[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.

                          ____________________