summary, the bill
for 1994 over 1995, the laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards,
there is no pork there. But that goes up from $241 million to $316
million. But that is not going out to South Carolina or to California
or to anybody that helps them in the election or any pork.
The Advanced Technology Program, yes, it goes up from $200 million to
$451 million. But as I said, it is not the Senator from South Carolina
or the Secretary of Commerce or somebody saying it is good to put some
money in South Carolina or California to help politically in that
regard. Not at all. On the contrary, the request has to come from the
industry. It might not have any requests from the State of South
Carolina. It might have them all from the State of Wisconsin.
So, fine, business. If an industry located in Wisconsin feels that
way and thinks they have a valid project for the advanced technology
and need a little assistance from the Government, and if the National
Academy of Engineering and its peer review also finds that is the case,
then they go forward with it.
There they are. That is the extension services. It is not pork. I
mean that is just to get the matters out there from $40 million to $61
million. Of course, they have some other projects in here relative to
assistance with the Information Highway. But these are the increases
here. Overall, it goes from $726 million to $1.37 billion and still is
less than 22 percent of the entire $70 billion spent on research.
Admittedly, some of those programs have found themselves into what
people might call pork in that they have been written into certain
bills to have it at this particular college or that university or
whatever else it is. But these programs have really been virtuous, you
might say, in the context of these hurdles and the study and the
competitiveness of the very nature in which an award is made.
I truly want to emphasize that because I keep asking about this bill
that you have that is going to help you do this or help you do that.
The truth of the matter is it is going to help all of industry. It is
no particular industry. Since they asked me about the principal
industry in my State, I want to tell you the actual experience in the
textile industry making application to the Advanced Technology Program.
Year before last and last year in the early part of the year, they were
turned down. They did not pass peer review. Their program involved a
computerized approach to the actual flow of goods to eliminate
excessive manufacture of textile products or apparel wear.
I was a little chagrined because, as I say, here I am the chairman of
the Commerce Committee, here I am the chairman of the appropriations
subcommittee, here I am really the author of the bill. But you live by
the sword, you die by the sword. It is a well-conceived program. I went
along, obviously having to go along, with the peer review process, and
the project proposed at the Department of Commerce last year in my own
backyard was refused. It was not just for South Carolina textiles, but
textiles all over the country. But I would have been a principal
beneficiary if that had gone through.
Mr. President, they went to the Department of Energy. Over at the
Department of Energy they went out to the Livermore Lab in California.
If you look at the Energy Department, they have in excess of $6 billion
in research there, and then on a matching deal fashioned together a
$350 million research program. Heavens above. For the entire country
under this little program right now of the ETP, $200 million going to
$451 million for all of America and all of the program peer review;
here is this one program. They put it in; got together with the
Livermore for a $350 million program.
If colleagues on the floor are interested in pork and the politics of
legislation, I would yield to them on going ahead and review some in
the Department of Defense, review some in the Department of Energy or
wherever it is. But this is a program that was initiated only on the
trade bill with overwhelming support. It passed unanimously year before
last because it was not pork. There was not any earmarking. There could
not be any earmarking of the funds under this law.
I have the same concern that others have with respect to just writing
in these particular projects and programs, but as not just of the
Commerce Committee, the author of the bill, but as chairman of the
appropriations subcommittee, I said, ``No way, Jose.'' We are not
playing that game on this one. It is up to industry and peer review.
And this chairman, who is supposed to be in charge politically, finds
out that you are not in charge of anything. But you ought to have a
little bit of influence. That did not work at all. I supported that
application. But it did not pass muster. But they did go to the
Department of Energy.
So do not come around and ask me about pork in the Commerce
Department on the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing
Extension Centers. There is none in this bill.
I suggest the absence of a quorum--I will withhold that.
Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the distinguished Senator will refrain for a
moment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Arkansas.
amendment no. 1481
Mr. PRYOR. I want to speak just a moment, Mr. President, on an
amendment that has recently been sent to the desk--I think, within the
last few minutes--offered by the distinguished Senator from Georgia
[Mr. Coverdell].
Mr. President, I am urging my colleagues right now to look very, very
carefully at the Coverdell amendment. We do not know what the Coverdell
amendment does. We do not know what the ramifications of the Coverdell
amendment might be. We do not know what real threat to the revenue base
the Coverdell amendment might have to the U.S. Postal Service. We have
no way of knowing what the Coverdell amendment, if adopted, if enacted,
would have on, for example, the vitality of our hundreds and hundreds
of rural post offices in America.
So, Mr. President, I am asking my colleagues to pause a moment, to
take a second look at the Coverdell amendment, and to ultimately, when
we get the opportunity later, vote to table this particular proposal.
As a matter of fact, Mr. President, only 2 days ago, I prepared a
letter to the Honorable Charles Bowsher, the Comptroller General,
asking him--the GAO--to take a very thorough look into the postal
fairness, which is basically what the Senator from Georgia is
attempting to weave into what we now know as the Competitiveness Act,
S. 4, the pending major legislation on the floor.
I think that we should, one, wait for the General Accounting Office
report on all facets of what would result should such an amendment or
such a proposal be integrated into this legislation.
Second, I have asked Senator Coverdell--and he has been asked by
others--to appear before the Governmental Affairs Committee on March
24, 2 weeks from now, to testify on his proposal. Have we had a hearing
on this legislation? No. Have we had any sort of a discussion, an in-
depth discussion, on what might happen if private carriers could
basically carry and deliver the mail? No. We have no way of knowing,
Mr. President, what we would be stepping off to should the Coverdell
amendment be enacted.
Let us have this hearing on March 24. Let us look at the pros and
cons of what the distinguished Senator from Georgia is proposing. Let
us get a response from the General Accounting Office, which we have
requested Dr. Charles Bowsher to engage in. Then, let us put the facts
on the table and let the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives
and the process itself govern what we should do about this particular
proposal and this particular theory of delivering mail to the 260
million people in this country.
Mr. President, I am not saying today that I am going to ultimately,
for the rest of my life, oppose what Senator Coverdell is doing. I may
join him at a later time, but I am not sure I will do that. I certainly
want to see the facts. I think each of my colleagues on the floor of
the Senate, who will be voting on this very major change in the Postal
Reorganization Act of 1973, are going to want to seriously study what
the Senator from Georgia is doing. It is not going to really hurt
anyone or hurt anything for us to just pause a moment, Mr. President,
and to relook at what the Senator is proposing.
I urge my colleagues to ultimately vote for the motion to table the
Senator's amendment.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama. I think he was on
his feet before me, and he allowed me to precede him. I am indebted to
him.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Shelby pertaining to the introduction of
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WALLOP. 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. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to proceed as if in morning business for not to exceed 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________