[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]
THE NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT: JOBS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND DEFENSE
CONVERSION FOR AMERICA
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I am going to speak only a very few
moments. I do not want to speak about any specific industry such as the
aircraft industry. I want to talk about this legislation as a whole
because this legislation, I think, is one of the more important pieces
of legislation that the Senate has considered in the last 2 or 3 years
relating to the preservation and the creation of jobs.
Madam President, I am pleased to announce my strong support for S. 4,
the National Competitiveness Act. First and foremost, this bill is
about preserving and creating jobs. By helping to strengthen the U.S.
industrial base, S. 4 will enable American companies to meet and defeat
foreign competition, ensuring more jobs, higher wages, and a better
standard of living for all Americans.
Moreover, S. 4 represents a new approach to economic growth and job
creation that says something very important about this administration.
It is an approach which features Government as a partner of industry
instead of an adversary. Scarce Federal dollars will be leveraged
through investment in the technology priorities and needs that industry
identifies, rather than technologies that Government bureaucrats like.
My colleagues will continue to make these points about what S. 4 will
do for jobs and industry partnerships. I want to talk about the
importance of S. 4 for another reason, namely the critical contribution
that it will make to our Nation's defense conversion strategy.
In 1992, the Senate majority leader, Senator George Mitchell of
Maine, whom we will regrettably be losing at the end of this year,
appointed me the chairman of the Senate Democratic defense reinvestment
task force. This was not a job that I originally wanted, nor one that I
expected to have a great deal of success with. I can say with pride,
though, that the task force has produced substantial results, simply
because we worked together as a team.
All of us are familiar with the terrible toll that defense conversion
is taking on our country. As the defense budget falls, jobs are
disappearing and sales are evaporating. Factory gates are closing on
defense dependent firms all around America, and the heroes of the shop
floor who helped win the cold war are getting little more than the cold
shoulder. Our economy and our workers are hurting, Madam President.
The only long-term solution to this downturn is to stimulate economic
growth. Defense dependent companies cannot simply move into a new
civilian market overnight and begin serving its customers. Plenty of
competition already exists in these markets. Likewise, laid off defense
workers who receive retraining cannot take civilian jobs immediately,
because these jobs are all currently filled.
Economic growth is the answer, Madam President, and as I have
learned, technology is the key driver of growth in our modern
industrial economy. Investment in the development of new technologies
will lead to new products, new industries, and new jobs. We must also
ensure that the latest production technologies which contribute to
efficiency and productivity, are deployed to as many of our
manufacturers as possible. These are the twin pillars of economic
growth in modern industrial economies, and the twin pillars of this
bill, technology development, and technology deployment.
S. 4 strengthens and expands the technology development and
technology deployment programs in the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, or NIST, at the Department of Commerce.
Let me add a personal note. The distinguished Senator from South
Carolina, who is managing this legislation at this time, was one of the
original creators of NIST in the Department of Commerce. He had the
vision, as far back as 1988, of placing this particular program in
parts of early bilateral trade agreements. I think it demonstrates the
wisdom of the Senator from South Carolina, and his forethought.
Grants from the Advanced Technology Program at NIST can help civilian
firms develop new technologies which will contribute to their growth,
and it can create diversification opportunities for a defense dependent
firm. The manufacturing technology centers and manufacturing outreach
centers funded by NIST can help a civilian firm become more productive,
and it can help a company in the defense business find new markets and
acquire the technology necessary to compete in those markets as defense
contracts dry up.
The Democratic defense reinvestment task force recognized the value
of the NIST programs, and that's why we recommended increased funding
for them in 1992. The Republicans had a defense conversion task force
in 1992 also, appointed by the Senate minority leader, Senator Dole,
and chaired by former Senator Rudman of New Hampshire. This Republican
task force also noted the importance of the NIST programs and
recommended more support for them as well.
Madam President, as a matter of fact I would like to, at this point,
ask unanimous consent that these two pages from the report by the
Senate Republican task force on adjusting the defense base dated June
25, 1992, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Report of the Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the Defense
Base--June 25, 1992
I. INTRODUCTION
The information of the Senate Republican Task Force on
Adjusting the Defense Base was announced on April 16, 1992,
by Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole. Senator Warren
Rudman was named as Chairman of the Task Force. Other members
appointed to the Task Force were Senator Hank Brown, Senator
William Cohen, Senator John Danforth, Senator Pete Domenici,
Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Senator Trent
Lott, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator John McCain, Senator
John Seymour, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator John Warner.
The Task Force was charged with the responsibility of
helping to develop responsible policies to deal with the
build down and restructuring of America's defense system in
the wake of our nation's Cold War victory and the collapse of
the Soviet Union. It focussed on policies to facilitate a
productive shifting of our human and technological resources
while maintaining a viable defense base.
Fulfilling this mandate and developing responsible and
cost-effective policies for adjusting the defense base cuts
across the jurisdiction of a number of Senate committees.
Accordingly, the Task Force membership includes Senators from
the Armed Services, Appropriations, Budget, Commerce,
Finance, Foreign Relations, Governmental Affairs, and Labor
and Human Resources Committees.
3. R&E tax credit/educational assistance tax deduction
The R&E tax credit provides a tax credit to businesses for
their research and experimental expenditures. This tax credit
has been critical to maintaining the worldwide lead of
American industry in advanced technologies.
The Employer-provided Educational Assistance tax exclusion
permits individuals to exclude from their taxable income
employer-provided educational assistance for upgrading their
skills and training. This deduction could be of particular
utility to employees of a defense contractor which needs to
retrain its workers as part of an effort to diversify or
expand into commercial markets.
Both the tax credit and the exclusion have received
repeated temporary extensions to prevent them from expiring.
The latest extension of six months expires on June 30, 1992.
The Task Force recommends that both of these provisions be
made a permanent part of the tax code or, at the very least,
be extended for a period of five years to encompass the
period of the defense build-down. A permanent or lengthy
extension is desirable since it would bring some stability to
this area of the tax code and facilitate long-range planning
by businesses.
4. NIST programs
The Task Force endorses two programs of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as important to
the effort to promote technology transfer to allow defense
industries to convert to civilian activities. These programs
are the Manufacturing Technology Program (MTC) and the
Advanced Technology Program (ATP).
During FY 1992, $15 million is available for the MTCs, and
the President has requested $17.8 million for FY 1993. MTCs
are designed to enhance American manufacturing
competitiveness by improving the level of technology used by
small and medium sized companies. They serve as regional
centers of information for these firms and also assist in
workforce training to allow for the adoption of advanced
manufacturing technology.
The ATP is funded at a level of $49.9 million in FY 1992,
and the President requested $67.9 million for FY 1993. This
program provides grants to industry for the development of
pre-competitive generic technologies. Current projects
include research and development in such areas as data
storage, X-ray lithography, lasers, superconductivity,
machine tool control, and flat panel display manufacturing.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, not only have the Democratic and
Republican task forces supported the NIST programs, the entire Congress
has responded to these recommendations over the last 2 years by
providing approximately $500 million annually for our flagship defense
conversion program, the technology reinvestment project or TRP. NIST is
one of the main participants in the TRP, and the program has already
provided over $300 million to fund manufacturing extension projects.
In fact, an announcement was made just 2 weeks ago that a NIST-style
manufacturing extension project would be funded by the TRP in my home
State of Arkansas. This particular extension award went to Winrock
International, Henderson State University, and several other proposers
in the State, to bring advanced technologies and practices to small
wood product manufacturers and metal fabrication firms through networks
that have been formed in the two industries. The Arkansas Science and
Technology Authority, the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission,
the University of Arkansas system, and others in Arkansas are also
working hard to develop a State Technology Extension Network which is
very important to the economic prospects of Arkansas, and which I
strongly support.
As you can see, the programs authorized under this bill will help
individual firms and industries convert from defense to civilian
production, but this bill is also about defense conversion in a larger
war, namely conversion of our Federal research and development budget.
In 1988, when the United States was investing approximately 66 percent
of its R&D budget in defense R&D, Japan and Germany were spending only
4.8 and 12.5 percent of their R&D budgets, respectively, for this
purpose.
The Clinton administration has pledged to devote an equal percentage
of R&D to both civilian and defense purposes. By strengthening and
expanding our key civilian, commercial R&D agency, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology at the Department of Commerce,
this bill lays the groundwork for such a budget conversion.
The cold war is over, Madam President, and the international economic
war is red hot. The Department of Defense cannot serve as our Nation's
leading economic development agency, but the Commerce Department can,
and it is poised to lead the charge for civilian industries. Today we
must be investing more in making our workers and our firms more
competitive so that we can prevail in the battle for markets and
profits and win the war for higher wages and higher living standards
for all Americans. S. 4 is just the ammunition we need for this fight.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas,
particularly for his leadership in the defense conversion committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2
o'clock having arrived, the Senate will now vote on the motion to
table----
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
So the amendment (No. 1481) was withdrawn.
Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I am going to send an amendment to
the desk that is a sense-of-the-Senate on the same subject that the
Senator from Arkansas and I have been working on this morning, and on
which we have reached agreement.
The nature of the amendment is to ask the Postal Service to
discontinue the auditing practice I spoke of this morning until there
is a response from the General Accounting Office which would be taken
under consideration by the Congress.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I appreciate that. Let us go with this
one vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can submit that amendment at the
appropriate time.
vote on amendment no. 1480
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Under the previous order, the
Senate will vote on agreeing to the motion to table the Cochran
amendment No. 1480.
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 65, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]
YEAS--35
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Bradley
Bryan
Dodd
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--65
Akaka
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Breaux
Brown
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Ford
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Pryor
Roth
Sasser
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1480) was
rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Mississippi. Is there further debate? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I 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. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I rise to indicate my opposition to
this amendment.
Without losing my right to the floor, I am prepared to yield to
Senator Coverdell, who has an amendment that I understand has been
agreed upon. I have no objection if he wants to proceed at this time.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what is
the pending business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment by the Senator from Mississippi
is the pending question.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, would the regular order be a vote on
the amendment if there was no debate on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the regular order, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I will proceed. I say to my
colleague that, apparently, the Senator from Mississippi has an
objection to us proceeding and letting him go ahead.
Mr. COCHRAN. If the distinguished Senator will yield for a response,
I have no objection to the Senator from Georgia proceeding to say
whatever he wanted to say, or offer whatever he wanted to offer.
The point is that the Senate has just spoken on an amendment, 65 to
35, against a motion to table. It is this Senator's recollection that
usually when the Senate acts on an amendment in that way, the usual
procedure is then to adopt the amendment, the Senate having already
expressed its will on the amendment. That is the purpose of my
suggestion for the regular order.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, it is my understanding that there
was little, if any, debate in connection with that amendment. When I
left the floor to go downtown for a meeting that a number of us went to
with the President, it was my understanding that the matter had been
worked out on a compromise basis. When I returned, I found we were in
the vote and that the agreement had not been worked out.
The Senator from Ohio has some very strong feelings about this, as do
many other Americans. The Senator from Ohio expects to speak to the
subject and may be prepared to offer a second-degree amendment,
although I have not as yet decided. I was then informed that the
Senator from Georgia wished to offer an amendment that had been agreed
upon. If the Senator from Mississippi has an objection to that, then I
will proceed.
Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield further, I have no objection
to the Senator from Georgia proceeding. If the Senator from Ohio
intends to debate the Cochran amendment further, or offer an amendment
to it, I certainly do not object to using his rights to do that. So if
the Senator from Ohio wants to yield to the Senator from Georgia, I
will not object to that.
Mr. METZENBAUM. As a courtesy to the Senator from Georgia, I will
yield to him at this moment, reserving the right to be recognized
immediately at the conclusion of his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing none, the Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the
amendment by the Senator from Mississippi aside and to set the
amendment by the Senator from Missouri aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1483
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that the U.S. Postal
Service should cease and desist from conducting audits of private
businesses using private express for urgent letters, and for other
purposes)
Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], for himself, Mr.
Pryor, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered
1483.
On page 216, add after line 12 the following new 2 title:
TITLE VII--PRIVATE CARRIAGE OF URGENT LETTERS
SEC. 701. PRIVATE CARRIAGE OF URGENT LETTERS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the United States
Postal Service, in the administration of chapter 6 of title
39, United States Code, shall suspend its audits by the
Postal Inspection Service of private business or individuals
who use private express for the private carriage of any
letter which such business or individual determines is
urgent, until the Congress receives and considers a report by
the General Accounting Office regarding the potential
financial impact on the Postal Service of permanently
suspending enforcement of chapter 6, of title 39, United
States Code.
Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, earlier this morning, I submitted an
amendment to this legislation that would have had the effect of
prohibiting the U.S. Postal Department from exercising fines and, in my
judgment, intimidation to private businesses in our country. I have
withdrawn that amendment by unanimous consent and have joined with
Senators Pryor of Arkansas, and Murkowski of Alaska in the framing of
the amendment that is now before the Senate, which is a sense of the
Senate.
The amendment calls upon the Postal Department to cease and desist
from these same audits until such time as there has been a response--
requested by the Senator from Arkansas--from the General Accounting
Office, and that the Congress has had an opportunity to review and
consult about those findings.
I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his assistance in this matter.
I feel that American business has been suffering an egregious harm by
this process, but I understand that there is much for us to find and
consult about on the matter, and I think this is progress.
I believe the Senator from Arkansas would like to make a comment, and
I will yield to the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, first, I want to say how much I deeply
appreciate the Senator from Georgia deciding now to submit to the
Senate a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on this issue. The Senator from
Georgia has also been invited to appear before the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs on the morning of March 24 to make his position
known to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees the U.S.
Postal Service, as to the impact of his proposal to deal with this
issue.
Also, the Senator from Arkansas, as Senator Coverdell has stated,
requested as of 2 days ago the General Accounting Office to do a
complete study on the impact of the proposal offered by the Senator
from Georgia on the U.S. Postal Service and all of the ramifications of
this particular concern as expressed by the Senator from Georgia.
So, therefore, Madam President, I understand from the managers that
we may not actually even have to have a rollcall vote on this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that I
be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask for the immediate consideration
of the amendment, and I wonder if the Senator from South Carolina would
let us know of his concern or lack thereof on the amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
I talked with our colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, and the
Senator from Georgia, and now that the compromise is worked out we are
glad to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator
from Georgia.
The amendment (No. 1483) was agreed to.
Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
amendment no. 1480
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I think that the Senate has just
voted against tabling the pending amendment without many Members of
this body knowing what that amendment was about.
I am frank to say that I had left here thinking and having some
understanding that there had been a compromise worked out on the time
limits with respect to the implementation of the amendment.
When I came back I found that that was not the case. I also found
that it was not possible at that point to speak because we were moving
right into the vote.
I do not blame anybody. I do not hold anybody responsible. But the
fact is I think this is an abominable amendment. I think this amendment
plays into the hands of the large corporate farm owners of this country
and indicates a total indifference to the safety and health of the farm
workers of this country.
This amendment would actually delay implementation of the EPA's
worker protection standard for a year-and-a-half while those farm
workers who have no lobby, who have no one speaking for them, would
continue to be exposed to the various chemicals that are used on farms
throughout this country.
The EPA has been working on this subject for the last 10 years. Now
they finally have been able to bring it. Instead of going forward with
it, the Farm Bureau mounts a major lobbying effort against it, and we,
the Senate, refuse to table the amendment as proposed by the chairman
of the committee handling this bill, the Senator from South Carolina.
Let us see what we are talking about. The farm workers of our country
are our most vulnerable workers. They have no spokesperson. Nobody
really cares about them. Nobody gives a damn about them. They live in
poverty, and they have no opportunity, very little, at any rate, to
improve their wages or their working conditions.
They desperately need protection from toxic pesticides. That is all
the EPA is talking about, providing them with some protection from
harmful, hurtful toxic pesticides.
By some estimates, as many as 300,000 workers a year are crippled by
exposure to pesticides. But nobody cares. Most of these workers never
even get to see a doctor. They are the forgotten workers of this
country.
The EPA's worker protection standard, which nobody claims is off the
wall, nobody claims it goes too far, would provide critical safety and
health protection to farm workers. By a 65-to-35 vote we moved to
defeat Senator Hollings' motion to table.
EPA's worker protection standards will provide training, provide for
personal protective equipment, ensure that growers will not force
workers back into the fields after a spraying of toxic pesticides until
it was safe to do so.
Who can argue with that? Why is it so terrible to say we ought not to
be sending workers back into the fields after spraying of toxic
pesticides until such time as it is safe to do so?
It provides for emergency assistance measures when workers are
exposed. Without these protections farm workers will continue to be
exposed to toxic pesticides.
What kind of Senators are we? Where is our humanity? Where is our
compassion? Is our compassion only with what the Farm Bureau wants and
what they do with their political action committee? Or does our
compassion have something to do with the safety of the people of this
country, the farm workers of this country?
EPA estimates that 80 percent of exposure-related injuries can be
prevented. They did not come up with this conclusion last week, last
month, or last year. The standard was developed over the past 10 years
with EPA acting in close coordination with the Department of
Agriculture, the States, and the agriculture community.
But this amendment would delay the critical protections for another
year-and-a-half. Why? What is it about it that requires that it be
delayed for a year-and-a-half? What kind of people are we that we say
no, we do not want the farm worker to be protected for at least another
year-and-a-half? I will guarantee you before that year-and-a-half
expires they will be back here asking for an additional extension.
A year-and-a-half is not just one growing season. It is two growing
seasons.
Make no mistake about it. A delay of a year-and-a-half means only one
thing. Thousands and thousands of farm workers will be unnecessarily
crippled by exposure to toxic pesticides. That is an intolerable
injustice.
I know the Members of this body, and I know that they are
compassionate, concerned, and worried about the health of the people of
this country.
If we are concerned about the health of the people of the country,
then we have to be concerned about the health of the farm workers of
this country.
Farm workers have waited 10 years for these protections. They should
not have to wait any longer. The administration opposes any further
delay in these long-awaited protections. Ten years is enough.
I said before that there are powerful lobbyists pushing to get this
amendment through, but I should note that a broad coalition of
organizations, most of which do not have any PAC's or anything of the
kind, supports the worker protection standard and opposes the Cochran
amendment to delay implementation of this standard. Let me tell you
some of those groups. The Environmental Justice Working Group, the
Farmworker Association of Florida, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee
of Ohio, the Farmworker Support Committee of New Jersey, the Friends of
the Earth, the General Teamster, Warehousemen, and Helpers Union,
Greenpeace, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, the National
Council of Churches, the National Wildlife Federation, the National
Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public
Citizen, the Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism, Sierra Club
Legal Defense Fund, the United States Catholic Conference, the
Wilderness Society, and the AFL-CIO.
In sum, I believe that those organizations that are prepared to stand
up for workers rights in this country, for a safe environment, for the
protection of the farm workers of this country, beg with you, they
implore you, they entreat with you, do not pass this amendment.
I think when it was voted on before many Members of this body did not
truly understand the implications of it. My guess is if I know the
Senate those who voted one way will continue to vote the same way. I
think the Members of this body ought to have an opportunity to vote up
or down on the amendment.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will be very brief.
I just rise to support the Senator from Ohio and to thank him for his
words.
When the Senator talked about the reason for this Environmental
Protection Agency initiative, he pointed out that the standard is
expected to provide at least an 80-percent reduction in the up to
20,000 physician-diagnosed pesticide poisonings each year.
I say to Senator Metzenbaum, when we talk about pesticide poisoning,
we are talking about men, and women, and children. I have visited with
some of those farmworkers, and I have seen what the statistics mean in
personal terms.
While I respect all of my colleagues, I hope each and every Senator
knows what their vote means in personal terms. It has been said that
justice delayed is justice denied. That is exactly what we are talking
about here.
The standard is the result of a lengthy process and a carefully
worked out agreement. As it is put into effect, if there are some
serious problems for farmers and agriculture, we can monitor that and
work it out.
I come from an agricultural State. The farmworkers are involved in
helping us get food to our table. Their work is important. They should
be valued.
I really fear that what has happened here on the floor of the Senate
is precisely what the Senator from Ohio has identified, which is to say
that there are those who do have economic clout, who do have big
organizations, who do have the lobbyists.
Madam President, could I have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate is not in
order.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I just wait, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Minnesota will suspend, we
will get order for him.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would appreciate it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has asked for order so that he can
make his remarks.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank you, Madam President.
When all of us speak on the floor, we do it because we believe what
we are saying is important. All of us believe in the arguments that we
make.
The Senator from Ohio has said something important, which is that we
ought to remember what this vote means in human terms. We ought to
remember what toxic chemicals can do to men, women, and children. We
ought to remember the purpose of this carefully worked out agreement.
We ought to understand all of this when we talk about environmental
justice, because that is what this vote was about, except it was about
environmental injustice.
I ask my colleagues to take a second look at this. It should not only
be those folks with big bucks and the lobbyists that march on
Washington every day who have a voice. It is sad but true--no
righteousness is intended--that farmworkers are often put into
parentheses. They are put in brackets. They are forgotten.
I would have thought by now in the United States of America the
Senate could have allowed the EPA to move forward with a standard which
provides some protection for men, women, and children--the same
protection, by the way, every Senator would want for her or his
children.
So I hope that Senators will reconsider this vote. I thank my
colleague from Ohio for what he has done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, before we vote on the amendment up or
down, I would like to put in the Record a list of questions that were
sent to all State commissioners of agriculture by the U.S. Association
of Departments of Agriculture and the response that was received from
the State of Ohio, submitted by the Ohio Department of Agriculture.
I ask unanimous consent that the questionnaire and the answers from
the State of Ohio be printed at this point in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Issues of National Importance to States in the Implementation of the
Federal Worker Protection Standards
Question 1:
The standard prohibits hand labor cultural activities
during a restricted entry interval (REI). Any other activity,
such as irrigation, that may result in contact with treated
surfaces is limited to 1 hour per employee during any 24 hour
period. The REI will be from 12 hours to 3 days depending on
the toxicity of the pesticide ingredient and average
rainfall. Entry during the first 4 hours is limited to
applicators and crop advisors wearing all personal protective
equipment (PPE).
How will compliance with these limits, especially the
irrigation restrictions, impact your farming operation?
Answer. The impact of restricted entry intervals (REI) on
crop production is most likely to have the greatest impact on
greenhouse growers in Ohio. Especially for irrigation of
crops, frequent entry into pesticide treatment areas can be
required on sunny days or during warmer months. Less impact
will be felt by large growers with automatic watering
systems, however, small growers with diverse crops in the
same production house can expect difficulty with compliance.
While EPA has proposed to allow some leeway for cut flower
growers; roses, carnations etc, this exception would not
apply to bedding plant producers who are very numerous in
Ohio. Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) could take
advantage of authority allowed by the WPS to seek exception
to limits on hand labor during a REI. Any exception is likely
to draw legal challenges from organized labor as is
threatened against the exception currently proposed by EPA.
Question 2:
New pesticide product labeling and the standard will
require field posting of all applicators of a dermal toxicity
category one active ingredient and all applications made in a
greenhouse regardless of the toxicity category of active
ingredient.
What do you see as the impact of these requirements on your
farming operation? How would you estimate the time and money
resources required to comply? Do you operate a greenhouse or
open field enterprise?
Answer. Field and greenhouse posting will be two separate
issues. In Ohio, many fruit and vegetable growers have done
field specific posting as required by Ohio law. Greenhouses
face many logistic issues with posting especially when
diverse crops are grown in the single structure and pesticide
applications may be directed to small areas within a larger
structure. Required posting for treatment done to a single
bench can restrict work in a much larger area of a
greenhouse. Especially for those greenhouses that allow
retail trade and customer access to production areas, there
will occur circumstances when customers may enter areas
inaccessible to workers.
Question 3:
The standard requires, in addition to field posting, oral
warnings for all dermal toxicity category one active
ingredients and all greenhouse fumigants. While the signs
must be placed at the edge of the field the oral warnings
must include both your employees and those of any contractor,
such as a custom applicator or labor contractor, who may walk
within \1/4\ mile of any of your fields that are under an
REI.
How do you envision identifying those required to be warned
and transmit the warnings to them of their direct employer?
Give examples of how you would attempt to comply with this
requirement in your farming operation.
Answer. Oral warnings to workers and handlers will be
difficult to enforce from the ODA perspective. Past
experience with this issue has been that we find a farmer
versus a laborer who tell us two different stories. Taking
any enforcement action under these circumstances can be very
difficult. Additionally, the need for farmers to orally warn
outside contractors; vegetable buyers, crop scouts, custom
applicators etc. places a significant burden on the grower to
know who is on the farm and where these outside persons may
be at any time.
Question 4:
The standard requires that written information about each
application, including the area treated, the date and time of
application, the restricted entry interval, and the product
name, registration number and identity of the active
ingredient, be posted at a central place where it is
accessible to employees. In most cases it must be posted
before the beginning of the application.
What significant problems, if any, do you see in your
farming operation coordinating the exchange of this
information between crop advisors, custom applicators and
yourself so that it can be posted by the time required? On
average, how many applications are made on your farm during a
year? How many separate (non-connected) parcels do you farm?
How many applications are canceled at the last minute due to
weather conditions or equipment problems?
Answer. Central posting of pesticide application
information is a good idea for small growers with small
numbers of workers. For larger operations which can spread
over large areas, their workers may seldom if ever, report to
a central location. In many cases, individual fields may be
separate from the central packing facility or administrative
site. At the satellite fields most growers do not maintain
facilities for information exchange as required by the rule.
Also, for large farm operations where integrated pest
management is well established, the farmer may perform
hundreds of individual pesticide applications. For example, a
different pesticide rate or timing for small blocks of crop
or different apple varieties in an orchard. By posting all of
these individual pesticide applications, workers can be
overwhelmed by the amount of information.
Question 5:
The new standard requires you and your family to comply
with labeling requirements for personal protective equipment
(PPE) and labeling prohibitions pertaining to REIs.
What situations would require you to enter your field
shortly after an application (during a restricted entry
interval)? How will the requirements for PPE and the time and
activity limitations impact these needs? Will this create any
problem situations for you?
Answer. Enforcement of provisions requiring the farmer or
immediate family members to wear all protective clothing
listed on the pesticide label is comparable to mandatory seat
belt laws. Under conditions of heat and high humidity many
individuals are going to choose limited pesticide exposure
over the use of protective clothing that limits their
mobility and may result in heat stress. Merely having
required protective equipment in each vehicle on the farm can
be a major cost and logistical issue, because the farmer
cannot anticipate which vehicle he will be operating when
field entry is required.
Question 6:
The standards provides that the farmers is equally
responsible for compliance and violations that might be made
by another person acting for you in either an employment of
contractual relationship, such as a custom applicator.
Do you sometimes use a contractors because you feel they
can do a better and safer job? Is the passing of some
liability to them a consideration in your decision? If you
are equally liable for violations, how would this affect your
decision to use a contractor, such as a custom applicator?
Answer. I view this issue as similar for both the custom
applicator and the farmer using custom application services.
The WPS communication requirements place a significant burden
on both parties to communicate before, during and after
pesticide applications. The most up to date communication
technology, cellular telephone, offers the best opportunity
to meet these communication requirements.
Question 7:
The new standard defines crop advisors as pesticide
handlers, like mixers/loaders, and applicators. Advisor
employees, such as dealers of farm management firms, must
meet the same requirements as custom applicators, including
PPE, change area, decontamination facilities, emergency eye
flushing, monitoring every 2 hours, handler training, and sit
specific information.
Do you use a crop advisor? What impacts do you see this
having on the work of the crop advisor, the advisor's
employer, and your farming operation?
Answer. The response to this question is similar to
question six. The demands for communication between the
farmer and any commercial crop services provider will create
many opportunities for failure to exchange required
information.
Question 8:
The new standard requires training every 5 years of both
pesticide handlers and early entry fieldworkers before they
begin work. Other fieldworkers must be trained before they
begin their 6th day of work (until October 1995, then before
the 16th day). You have equal responsibility with the custom
applicator or labor contractor to ensure these employees are
trained. The trainer must be a certified applicator or meet
other state designated qualifications.
How would you go about ensuring these employees (both your
own and contractors') are trained? Would you attempt to train
yourself or hire a training firm? If hiring, would you be
likely to give any preference to applicants who could
demonstrate that they were already trained?
Answer. In our discussion with growers and OSU Extension
staff, the point is to keep this process as simple as
possible. We recommend state standards for trainers be no
more restrictive than those found in the WPS. Considering the
limited complexity of training requirements for workers and
handlers, it is the belief of those with whom we have
discussed this issue, that ODA and OSU Extension identify
training materials which are approved for use by agricultural
employers.
Train the trainer programs can be incorporated into
existing pesticide applicator training programs. Agricultural
employers could then utilize training and; video tapes,
posters, and other materials available from OSU Extension to
provide the required training.
Training verification can be documented by signature
acknowledgment by the employee. The use of training
verification or identification cards is not recommended.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, let me just say that one of the issues
touched on in this questionnaire had to do with whether or not the
nursery industry would be covered by this new regulation. According to
the response of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, we are not talking
about huge landowner operations necessarily when we are talking about
these regulations. They apply in many more situations, small nurseries.
Here is one example. I am reading from answer No. 1. ``While EPA has
proposed to allow some leeway for cut-flower growers--roses,
carnations, et cetera--this exception would not apply to bedding plant
producers who are very numerous in Ohio. Ohio Department of Agriculture
could take advantage of authority allowed by the WPS''--that is the
Worker Protection Standard--``to seek exception to limits on hand labor
during a REI.'' That is a Restricted Entry Interval, a technical phrase
that they are trying to understand as they sort through the
regulations. ``Any exception is likely to draw legal challenges from
organized labor as it threatened against the exception currently
proposed by EPA.''
Now, I point that out, Madam President, simply to illustrate the fact
that there is still a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact
of these regulations--who might be fined or have sanctions imposed
against them, who may be trying in good faith to comply with the
regulations.
It is the State departments of agriculture who are going to have the
burden of enforcing adherence to the regulations. That is the whole
point.
This is offered because the departments of agriculture have been
continually trying to get a postponement of the enforcement date, the
date when citations will be issued, so that they can have their workers
trained, they can have staff people who understand what they are doing
out there enforcing the regulations, rather than just guessing in their
conversations with farmers and farm workers.
So the whole point of this is not to change the law. The whole point
of this is not to change the regulation, but to ensure that there is a
period of time within which the enforcers at the State level,
agricultural producers, farm worker groups, and all, can be certain
what is and is not against the rules and how do you go about protecting
farm workers under these regulations. That is the purpose of the
amendment.
I hope the Senate will reaffirm their decision on the amendment and
vote ``aye'' when the roll is called.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, we are back now to where we were at
about 10:30 this morning. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi
was submitting his amendment. I noted at that time that pesticides and
agriculture was not the subject of the bill and was not germane.
I heard, thereupon, that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi
was working his staff with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee,
Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy was busily engaged in the markup of the
rewrite of the Department of Agriculture's reorganization, a very
important matter.
But, by noontime, Senator Leahy was on the floor and addressed the
subject matter. I understood and I was confident they had worked out a
compromise, when the distinguished Senator from Ohio came to the floor
and, in reviewing the bill, had some questions and asked that 20
minutes be allowed so that his staff could really go down each item and
advise him further. I said, ``Fine.''
And then, 1 hour and 20 minutes after the 20 minutes given, I said I
was ready to move, in frustration really, to try to get a vote to try
to move something on this bill, that I would be moving to table. I was
prepared to move to table the amendment by 2:30, but, at the request of
the distinguished majority leader, he said let us put it at 3 o'clock.
So we then had at least an hour when we got the rollcall ordered and
notice given to all Senators. So we knew we had a rollcall on the
motion to table. If Senators were not informed, I do not know how to
give them more time to be informed.
I happen to agree with the Senator from Ohio. It does not belong on
this bill. It needs to be debated otherwise and fully considered and
fully heard. Things of that kind are totally extraneous from anything
we have in this 140-page measure.
But there is the action of the Senate. We have to have action. We
have to start moving on some of these amendments, because you can see
the position that we are in once this is disposed of and we go back to
the Danforth amendment.
Here we have an amendment that states very simply:
Notwithstanding any other provision in this act, the
amounts authorized to be appropriated by this act shall not
be appropriated, but rather the Committee on Finance of the
Senate is directed to consider using the equivalent amount to
make permanent the research and development tax credit.
Well, quite to the point, we do not need an amendment for the Finance
Committee. They can consider this amendment, any amendment, or no
amendments. And even after considering it, we know, after passing tax
laws, it has to arrive in the House of Representatives.
Working 3 years at least on the bill, having passed it, as was noted
by the Senator from Arkansas, back in 1988, having it included in an
authorization 2 years ago by President Bush, all with the support of
the distinguished Senator from Missouri who is the ranking member on my
committee, having been sent 2 years ago unanimously over to the House
side and agreed upon in conference, then, with the House and Senate all
signing off, including the distinguished Senator from Missouri, then we
could not get it up in the closing days so we come back and unanimously
pass it out of the Committee of Commerce with the support of the
Senator from Missouri--and now he comes and talks about philosophy.
Maybe just take all the money.
We have had programs--we have the Bureau of Standards, which is now
the National Institute of Standards. That is the major portion of the
money. So you would not want to just abolish the Bureau of Standards
and consider, over in the Finance Committee, an R&D tax credit with
those moneys, which is not necessary for the consideration of the
Finance Committee in the first place. It is absolutely ludicrous what
they are doing here.
I am trying to fathom just what they have in mind, because we had
such strong support. I will be able to address my comments further on
the Danforth amendment. But I wanted to note for the Record we have
been more than deliberate, more than considerate. It has been the
Members who just will not come to the floor, will not debate it, will
not bring their amendments, and are using every delaying tactic. And
then they are going to come around--and I can see them beating on my
shoulder tomorrow night: Why do we have to stay here until Friday?
We are going to stay here until Friday. The majority leader announced
that last night. Heavy on Friday, and I hope maybe we can get votes on
Monday. If there is any way to work it out, this Senator is ready to
work it out and keep working this bill, because we know we have a solid
bill. The third day on this bill, after unanimously passing it twice,
now comes with not an amendment to the bill. But now we are back to
pesticides. And when we get through with the pesticides, the next
amendment is going to be the R&D tax credit for the Finance Committee.
That is all out of whole cloth. But I do appreciate the indulgence of
the Senate.
So we can just understand what we are trying to do, if there is an
amendment to the bill, name the page and section, and fine; let us
amend it or at least consider it. But let us not come with R&D tax
credits, not within the purview of our Commerce Committee; pesticides,
not within the purview of the Commerce Committee, or this particular
measure; not with GATT Treaties; not with postal affairs and all these
other things that are coming along.
I do not know where they get the idea just because they have a good
bill that has been reconciled with everyone now they want to, like
Samson, come and tear the walls down and ruin it all; just get nothing.
And then talk about gridlock.
But I am glad to see the Senator from Oklahoma here because they told
me he was coming to the floor at 2 o'clock yesterday.
Is there further debate on the bill? Are we ready to vote again?
Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I have been around here a long time. I
understand when you lose a vote, tabling 65 to 35, it is pretty hard to
defeat it the second time around. You may even lose some of those. But
I just feel so strongly, so deeply about this whole question of farm
workers.
I do not know farm workers. I am a city boy. I do not know much about
farms. I know more about what is happening in the communities of
Cleveland, Columbus, Youngstown--some of the other cities of Ohio. I
have a relationship with the farm workers of Ohio, some of the farmers
of Ohio. I would not be here if I did not have a good relationship with
them. After my original remarks, I just got a call from the Ohio
Farmers Union saying: We are totally supportive of what your position
is on this.
I say to all of you, you all go out and campaign, talk about your
concern for the American people, indicate you are here because you want
to make America a better place in which to live. I would say, of the
100 Members of this body, myself excluded--they are all sterling men
and women. Overwhelmingly churchgoing people, some temple-going
people--whatever the religious preference. But in the main, God-fearing
people concerned about their fellow human beings on Sunday, or on
Saturday, as the case may be.
But this is only Wednesday. And this is the day when push comes to
shove, when we really ought to be concerned about our fellow human
beings--not what we say in our prayers, but what we do here on the
floor of the Senate.
Nobody is talking about imposing some big tax or something. That is
not involved in this amendment at all. Nobody is talking about any
special provisions that are going to make farmers of this country have
an undue burden.
My good friend from Mississippi, a very well-respected Member of this
body, says all we are trying to do is get some delay. I confess when I
left the Senate before, around the noon hour, I was under the
impression there had been some compromise worked out and there was
going to be some delay. But not 18 months. I think it was to be 9
months, as I understand it.
I came back and said, ``What happened?''
They said, ``We are not quite sure, but I guess the Senator from
Mississippi and his colleagues rejected that.''
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point just
for a response?
Mr. METZENBAUM. Sure. Sure.
Mr. COCHRAN. I think there may be some misinformation about that
matter. The understanding was that there would be a moratorium agreed
to by the Senate that would last until January 1, 1995, and the Senate
would contemporaneously pass a freestanding bill in addition to
approving the amendment that would be placed on this bill that would
have the same provisions.
This Senator was advised that the Senator from Ohio--and maybe
others, but specifically the Senator from Ohio--objected to the passage
of the freestanding bill. That was my understanding why the agreement
was not reached.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my
colleague. Until you just said that, I never heard it. So, the whole
question of a freestanding bill--I was involved yesterday on some
issues having to do with a freestanding bill, but not on this subject
at all. It was a totally unrelated subject with the Senator from Kansas
[Mrs. Kassebaum]. There we did agree upon a freestanding bill, to which
she was very agreeable. We were agreeable, too. We came to agreement.
Whether or not somehow there was a miscommunication, I do not know.
Let me ask the Senator from Mississippi a very elementary question at
this moment. Will the Senator from Mississippi agree to reduce the 18-
month period to 9 months?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to the
distinguished Senator, if he will yield. We had tentatively reached an
agreement to do that so the date would be January 1995, if there could
be the passage by the Senate of a freestanding bill that would contain
the same provisions. That was the proposal that was made by this
Senator for one way to resolve the issue.
We had been led to believe that had the support of Senators on your
side, including the Senate Agriculture Committee and others, but that
the Senator from Ohio objected to it.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, as I have already indicated, I did not
object to it because I did not know about it until my colleague just
mentioned it. Would the Senator from Mississippi be willing to accept
the compromise, 9 months in this bill, and do it right now and pass it
and get it behind us? Because a freestanding bill involves the
leadership of the Senate, it involves other committees of jurisdiction.
But if we could agree upon a 9-month delay, would that be acceptable
to the Senator; either he could offer it or I could offer it, and then
agree to the amendment?
Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield further, Mr. President, I will
respond by saying what we want is a delay that sticks and that we know
we are going to have, not just one that is attached as an amendment to
this bill that may not be accepted by the House.
It may be changed in conference and modified even further. What we
need is relief from the April 15 deadline that is almost upon us, a
little more than a month away. So we need action, and we need to be
assured that this will be something that will delay the enforcement of
the regulations.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Neither you nor I have control of all the procedures,
both in the Senate and the House. We do have some impact upon this
piece of legislation at the moment. As I understand it, your desire is
to delay it until, is it January 1, 1995, or is it 9 months?
Mr. COCHRAN. The date in the amendment is October 23, 1995. That was
the original provision of the amendment. Just for the Senator's
information, we were using the Kassebaum amendment as a model for
trying to craft a compromise that could be a fair resolution of the
issue.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I am a little confused now when you
mention the Kassebaum amendment because the Kassebaum amendment, as you
well know, has to do with airplane manufacturers' liability, a totally
unrelated subject.
Are you now suggesting that this matter be joined with that issue in
a bill? I am not quite clear because I am trying to figure out whether
or not we can resolve this issue now. As I understand this bill that is
pending, it provides for an 18-month delay in implementation; is that
correct?
Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct, Mr. President, if the Senator
will yield.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Would you be willing to agree now in this bill--I do
not know about a separate bill because that gets beyond my rank--but
the question is, would you be willing to agree to a 9-month extension
and adopt this amendment?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if we were starting over again, and the
Senate had not voted by such an overwhelming margin against the motion
to table this amendment, I would be willing to discuss what we could do
on this bill. But without some assurance that the action we take in
agreeing to a compromise on the amendment that, in effect, has been
approved by the Senate, which includes a freestanding bill that the
Senate will pass, I am unable to make that kind of concession right
now.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi give
some indication as to why he thinks that a freestanding bill is going
to be that much easier to pass both in the Senate and the House because
a freestanding bill, as you know, coming to the floor of the Senate is
subject to amendment and open to any kind of amendment, whether it is
striker replacement or some measure somebody else might have in mind.
We are now talking about this particular bill and whether or not we
cannot wrap this up momentarily, in short order, and let the Senator
from South Carolina proceed to the conference committee. My guess is,
if that were the result that came about, that we agreed upon a 9-month
figure and put it to bed, I do feel strongly it has a much better
chance of remaining after the conference committee meets, because I
think the Senate would have indicated--I am simply indicating we adopt
that by voice vote.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would ask
the Senator to consider whether we could agree to a freestanding bill
with a 9-month delay of enforcement of the regulations under the
following conditions. There would be no amendments to the bill and no
motion to table or change the bill in any other way. This amendment
would be taken up and passed by the Senate, and it then could proceed
to be adopted on a voice vote to this bill, as it has been presented to
the Senate. In my view, that would be one way to resolve the issue.
But otherwise, we see no need to change this amendment, which has
already been, in effect, approved by the Senate. It does not seem to
this Senator that we are in any position now to have to make any
concessions to the Senator from Ohio to get the Senate to approve this
amendment that is now the pending business and on which the yeas and
nays have been ordered.
Mr. METZENBAUM. If I may respond to my friend from Mississippi, I do
not believe it has been approved. I think the Senate concluded not to
table it. I also believe that many Members of the Senate are not aware
of the damage and the hurt that this could do to literally thousands of
farmworkers in this country.
I think the Senator from Mississippi is also aware of the fact that
this amendment is open to a second-degree amendment of any kind
whatsoever with no limitations, and the Senator from Ohio makes no
bones about it that he is considering offering such an amendment
because it is a great vehicle to use.
So I do not think the ball game is really over, even though the
Senate refused to table the amendment.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS. I understand that the Senator from Ohio momentarily
will be back in the Chamber. They are negotiating.
Going right to the point, Mr. President, with respect to the Danforth
amendment, the distinguished Senator from Missouri has come with this
folderol, as best it could be described, about the alleged new
philosophy underlying this bill. And he says, by the way, they had a
hearing this morning and that he asked the president of Boeing about
the matter of subsidies that would be obtained from the Department of
Defense. And, of course, the Boeing president, as he allowed, said no,
there were not any subsidies for aircraft, commercial aircraft
manufacture from the Department of Defense.
Let me first state that the president of Boeing was testifying before
the Finance Committee this morning in support, in support, of the so-
called subsidy provision of GATT. That should not be misled. And then
emphasize that the Senator from Missouri did not have to ask any
question about what the president of Boeing thought or felt about it
because he, the Senator from Missouri, knows of the Department of
Defense and its subsidy of commercial aircraft manufacturing.
In fact, on his bill, S. 14, of which he is the principal author, as
to aeronautical technologies research, development, and
commercialization, he cites on page 4 the Department of Defense and
says:
Such government/industry consortium should focus its
efforts on research, development and commercialization of new
aeronautical technologies and related manufacturing
technologies as well as the transfer and conversion of
aeronautical technologies developed for national security
purposes to commercial applications for large civil aircraft.
I notice the majority leader has come to the floor. I want to yield
at this particular point, but I emphasize that there is no new
philosophy. I am hearing from colleagues from the other side of the
aisle that maybe we can tighten this a little bit. It does not need
tightening. The distinguished Senator from Missouri has been talking
about $2.8 billion. But the truth of the matter is there is only $70
million in extension centers for 1995, $100 million for 1996, and over
a 2-year period $170 million. That is a mere pittance. If they want to
tighten it more, it is not $2.8 billion when he says in his amendment
to take the moneys under the bill and do not even appropriate them. He
abolishes the old Bureau of Standards at $400 million. In there is the
old Bureau of Standards and the other departments of commerce, not the
grant programs.
So this is a well-conceived, comprehensive approach to the matter of
competitiveness and technology. But it is totally not representative of
some kind of plum or pork bill and slush fund of $2.8 billion. Then to
come now and beg the question. After all, in defense there is no
spinoff to the private aircraft industry.
We have in here, and I will quote it further. McDonnell-Douglas just
won an award that they bid on from the Department of Defense for the
commercialization of technology in the private aircraft industry.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I wish to address a matter not related
to the legislation.
____________________