[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to once again ask my 
colleagues to consider the urgency and importance of the bill before 
us, S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act.
  I am still trying to understand why it is taking so much time and 
energy to pass a bill that is about the heart and soul of this country. 
Knowing what challenges we face in staying competitive and prosperous, 
I find it inconceivable that anyone would oppose this effort. 
Personally, knowing the opportunities this bill poses for my own 
State--its industries, its workers and their families--I am determined 
to see us get this legislation signed into law.
  All of a sudden, we are hearing a series of misgivings about the idea 
of continuing a long tradition of the Government working with American 
industry to stay on the cutting edge of technology, improve 
manufacturing, and create and even expand jobs for our people. In light 
of the obvious competition we face in technology throughout the world, 
isn't this bill one of the equally obvious answers--a bill to invest in 
the Nation's economic future.
  The bill before us is not a new or radical idea. It is not even some 
sharp swerve in policy and direction. The programs we want to continue 
or expand are the same ones that something called the Senate Republican 
Task Force on Adjusting the Defense Base specifically endorsed in 1992. 
In that report, it was noted that these kinds of programs are 
``important to the effort to promote technology transfer to allow 
defense industries to convert to civilian activities.''
  Both Democrats and Republicans in the private sector support this 
legislation and the time-tested concepts that are its underpinnings.
  Just this week, the head of the Council on Competitiveness, in 
endorsing this legislation, reminded us that many of the provisions in 
S. 4 were initially proposed by the Bush administration and were in 
fact signed into law by President Bush. That includes the Advance 
Technology Program, started under the Bush administration with 
bipartisan support in this body. This is the Government's principal 
civilian program to help industry develop new technologies where the 
risks or costs are just too much for companies to undertake alone. The 
projects are industry-led, selected completely on the basis of merit 
through a stringent review process, and require the companies to 
contribute half of the costs. The idea of this program is to avoid the 
infamous VCR experience--where Americans invented a path-breaking 
technology only to see others solve technical problems more quickly 
than we did, and get to the market first.
  In contrast to some of the debate within these walls, just take a 
look outside and you will be quickly reminded and assured that his bill 
has strong bipartisan support and intense industry support. Indeed, the 
fact of the matter is that this bill springs from a tradition of 
public-private partnerships that go back decades.
  Go back to World War II. As we woke up to the challenges being posed 
by the Europeans, the United States committed the resources needed to 
stay ahead. That investment led to new products, new industries, and 
higher living standards.
  As a recent Business Week article pointed out, U.S. wartime 
discoveries fueled growth in the aerospace, nuclear power, 
pharmaceutical, and electronics industries. And looking at the next 
four decades, ``fundamental research produced transistors, lasers, and 
molecular biology--the foundations of America's world-leading computer, 
communications, and biotech industries.''
  The entire U.S. Senate should strongly support the bill. As one of 
its original cosponsors and architects, I am enormously proud of this 
legislation. Through the steps that we propose, we will strengthen our 
country's economy, promote U.S. competitiveness, and create more and 
better jobs for the people of West Virginia and the rest of America.
  I commend Senator Hollings, chairman of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, who has been the master-architect of this effort. Many other 
Members of this body have devoted serious thought and work to this 
blueprint for investment and economic growth, and I hope they all get 
the credit they deserve from the people and industries of their States.
  This is an important bill, Mr. President, because it focuses 
attention on the most pressing things we need to do to compete in the 
international marketplace now and into the 21st century.
  I presume that we will be discussing this bill throughout the day. 
That's understandable, since it is a significant proposal that deserves 
this body's full consideration. But I want to say as loudly as it is 
humanly possible that this should not turn into a debate designed to 
win political points.
  This legislation deserves bipartisan support. It embodies the 
pragmatism, the fiscal discipline, the commitment to private-public 
partnerships, and the dedication to economic growth that all of us 
share as objectives. It is based on practical experience in technology 
programs within other agencies that have paid enormous dividends. It 
recognizes that investing, by working directly with industry, in 
technology, is the road to a more robust and competitive economy.
  I have pointed out on other occasions in this Chamber that if we are 
to maintain our position of global leadership, we must understand the 
changes in the world that will define our future and adjust our goals 
accordingly. Put simply, the end of the cold war means that our global 
leadership role will be determined by our economic strength, which will 
define our political and military strength. Economic strength, in turn, 
will be measured by our ability to compete in the critical industries 
of tomorrow that will be the infrastructure of the 21st century.

  We usually think of infrastructure as roads and bridges, concrete and 
steel. But it is now telecommunications and information, electronics, 
fiber optics and computers. Instead of the interstate highway system, 
we are contemplating smart highways, supersonic air transport, and 
information superhighways. These are the things that will drive our 
economy in the future.
  Japan and the rapidly industrializing countries of the Pacific rim 
understand this and are acting quickly to prepare themselves for the 
future. Unfortunately, planning ahead has become politically incorrect 
in the United States in the past decade. As a result, we are behind the 
economic eight-ball, still debating the wisdom of Government action to 
improve our manufacturing and R&D base, while our competitors have gone 
ahead with aggressive action of this very sort.
  If we lived in a world of closed markets and limited trade, we could 
avoid these changes and survive. But as we all know, our world is 
rapidly becoming a single market, making us constantly vulnerable to 
our competitors' efforts. The computer I use may contain Japanese 
semiconductors on a motherboard assembled in Singapore, shipped to 
Taiwan where it is put inside its plastic frame along with a screen 
assembled in Malaysia, before it is finally sent here--by an American 
company.
  That kind of globalized production may be inevitable, but it still 
occurs in a world of nation-states, and governments have not lost their 
ability to influence their own competitiveness through appropriate 
macro and microeconomic policy tools.
  The National Competitiveness Act is about the latter--using our micro 
policy tools on behalf of the industries and sectors we need to be a 
high technology 21st century economy.
  I might add that I still believe we missed a golden opportunity to 
move quickly on these issues last spring when Congress rejected the 
President's stimulus program. Almost unnoticed in the debate over 
summer jobs and other short-term spending was the immediate investment 
that was included for technology research, development, and 
commercialization.
  This legislation is about where we know or competitive future lies. 
It is manufacturing that generates not only jobs but profits to fund 
research and development of new generations of technology and products. 
We may lead the world in research--and I would argue that we do--but 
ultimately if we don't make anything, we won't invent anything, and we 
won't create good jobs for our workers. S. 4 deals directly with 
commercialization and technology diffusion.

  First, as others have made clear, it expands and extends our existing 
manufacturing technology outreach efforts. Making the latest technology 
and know-how available throughout our country, particularly in States 
like West Virginia that have large rural populations and small towns 
helps all our companies, including our smaller businesses improve their 
competitiveness. For example, in my home State of West Virginia, this 
bill will authorize a telecommunication network that will connect the 
rural schools, hospitals, and manufacturers to the information highway. 
These organizations will have the same access to information and data 
that the more densely populated States already have. This portion of 
the bill makes the State more competitive in international markets 
which create more high quality jobs--the responsibility of those of us 
who serve as elected representatives.
  This bill also opens the door to new, innovative ways of looking at 
the process of becoming competitive. It includes language I had sought 
that could lead to the creation of a manufacturing technology center or 
manufacturing outreach center that is concerned with the total 
competitive environment in a region and not just with technology 
transfer. A region's education system, its tax policies, its zoning 
rules, and a thousand other, largely non-Federal, Government-related 
activities have a critical impact on the companies that operate within 
the region. Helping local governments and community leaders understand 
that and adjust their policies so advanced manufacturing and 
competitive companies are encouraged rather than discouraged is an 
important new element in this bill.
  In addition, S. 4 focuses directly on the need to spur 
commercialization, which we all know is absolutely critical to our 
future. Thanks to a great deal of work, the bill includes a revised 
version of a proposal I originally introduced in 1992 to provide 
Federal support for venture capital investments in critical technology 
commercialization.
  Mr. President, many of us believe that this country has an investment 
capital shortage right now. Others do not agree with that assessment, 
but all would agree that we clearly have a shortage of capital willing 
to invest in relatively high risk critical technologies and willing to 
invest at the critical commercialization stage of development. 
Conventional venture capital companies have become risk averse over the 
years, focusing on safer high return investments and often coming in 
only at a later stage when success is more likely.
  In truth, there's nothing wrong with that--it's the market making 
appropriate judgments about where money should go to ensure a return. 
But that does not mean that is in the national interest. It is my view, 
Mr. President--and we have had hearings on this issue--that we could 
significantly assist our critical technology companies in bringing 
their ideas from the laboratory or prototype into mass production 
through carefully structured minimal assistance from the Government.

  S. 4 achieves that goal through its critical technology financing 
program. By licensing venture capital firms specifically to invest in 
critical technology enterprises and then purchasing some of their 
equity with Federal dollars, the Government will create a cadre of 
venture capitalists focusing their creative energies specifically on 
critical technology development with a minimal transfer of Federal 
funds.
  Most important in this concept is the fact that the investment 
decision making process remains in private hands. This is not the 
Federal Government making investments or selecting winners and losers. 
It is the private venture capitalists doing that--and they have the 
expertise to succeed at it. The Federal role, and the Federal funds, 
give them the incentive and the opportunity to take the particular 
risks inherent in this kind of investment. We all know how successful 
our basic research programs have been--leading to many Nobel prizes--
but how many of our best ideas have not created jobs in this country. 
This provision of the bill will help to take the best ideas from 
American research laboratories to products by providing patient venture 
capital. This will create more high quality manufacturing jobs.
  It is interesting to note, Mr. President, that there was little or no 
debate over this section of the bill. It is so obvious, it has 
attracted wide support. Instead, we had an extensive debate over 
whether this program should be run by the Department of Commerce, our 
lead civilian technology agency, or by the Small Business 
Administration, whose SBIC program has some similarities to the 
critical technology investment companies that would be created.
  In the end, as so often happens, we produced a compromise, and the 
Senators from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] 
are to be commended for their cooperation in working this out. I will 
leave it to others to describe the details of the revised provision, 
Mr. President. Let me simply note that since this is fundamentally a 
technology program, Commerce will retain the policy and decision making 
lead but will rely on SBA's administrative experience in programs of 
this kind to actually manage it. In my view, this is a suitable outcome 
that uses the strengths of both agencies to create a successful 
program.
  The basis for this resolution came directly from discussions between 
the Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, and the Small Business 
Administrator, Erskine Bowles, both of whom, on behalf of the 
administration, support this provision. I am also grateful to them for 
their hard work and personal involvement in seeing this issue through.
  I know that there are others in the administration, who were only 
beginning their analysis of the venture capital problem when we were 
ending ours, who are considering other means of achieving the same 
objective. That is why this program is structured not to begin for a 
year, and the Commerce Department is directed in the interim to develop 
detailed procedures for its implementation. It may well be that the 
Department will return to us in a year suggesting some modifications 
even before the program begins. That would be entirely appropriate, and 
I am sure the committee will consider such seriously.
  Let me simply close by reiterating how important this legislation is. 
I want to commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee again, and my 
many colleagues who have worked for years to craft this agenda for the 
future. I am very grateful for the hard work, the imagination, and 
public service that were poured into this legislative effort by 
numerous staff.
  This bill is significant because it looks to our future, not our 
past. It puts in place the objectives, the commitments, and the 
programs to pave a future of continued global economic leadership. And 
that future translates into one of hope, opportunity, and jobs for the 
American people.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wofford). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I wish you a good morning.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Simpson, for 
including my language in the Republican substitute aimed at promoting 
industrial competitiveness and economic growth through Federal 
regulatory reform.
  Both sides recognize the necessity of job creation. Federal agencies 
must consider the costs associated with Government regulation. The 
American family is currently paying over $1,000 per family every year 
for the cost of environmental regulations.
  The question before us is the merits of cost-benefit analysis. The 
environmental community, the Environmental Protection Agency, and some 
of my colleagues on the other side are fearful of cost-benefit analysis 
being a factor in promulgating regulations along with the consideration 
of international competitiveness and economic growth.
  Agencies should be required in law to publish a cost-benefit analysis 
in the Federal Register. The merits of every law that we pass should be 
evaluated in terms of costs and benefits. This evaluation should 
include a risk analysis.
  The public really needs to have this information. A logical place to 
put it is in the Federal Register.
  My amendment requires the Federal agency heads to publish in the 
Federal Register cost-benefit analysis for all proposed regulations.
  More specifically, the regulatory actions to be published in the 
Federal Register with an accompanying cost-benefit analysis include a 
notice of proposed rulemaking, an interim final rule, and then a final 
rule. The cost-benefit analysis should include some detail, not an 
overabundance of detail, but some practical and understandable 
recognition of the proposed regulations costs and benefits so everyone 
can read and understand them. So often, we react after the fact to 
horror stories from a constituent, and we shake our head and say, ``I 
cannot imagine how that ever happened. That certainly was not the 
intent.''
  The cost-benefit analysis should include an analysis of specific 
costs and the benefits resulting from the regulation and specifically a 
certification from the Federal agency head that the regulation will 
produce benefits that justify the cost. There is an environmental 
terrorism associated with what this means. This is not an unfair 
obligation nor an unreasonable requirement--a simple certification that 
the regulation will produce benefits that justify the cost.
  The costs as a result of implementation of, and compliance with, the 
proposed regulations would include the total number of direct and 
indirect jobs to be lost, the costs to the Federal Government and local 
governments and other public and private entities, and the human health 
or environmental risks created. With the cost-benefit analysis, it 
would put an obligation, an appropriate obligation, to evaluate some 
very important considerations.
  Benefits include the total number of direct and indirect jobs to be 
gained, the savings accrued by the Federal, State, and local 
governments and other private and public entities, and the human health 
or environmental risk reduced. We would like to think that the benefits 
of regulations outweigh the costs in most cases but that is not always 
the case.
  The amendment covers the cost of regulatory reform on the economy 
because there are costs. With the exploding costs of unfunded Federal 
mandates which are imposed on local governments, the public should have 
cost-benefit information available to them in the Federal Register.
  Regulations often fail to assess the minuscule risks, and some of 
them are very small, being addressed compared to the enormous costs of 
reducing the risk. In my State of Alaska, unreasonable regulations are 
most often in the area of environmental regulations, and they are 
uniform. When they make a uniform environmental regulation, it has 
different effects in Alaska than it has in other States. For example, 
we are the only State with the Arctic in it. We have a big hunk of our 
State that is in the Arctic. Wetlands are synonymous with permafrost 
and we are the only State with permafrost. You mandate a wetlands 
application; permafrost automatically is included--and one-half of our 
State is in permafrost--and away we go. It is a free license for the 
EPA, the Corps of Engineers and on and on and on.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to yield without losing my right to 
the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I know it is very, very difficult to keep up. We 
adopted that amendment yesterday, cost-benefit analysis, in the 
Nickles-Reid portion of the Simpson amendment. I just thought I would 
bring that to the attention of the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that from my good friend from South 
Carolina, but I am under the impression that my amendment as included 
in the Simpson substitute is more direct on cost-benefits as opposed to 
the Nickles, which is in the area of economic attention specifically.
  So I want to just complete my little treatise here on the emphasis on 
the environmental area, because, Mr. President, Government, business, 
and industry in our country spent approximately $115 billion for 
pollution control in 1990, and it is estimated that the figure will 
increase to $185 billion per year--that is 2.3 percent of our gross 
national product--by the year 2000. EPA continues to implement, I 
think, overly burdensome regulations while the Government continues to 
talk about creating jobs.
  The tragedy is aggravated by the fact that we often know so little 
about the benefits of regulation. Regulations often are based upon 
inadequate scientific analysis or fail to assess the minuscule risks 
being addressed compared to the enormous costs of reducing risks.
  I do not know how many of you saw a Washington Post article, I think 
it was yesterday. It covered a statement by the EPA. One of the EPA 
water quality rules allows arsenic levels no more than 2 or 3 parts per 
billion. Now, we all hear about arsenic, and we react and, good 
heavens, we have it in our water and we are told that we cannot have 
levels of more than 2 or 3 parts per billion. Yet we go out and eat a 
plate of shrimp, and a plate of shrimp contains 30 parts per billion. 
But there is no bridge between the two, which points out that clearly 2 
to 3 parts per billion in water is of little concern to human health.
  Now, there are other examples about which I could speak. We talk 
about the proposed ban on lead fishing sinkers and about the merits of 
ingestion of the sinkers by birds. I am not going to go into these 
examples. I am just saying, Mr. President, that we are entitled to have 
this cost-benefit analysis. I am pleased it is in the Republican 
substitute. I wish to keep the issue alive. It is not a partisan issue; 
it is a bipartisan issue because it represents common sense.
  This is an important issue--the Federal Government often spends a 
fortune on enforcing regulations where the costs far outweigh the 
risks. And this cost-benefit analysis, I think, is an essential element 
to the regulatory reform that needs to be addressed.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague, 
Senator Simpson, from Wyoming for putting this package together. I wish 
to especially say thank you to my friend and colleague, Senator 
Murkowski, from Alaska, for the statement he made concerning cost-
benefit analysis, which is needed so desperately.
  I picked up the paper recently, and it talked about EPA saying cost 
on a life saved is as much as $1 billion per life. And some of these 
regulations imposed have such enormous costs, whether you are talking 
about clean air or clean water, OSHA, or you are talking about others, 
having a risk-benefit assessment is awfully important.
  I also wish to thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming for 
including the Nickles-Reid Economic and Employment Act, which we agreed 
to yesterday, because not only do we need to know the risk and economic 
benefit, but we also need to know the cost and we need to know the 
impact on employment.
  So I think the Murkowski amendment and the Nickles-Reid amendment 
complement each other significantly and, I think, will be giant steps 
in the right direction.
  I also wish to thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming for 
including a couple of other provisions, one of which deals with Davis-
Bacon reform and increasing the threshold from $2,000 to $100,000. I 
think people are shocked when they find out that the Federal Government 
still mandates wage rates on any Federal construction project that is 
more than $2,000.
  That means, I say to my colleague from Wyoming, if you had a little 
post office in Cody that had a door that needed to be fixed or a little 
roof repair, if a contractor said, well, that is going to be over 
$2,000, they cannot just do the work. They cannot just say here is what 
the contract will be. They would have to go all the way back to 
Washington, DC, get the Department of Labor, and ask what is the 
prevailing wage. And maybe they already have the prevailing wage in 
Cody. But I will tell you, they do not have the prevailing wage in a 
lot of rural areas. And yet the Federal Government is going to mandate 
what the wage rates are for any Federal construction project that is 
over $2,000. I find that to be ridiculous in this day and age. That is 
the same $2,000 that was enacted in 1935. It makes no sense.
  So this is commonsense reform. It says, wait a minute. For small 
construction projects, let us not have the Federal Government mandating 
what people will pay. Let us not have the Department of Labor determine 
what people should be paid. Let us allow private contractors, working 
with their employees, who know best what the value or the merit of that 
job is, to determine what the wage level will be, not the Department of 
Labor.
  So I think that is an excellent piece of reform. My friend from 
Wyoming has come up with a very good, a very credible package, one that 
does not cost money. Unlike the original bill, which is going to cost 
taxpayers, if it is all appropriated, $2.8 billion, this program is 
going to save money. The Davis-Bacon regs alone will save over $30 
million over a few years. It is going to save a lot of money for 
companies and individuals who will not have to comply with useless and 
needless regulations.

  I think it is an excellent package, and an excellent substitute. I 
compliment my friend from Wyoming for putting it together.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. President. He has 
done tremendous work in this area over the years. In doing so he has 
often presented matters to the Senate for consideration only to see 
them targeted in a single-shot way, and then immediately in a partisan 
vote shot down.
  So he has, thanks to the floor manager, now included an amendment 
which is of great interest to him. And I appreciate him making the 
distinction between the Murkowski amendment on cost analysis and his 
own amendment on cost analysis, hoping at least to attempt to answer 
the question of Senator Hollings; that they are different, and that 
they deal with different aspects of cost analysis.
  But I know who has been working in this vineyard, laboring long for 
years, and that is the Senator from Oklahoma. I deeply appreciate that.
  Mr. President, I believe the order of business is that we are on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment was sent up last night. As 
the Senate begins debate on S. 4, the so-called Competitiveness Act, we 
must ask ourselves: Do we enhance American competitiveness by allowing 
ever greater Government intervention in the private sector? I do not 
think so. The better approach is to attempt to reduce the existing 
regulatory burdens which are anticonsumer, and which greatly inhibit 
American competitiveness. Senators Dole, Nickles, Cochran, Pressler, 
Thurmond, Durenberger, Coverdell, Hutchison, Helms, Craig, Coats, 
Kempthorne, Wallop, Mack, Murkowski, Gramm, Lott, Smith, Gorton, 
Warner, and I will be offering a substitute amendment to S. 4 which we 
believe is a real competitiveness bill. It is aimed at reversing the 
trend of anticompetitive regulations which take such an immense toll on 
our economy. It also makes an effort to reform the process which leads 
to the promulgation of such regulations.
  Over the past century, Federal regulations have collectively limited 
our economy's ability to approach its maximum potential for growth. As 
many as 85 percent of Americans agree that Government regulators are 
now out of control and that lowering the cost of regulation to the 
public should be a very top priority. The American consumer obviously 
know what is up. We consumers ultimately bear the costs of all these 
regulations. The Clinton administration in the reinventing government 
proposal has stated that the current costs of government regulation in 
America is $430 billion per year. Thomas Hopkins of Rochester Institute 
of Technology, who is thought to have authored the foundational study 
of the cost of regulations, has projected $564 billion as the figure 
for 1992. Either way, it amounts to $4,300 to $5,600 per family per 
year. These costs do not appear on any Government ledgers or on a 
paysheet stub. It is a hidden tax which equals or exceeds the average 
Federal tax burden on an American family, estimated at $4,000 per year 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey 1988-
1989.

  Our objective is to provide regulatory relief to American consumers 
without endangering their health or their safety. This is not all-
sweeping legislation. Much more can and should be done. Our amendment 
has the endorsement of the 600,000-member NFIB and the Labor Policy 
Association. I ask unanimous consent that various letters of 
endorsement be printed in the Record after these remarks.
  This legislation incorporates a few good ideas from both sides of the 
aisle. Some of them are new, and some have been shot down when offered 
separately in the past. But, it is a good start down the right path of 
regulatory reform. And based on preliminary CBO estimates, our 
amendment would save approximately $1 billion over 5 years.
  Included in this amendment is language from Senator Dole's Government 
downsizing bill relating to reforming the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. We 
have also applied the same reforms to the Service Contract Act of 1965. 
Throughout their history, these laws have artificially increased the 
cost of Federal construction and service contracts. Davis-Bacon 
requires that construction contracts of more than $2,000 entered into 
by the Federal Government specify minimum wages to be paid to the 
various classes of laborers and mechanics working under those 
contracts. The minimum wages are based on the prevailing wage in the 
locality of the project as determined by the Department of Labor. The 
Service Contract Act also requires Federal contractors to pay the 
prevailing wage in the locality when contracting for a service worth 
more than $2,000. Several of my colleagues have advocated taking the 
ultimate step and repealing these laws. That is not a consensus 
building approach. Accordingly, we have tried to impose some sensible 
reform on these laws. We have increased the threshhold which triggers 
the applicability of these laws to $100,000. In Davis-Bacon, CBO 
estimates that this reform would save $216 million over the next 5 
years. In the service contract law, CBO estimates that this reform 
would save the taxpayer nearly $100 million over the same period.

  The costs of these laws are utlimately passed to the taxpayer. Not 
only are these laws anticonsumer, they also burden the private sector 
with tremendous paperwork. Contractors must submit extensive weekly 
payroll reports in order to prove compliance. Our proposal would 
eliminate the requirement of these weekly reports and instead require 
contractors to file monthly to prove their compliance.
  Senator Durenberger has contributed legislative language which would 
enhance the international competitiveness of the American medical 
technology industry. Under current law, a medical device which has been 
approved in a foreign industrialized country may not be exported to 
that country from the United States, unless the product meets FDA 
standards. Even when the product will never be used in the United 
States and customers in a modernized nation want it--it is currently 
subject to the slow FDA product approval process. This impedes American 
industry's ability to export its more advanced medical technologies in 
an area where we have a large competitive edge. The ultimate effect of 
current law is to encourage American firms to manufacture outside the 
United States. Our amendment would allow the technology to be exported 
to certain developed countries if that country's government makes a 
positive finding regarding the safety of the product.

  Senator Mack has contributed legislative language from the Economic 
Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, which he introduced with 
Senator Shelby. That bill has 51 cosponsors, and has the goal of 
reducing, in a measured way, some of the regulatory burdens which 
inhibit credit availability, and economic growth, without compromising 
the safety and soundness of our Nation's financial institutions. The 
redtape required of our lenders come at quite a cost of Americans. A 
recent study by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 
estimated that the cost of regulatory compliance was as high as $17.5 
billion per year. If this cost were reduced by just 25 percent, that 
would be approximately $4.4 billion which could be added to bank 
capital and could support tens of billions in additional lending. The 
language of the amendment ensures that the strong bank supervisory 
provisions enacted in recent years like risk-based premiums, strong 
capital rules, enhanced authority to close troubled institutions, and 
annual audits are maintained. Rolling back the crust of regulations on 
our Nation's financial institutions while leaving in place strong 
measures for safety and soundness of the industry is what we believe 
competitiveness is all about.

  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993 is bipartisan legislation that 
was sponsored by Senators Nunn, Bumpers, Danforth, Dole, and others. It 
is fully incorporated in this amendment. The fundamental purpose of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 was to minimize the Federal paperwork 
burdens imposed on individuals, small businesses, State and local 
governments, educational and nonprofit organizations, and Federal 
contractors. That act established the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] within OMB. The mission of OIRA is to prevent 
the imposition of needless information collection requests on the 
public, and essentially to be the traffic cop to review potential 
regulations. OIRA tries to ensure that the information requested is 
necessary, assess how it will be used, and estimate the average burden 
on the recipient of the request.

  Our amendment would overturn Dole versus United Steelworkers of 
America (1990). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 
Paperwork Reduction Act was not applicable to non-Federal Government 
entities enlisted to process and maintain paperwork by the Federal 
Government. This decision has exempted about one-third of all Federal 
paperwork from OIRA review. Our amendment provides that all Federal 
Government sponsored paperwork would be subject to OIRA review. 
Furthermore, the amendment would set a governmentwide goal beginning on 
October 1, 1994, in order to reduce the Federal paperwork burden on the 
public by 5 percent per year for the next 3 fiscal years.
  Senator Wallop and Senator Boren have introduced legislation called 
the Rural Community Bank Paperwork Relief Act. We incorporate the 
provisions of that bill in this amendment. The Community Reinvestment 
Act enacted in 1977 was not intended to burden small communities and 
responsible community banks in America's rural towns. The evidence is 
clear. These banks are serving community development needs in their 
areas. They must do so in order to stay in business. Our legislation 
would lift unnecessary CRA paperwork burdens from those institutions in 
small cities and towns, populations of not more than 20,000. The bill 
would allow lending institutions in such cities and towns to show that 
they are meeting their community's credit needs by utilizing State-
based ratios as defined by appropriate Federal agencies. The bill would 
reward banks for making more loans in their communities, while 
retaining all appropriate requirements for safety and soundness.

  In trying to make some progress toward inserting some modicum of 
common sense in the regulatory area, this legislation also includes 
language sponsored by the fine new Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] 
called the Hero Act. The idea for his bill arose from an accident on a 
construction site near Boise, ID. A dirt trench wall collapsed on 21-
year-old Dwight Kaufman. All but one inch of his head was covered. He 
was suffocating and trying to scream for help. Two coworkers used their 
hands and tools to dig out the dirt from around Dwight's head before a 
rescue crew could arrive to pull him out of the ditch. His coworkers 
were able to save Dwight's life. OSHA did not quite see it that way. It 
fined the company nearly $8,000 because the good Samaritans failed to 
put on hard hats, and took no precautions against other trench walls 
falling on them during the rescue. The State OSHA director said that, 
`Rescues must only be attempted after taking proper precautions to 
ensure that victims are not injured in secondary cave-ins.'' Senator 
Kempthorne was successful in having the fines dismissed by the Labor 
Department. However, it is necessary to enact legislation which would 
exempt such acts of heroism from OSHA fines in the future. There should 
be a distinction made between technical violations of OSHA regulations 
and the heroic acts of individuals who respond to save other lives.

  Another bipartisan piece of legislation known as the Economic and 
Employment Impact Act was introduced by Senators Nickles and Reid. It 
too is incorporated into our alternative. This legislation would 
require each committee report accompanying a bill to contain a CBO 
analysis of the bill's impact on employment and the economy. 
Furthermore, it would require the agency which publishes any 
significant proposed regulation to include an analysis of its economic 
and employment impact. Often, Congress fails to consider how much a new 
law or regulation would increase the cost of products and services to 
consumers or the loss in jobs when businesses have to cut back on their 
employment in response to growing Federal demands.
  Also included in our substitute is legislation introduced by Senator 
Dole and many others called the Private Property Rights Act. There are 
literally billions in claims filed against the Federal Government by 
landowners who believe their private property has been taken by the 
Federal Government without just compensation, as is required by the 
Constitution. It is important to note that a taking of private property 
can occur even though title to the property remains with the original 
owner and the Government has only placed restrictions on its use. 
Fortunately, courts have recognized that these partial takings are 
subject to just compensation under our Constitution. Unfortunately, the 
only check on the enforcement of these fundamental rights has been 
through our judicial system. There, Americans can, often at huge 
expense, seek to ensure that their Government complies with the 
Constitution. President Reagan recognized the failure of the system and 
issued Executive Order 12630 which in effect required Federal agencies 
to review regulations before they were issued to determine whether 
takings of private property might occur. The order directed the 
agencies not to take private property in whole or in part unless 
absolutely necessary. This legislation would codify that Executive 
order. Secondly, it would require all Federal departments and agencies 
to comply with that order.

  I also appreciate the contribution of legislative language by Senator 
Murkowski which further strengthens our amendment's efforts to reform 
the regulatory process. The language would require the heads of Federal 
agencies which are proposing regulatory actions to provide an analysis 
of the costs versus the benefits of the proposed action, and to publish 
that analysis in the Federal Register. This analysis will include the 
effect of the proposed regulation on jobs, the economy, and the 
environment. It requires a certification by the promulgating agency 
that the regulation will justify the costs to the Government and to the 
public.
  Senator Wallop, my good friend from Wyoming, has contributed a second 
regulatory reform measure to this package. Provisions he authored would 
amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act [RFA] to provide relief to small 
businesses. Currently there is no meaningful judicial review under RFA 
from a Federal agency's decision that a regulation would not have a 
substantial impact on small business. Our amendment would give RFA 
teeth by providing for such judicial review procedure.
  I very much appreciate the fine assistance and cooperation of those 
colleagues who have had your legislative ideas incorporated into this 
measure. This legislation is certainly not the end of our vigorous 
efforts toward achieving regulatory reform, indeed it is a good start, 
and a much better alternative to achieving real competitiveness than S. 
4, as reported. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I also emphasize that I am the compiler of the various components of 
this amendment, not the author of the various provisions. Although I 
appreciate the rich cooperation and contributions of my colleagues, I 
would not pretend to be the expert on the provisions crafted by others.
  So I know that my colleague from South Carolina will ask some 
piercing questions on my amendment. When they become too piercing, I 
shall simply call upon my colleagues who have authored that particular 
section to come forward in order to provide a more detailed response.
  The Senator from South Carolina has seen all of these provisions in 
one form or another during his ``tour of duty,'' as have I. This is by 
no means a frivolous amendment. We are not attempting to detonate the 
whole situation. It is an honest attempt to say: If you are going to 
talk about competitiveness, get some of these things done which, in our 
minds, would truly be a competitiveness act of greater import.
  At this time, I will certainly assist in seeing that those who wish 
to speak on this amendment come forward; and if not, I will assist the 
manager of the bill in setting a time agreement where we can dispose of 
this during the day, because the majority leader clearly has indicated 
that we will proceed into the dark hours if we do not conclude, or at 
least get to a point of disposition.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, he said it is 
not his intent to destroy.
  Someone could well say: Fine, let's also tack on regulatory reform, 
and Bacon-Davis, and labor matters, and banking matters, and economic-
impact statement matters, and so on without end.
  But does the Senator realize that this has been a bipartisan effort 
over the past 5, 6, 7 years, trying to boost America's technological 
competitiveness? It has been a concerted effort by the House and 
Senate, Republican and Democrat.
  We got it moved. We got it ready to be approved, but now the 
Senator's measure says, as a substitute, get rid of it, and let us just 
have two regulatory reforms.
  I am sure I would be astonished if that was the intent of the 
Senator. Is that the intent--just to get rid of this bill?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that is not the intent. It is trying to 
bring a sense of reality.
  There are those on my side of the aisle who feel that if this were 
really the attempt to give a rebirth to President Bush's proposal, 
which was somewhat similar to this, as I understand, and which had the 
provisions in it which cost in total, I am told, $280 million, this 
measure is $2.8 billion. My information, and I share it with the 
Senator from South Carolina, would indicate that S. 1330--these are the 
figures I have and I would like to have that discussed--was called the 
Manufacturing Strategy Act of 1991. Of course, that was of the Bush 
administration years. It authorized $280 million for 3 years. The bill 
was passed in the Senate in June of 1992 and while in the House the 
authorizing levels were increased and the House message was never 
passed prior to adjournment. There was an understanding among Senate 
Republicans that if the bill were to reach the White House, President 
Bush would veto the measure. That signal went out that they had 
increased the amount of the budget, and he did not go for that.
  The pending National Competitiveness Act authorizes $2.8 billion for 
2 years. I inquire of these figures, 1995 fiscal year and 1996. It also 
encompasses parts of four other initiatives which individually have 
never passed the Senate. If we are dealing with things that have never 
passed, in my amendment we are dealing with four things that have never 
been passed before in the Senate. In addition, the four initiatives 
have also been authorized at a considerable increase, in some cases 
nearly 10 times the original level. The four initiatives are, and I 
seek information, S. 1328, which is the Advanced Manufacturing Act of 
Senator Bingaman; a bill of Senator Wofford, the occupant of the chair, 
called S. 3296, the Industrial Innovation Act; S. 1581, technology 
transfer improvement by Senator Rockefeller; and S. 2937, the 
Information Infrastructure Technology Act, which originally was an 
authorship of Senator Gore, and Senate Republicans have supported 
funding for advanced technology programs, manufacturing technology 
centers, however at considerably lower levels than those authorized in 
the pending S. 4, and that is a legitimate objection of many in my 
party.
  We are seeking a judgment on what is the best way to help move and 
assist with competitiveness. The whole point of Senator Hollings' bill 
is competitiveness. We take a different view, or a great majority of us 
take a different view of what constitutes competitiveness.
  We think our amendment is very germane, and it represents two 
different approaches to that issue, but it is a very honest attempt. We 
have the gravest of reservations of seeing the money go to the 
Department of Commerce for even though there may be peer review and all 
sorts of safeguards, this is a huge amount of money, and it will be 
going out with a great deal of pressure involved because of the 
matching funds and because of employers. You can bet we are getting a 
lot of urging from some of our constituents, often the ones who write 
us the most pungent letters about the deficit and the debt, saying 
simply get the bucks, get the bucks, and get them in places where it 
will best help this administration.
  That is the viewpoint that is held by many on our side of the aisle.
  So with those explanations if those queries can be assuaged, I would 
certainly appreciate it. But that is where this amendment is coming 
from.
  I have the deepest respect for the Senator from South Carolina. I 
worked with him side by side much more than we have ever been on the 
other side. But it is simply our view that it is too big. It does not 
fit. If we are continuing to say that President Bush made a proposal of 
$280 million over 5 years and this one is $2.8 billion over 2 years, it 
just seems all out of proportion to what has changed so much since 1991 
and 1994.
  Those are my inquiries.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. President, now for discussion with respect to amounts, the 1993 
figure which was the last figure that we had from President Bush was 
$288 million and the present 1994 figure that we have right now under 
the budget is $526 million. So we both have the same figures of $526 
million at the present time, $287 million under President Bush.
  I am going to distinguish various things. One thing, in the Bush 
years, we didn't have the national information superhighway, we never 
had the National Science Foundation, and other moneys in here.
  But let us start right at the beginning with one thing we can agree 
on. This is not the Bush program. In fact, I wish the Senator would 
have been there in 1988 when we had the trade bill, and I instituted 
this at the request of industry. I had tremendous industry support 
behind me. We put it on the trade bill, and the word came back from the 
conference that it was veto bait by President Bush.
  I then got with the conference and persuaded them that we had such 
strong support. I can see Senator Bentsen now, and we intended just 
frankly to take the floor and do the best we could to expose the 
fallacy of the idea that here with $70 billion in Government research 
there wasn't any for commercializing technologies. This was not going 
to withstand the light of day and the light of truth.
  So they included it on the bill and sent it to the President. He 
signed it, but he did not like it, and he did not fund it. So, in 1989 
and 1990 if you want to look at the Bush figure, it was zero. Let us 
get the record straight. Zero. We put the moneys in in the 
appropriations process. So we are not trying to implement any Bush 
policy here. We brought him kicking and screaming into the real world. 
He finally realized that he had to put some money up there in his 
budget request, a minimal amount at that. When I say ``minimal,'' Mr. 
President, let us go to various things here that refer to just exactly 
where we are.
  The Critical Technologies Subcouncil--and I want to get my 
colleague's attention with respect to this because President Reagan's 
National Science Foundation director was the chairman, Erich Bloch, of 
the Critical Technologies Subcouncil, that submitted this report just 
as President Clinton came to office the early part of last year.
  The membership of this particular Subcouncil is very noteworthy with 
the dean of the Albert Nerken School of Engineering, Eleanor Baum; 
Frederick Bernthal, Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation; 
Michael Borrus, co-director, Berkeley Roundtable on International 
Economics; Eugene Wong, who was the Associate Director of Industrial 
Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy under President 
Bush; Mr. Robert M. White was Under Secretary of Technology in the 
Department of Commerce. You can go right on down, whether on the labor 
side, Howard Samuel, president of the Industrial Union Department of 
AFL-CIO; or Craig Fields, president and CEO of MCC; Edward Fort, 
chancellor of North Carolina A&P Techical State University; John 
Foster, consultant, TRW. William Happer, the Director of the Office of 
Energy Research; Richard Lester, the director of the Industrial 
Performance Center, MIT; Richard Nelson, a professor at Columbia 
University.
  I have got them on and on.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire report be printed in the 
Record, along with these board members.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Promoting Industry

       Equally important to a competitive economy is a clear and 
     rational approach to managing business and industry. This 
     includes a sharp improvement in our ability to develop and, 
     most important, to apply new technologies. It also means 
     careful attention to the way in which corporations are 
     governed by internal and external decision-makers, and the 
     relationships between corporations and the financial markets 
     on which they depend for capital. A competitive economy must 
     also look beyond its borders to international markets for its 
     products. Trade policy is an important ingredient in the 
     competitive vantage point of American businesses.


                               Technology

       For most of the past 50 years, technology has been an 
     unquestioned American strength. US industry was the leader in 
     virtually all key areas of civilian technology. The United 
     States science and technology enterprise still has many 
     outstanding strengths, including unparalleled research 
     universities, an open and entrepreneurial climate that 
     attracts the best minds and ideas from around the world, 
     technically advanced national laboratories, and strong 
     corporate research labs.
       Nevertheless, in many leading edge areas of technology, US 
     leadership has declined or been lost. Studies indicate that 
     the United States still leads in overall manufacturing 
     productivity by some measures but that we fall behind in 
     machinery, electrical equipment, transport equipment and 
     ground transport--technology intensive sectors that are 
     essential for trade, national security, and economic growth. 
     Moreover, R&D in general is underfunded. In 1990, for 
     example, the nation as a whole invested only 1.9 percent of 
     GDP on non-defense R&D as compared with 3 percent in Japan 
     and 2.7 percent in Germany.
       A major problem facing American competitiveness is the lag 
     of American firms in converting technological advances into a 
     competitive advantage in the marketplace--the 
     ``commercialization'' of technology. We continue to lead the 
     world (albeit by a shrinking amount) in new inventions. Firms 
     in other countries, however, seem to do better at converting 
     new ideas--including American ideas--into the third, sixth 
     and tenth iteration of the product that captures markets. Our 
     smaller firms are often unable to grow successfully beyond 
     the new venture stage, and our larger firms often seem unable 
     to sustain the continual flow of improvements in process and 
     product that is necessary to meet ever-more vigorous foreign 
     competition. Unfortunately it remains largely correct that 
     ``Americans are good starters while the Japanese (and 
     others) are better finishers.'' Flat panel displays and 
     robotics are two prime examples of this pattern. 
     Furthermore, with five of the top ten recipients of US 
     patents in 1991 being Japanese firms, we cannot be assured 
     of our lead in invention for the future.
       Our Subcouncil on Critical Technologies concluded that US 
     companies, universities, and the federal government have 
     undervalued the importance of making continual improvements 
     to products and processes, and of manufacturing in general. 
     As noted in our First Annual Report, federal technology 
     policy has contributed to the problem by focusing primarily 
     on esoteric defense technologies and on scientific break-
     throughs rather than on areas that will provide the greatest 
     economic benefits and commercial follow-throughs.
       To improve and accelerate the commercialization of US 
     technology, both industry and government must substantially 
     increase the resources devoted to R&D, on process 
     technologies in manufacturing. US manufacturing industries 
     currently invest about $76 billion annually in privately-
     funded R&D, a little over 1 percent of GDP. Japanese and 
     German industry invest closer to 2 percent of their GDP 
     (Figure 5). The difference shows up clearly in the relative 
     roles of manufacturing industries in the three countries' 
     economies: manufacturing's share of GDP in 1989 in the United 
     States was 19.3 percent, but far greater in Germany (31.1%) 
     and Japan (28.9%).
       [Graphics not reproducible in the Record.]
       There must also be a renewed effort to disseminate 
     technological ``best practices'' throughout industry. With 
     proper reforms, government funding and technical resources 
     can provide incentives and leverage private sector 
     investment, requiring little if any net increase in 
     government spending.
       The Council endorses a number of technology proposals 
     developed by our Manufacturing Subcouncil and our Subcouncil 
     on Critical Technologies. First, private sector R&D should be 
     stimulated and expanded by implementation of a new innovation 
     and commercialization tax credit (ICTC):
       R&D on process improvements (in addition to R&D which 
     occurs before the ``first article of production'') should 
     clearly be eligible for the credit. This will support 
     continual improvements in process as well as product 
     technology.
       The credit should be made permanent to provide a solid 
     basis for long-term corporate planning.
       The credit should apply to incremental expenditures, as 
     recommended by our Subcouncil on Critical Technology. Our 
     Manufacturing Subcouncil prefers that the credit apply to all 
     research and development spending at a much lower rate.
       An additional 25 percent credit should be allowed for 
     industry-sponsored university research, in light of the wide 
     benefits of such research and the desirability of linking 
     university research to industry needs. Most university 
     research is now government funded.
       To help overcome corporate reluctance to test traditional 
     antitrust tenets, an additional 10 percent credit could be 
     allowed for the first two years of new R&D consortia 
     registered under the Cooperative Research Act of 1984, such 
     as SEMATECH or the Advanced Battery Consortium.
       Second, the government should reorient its own R&D spending 
     from purely military to civilian and dual-use R&D. At the 
     height of the Cold War, almost two-thirds of all government 
     R&D went for narrow military purposes. That ratio has already 
     declined to less than 60 percent and should fall to 50 
     percent in the coming years. As major defense systems are 
     delayed or cancelled, the reductions in development and 
     testing budgets--a range of perhaps $4 to $8 billion--should 
     be applied to civilian and dual-use R&D. Defense research and 
     exploratory development should be kept strong but the new R&D 
     budget should also emphasize generic technologies including 
     new materials, biotechnology, computers and especially 
     manufacturing processes. The White House Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy (OSTP) should ensure that the efforts 
     of all the agencies--civilian and defense--are better 
     coordinated and better integrated with those of the private 
     sector, as has been done for high-performance computing and 
     communications.
       Third, some of these funds should be used to expand federal 
     support for cooperative projects in areas of strong industry-
     government mutual interest such as manufacturing processes, 
     improving energy efficiency, developing environmentally 
     benign products, improving the national information 
     infrastructure, and technologies for improved health care and 
     education. Specific steps include:
       Encouraging the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
     (DARPA) and the military services to actively promote dual 
     use technologies. Evidence of potential commercial utility 
     should be a plus, not a minus, in evaluating projects that 
     are otherwise significant for national security needs.
       Expanding the Advanced Technology Program in the Department 
     of Commerce to an annual program level of about $750 million.
       Allocating 10 to 20 percent of the resources of the multi-
     program labs operated by the Department of Energy, of the 
     NASA labs, and of selected Defense Department labs to jointly 
     planned and jointly funded industry-government R&D on the 
     basis of model Cooperative Research and Development 
     Agreements (CRADAs) with private firms. Lab directors should 
     be able to enter into these partnerships without long delays 
     and micromanagement from their agencies.
       Modifying federal procurement rules to make the federal 
     government a better consumer of leading edge technologies.
       Authorizing on a pilot basis DARPA, the Department of 
     Commerce, the National Institutes of Health and perhaps 
     others, such as the National Science Foundation's Engineering 
     Research Centers, to participate directly in the 
     commercialization of technologies they have supported, 
     through equity participation or loans, increased both their 
     incentive to foster business successes and their funding for 
     future efforts.
       Requesting the Department of Commerce to explore ways to 
     facilitate filing for foreign patents by American 
     universities, perhaps involving a revision of the overhead 
     rules.


          cooperative government--industry technology programs

       A number of cooperative government--industry R&D programs 
     were started in the 1980s, aimed at developing generic 
     industrial technologies and building cooperation across 
     industry, academia, and government. Key characteristics of 
     such programs are industry participation in project planning, 
     funding, evaluation, and personnel exchanges.
       The Advanced Technology Program. A key missing piece in the 
     commercialization of technology is the R&D that falls between 
     basic research (often federally-funded) and specific product 
     development (usually industry-funded). This stage is known as 
     precompetitive or generic R&D and is the focus of the 
     Advanced Technology Program (ATP) within the Department of 
     Commerce. ATP was established in 1988 to support private 
     sector development of promising generic technologies. Project 
     proposals are submitted by private sector businesses and 
     joint ventures, and awards are made competitively based on an 
     external expert review of their technical merit and business 
     potential.
       SEMATECH. SEMATECH is an industry-government funded, 
     industry-led R&D consortium created in 1987 to recapture US 
     leadership in semiconductor manufacturing technology. Member 
     companies set the research agenda and contribute at least 
     half of the $200 million in annual funding and approximately 
     60 percent of the technical personnel. A recent General 
     Accounting Office review found that SEMATECH's technical 
     progress is on schedule and that SEMATECH has led to improved 
     cooperation among semiconductor makers and between 
     semiconductor makers and their suppliers. Most observers 
     credit SEMATECH with helping the US semiconductor industry 
     and the semiconductor equipment industry regain global market 
     share.
       Engineering Research Centers. The National Science 
     Foundation established its first Engineering Research Centers 
     in 1985 to foster an interdisciplinary, team oriented 
     approach to engineering and to speed the conversion of 
     advances in fundamental research in universities into 
     competitive products and processes in the marketplace. There 
     are currently 18 centers at major US universities in such 
     critical technology fields as bioprocessing and biomedical 
     engineering optoelectronics, microelectronics and 
     communications; and manufacturing and design. The centers are 
     jointly funded by government and industry and are evaluated 
     in part on their contribution to competitiveness and degree 
     of interaction with industry.
                                  ____


                    Critical Technologies Subcouncil

       Chairman: Erich Bloch, Distinguished Fellow, Council on 
     Competitiveness, (President Reagan's USF Director).
       David W. Cheney, Staff Director.


                               membership

       Eleanor Baum, Dean, Albert Nerken School of Engineering, 
     Cooper Union;
       Frederick M. Bernthal, Deputy Director, National Science 
     Foundation;
       Sherwood L. Boehlert, U.S. House of Representatives;
       Michael G. Borrus, Co-director, Berkeley Roundtable on 
     International Economics;
       Rick Boucher, U.S. House of Representatives;
       Lewis M. Branscomb, Professor, Harvard University;
       Daniel Burton, Executive Vice President, Council on 
     Competitiveness;
       Dennis Chamot, Executive Assistant to the President, 
     Department of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO;
       John Deutch, Professor, MIT;
       John W. Diggs, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, 
     Department of Health and Human Services;
       Craig Fields, President and CEO, MCC;
       Edward B. Fort, Chancellor, North Carolina Agricultural and 
     Technical State University;
       John S. Foster, Consultant, TRW, Inc., and Chairman, 
     Defense Science Board;
       William Happer, Director, Office of Energy Research, US 
     Department of Energy;
       Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, EOP Group, and former Deputy 
     Assistant Director, Energy and Science Division, OMB;
       Richard K. Lester, Director, Industrial Performance Center, 
     MIT;
       John W. Lyons, Director, National Institute for Standards 
     and Technology;
       Daniel P. McCurdy, Manager, Technology Policy, IBM;
       Joseph G. Morone, Professor, Rensselaer Polytechnic 
     Institute, School of Management;
       Al Narath, President, Sandia National Laboratories;
       Richard R. Nelson, Professor, Columbia University;
       William D. Phillips, Former Associate Director of 
     Industrial Technology, Office of Science & Technology Policy;
       Lois Rice, Guest Scholar, Brookings Institution
       Nathan Rosenberg, Director of Program for Technology & 
     Economic Growth, Stanford University;
       Howard D. Samuel, President, Industrial Union Department, 
     AFL-CIO
       Hubert J.P. Schoemaker, President and CEO, Centocor, Inc.;
       Charles Shanley, Director of Technology Planning, Motorola 
     Inc.;
       Richard H. van Atta, Research Staff Member, Institute for 
     Defense Analyses;
       Robert M. White, Under Secretary for Technology, US 
     Department of Commerce;
       Eugene Wong, Associate Director of Industrial Technology, 
     Office of Science & Technology Policy, (Bush administration).

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, addressing the charge that there is too 
much money. Amongst other things, the report said:

       Second, the Government should reorient its own R&D spending 
     from purely military to civilian and dual-use R&D. At the 
     height of the cold war, almost two-thirds of all Government 
     R&D went for narrow military purposes. That ratio has already 
     declined to less than 60 percent and should fall to 50 
     percent in the coming years. As major defense systems are 
     delayed or cancelled, the reductions in development and 
     testing budgets--a range of perhaps $4 to $8 billion--should 
     be applied to civilian and dual-use R&D.

  Let me repeat that--that $4 to $8 billion should be applied to 
civilian and dual-use R&D.
  The total amount would be $1.37 billion for next year, and for 1996, 
$1.4 billion.
  And here, this Critical Technologies Subcouncil, that is an impartial 
group of scientists, engineers, college presidents, and research 
directors in the field of technology, they asked for a range of $4 to 
$8 billion. I quote:

       Defense research and exploratory development should be kept 
     strong but the new R&D budget should also emphasize generic 
     technologies including new materials, biotechnology, 
     computers, and especially manufacturing processes* * * some 
     of these funds should be used to expand Federal support for 
     operative projects in areas of strong industry-Government 
     mutual interest such as the manufacturing processes, 
     improving energy efficiency, developing environmental benign 
     products, improving the national information infrastructure, 
     and technologies for improved health care and education.

  Now we have added in the national information infrastructure, as 
well. We are only at $1.4 billion. We do not get to the bottom figure 
of $4 to $8 billion. We look at the big picture, $70 billion in 
research, and we say that of $70 billion, let us allocate to 
commercialization and manufacturing some fraction of that, $4 to $8 
billion. When we come year after next, 2 years from now, the sum is 
$1.4 billion--a quarter of the amount recommended.
  They say, too big, too big, and this is a Bush program gone awry. It 
is not a Bush program. Oh, no, I can tell you. I had to fight for this 
one, and he did not like it. We heard all of that nonsense about 
industrial policy. At the same time we were trying to get Avtech, an 
aviation consortium. When they got Sematech for semiconductors, they 
did not mind industrial policy for their particular interests. But when 
it came to industrial policy for all technology, then they started 
squawking. Then came the election of November 1992, with the call to 
get this country moving. Americans had had enough of the negative 
industrial policy of the eighties, losing 2 million jobs and losing our 
manufacturing backbone in this country.
  Right to the point, I read: ``Expanding the Advanced Technology 
Program in the Department of Commerce to an annual program level of 
$750 million.''
  Now look at the Advanced Technology Program under this bill. Instead 
of $750 million, we asked for $475 million for 1995 and $575 million 
for 1996, 2 years out. We have not gotten to that so-called Bush 
figure.
  When the impartial groups meet, we can go--and I think I should at 
this time, by emphasis on money, I mean right now the funding for 
extension centers is $30 million. Yet recently, McDonnell Douglas in 
St. Louis, MO, just won a $42.9 million research program. Now that is 
one single research program.
  We are trying to bring this into perspective. For the understanding 
of everybody, yes, there is the bill by the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. And so far 
it is all into this particular bill. There will be other bills perhaps.
  But this is the one adopted by the administration and a consensus of 
Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle, and that is why it 
has been unanimous and we said let us come on in and let us get it 
going because we have the instrumentality. The bill relies on peer 
review. It is a merit selection process initiated by the industry 
itself.
  And I cannot overemphasize, Mr. President, that while we were talking 
about the need for a growth policy, the Bush administration was 
opposing, was offering absolutely nothing. At that time, we had the MIT 
study about America regaining its productive edge.
  I ask unanimous consent that this study be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Made in America--Regaining the Productive Edge

 (By Michael L. Dertouzos, Richard K. Lester, Robert M. Solow, and the 
               MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity)


                              introduction

       To live well, a nation must produce well. In recent years 
     many observers have charged that American industry is not 
     producing as well as it ought to produce, or as well as it 
     used to produce, or as well as the industries of some other 
     nations have learned to produce. If the charges are true and 
     if the trend cannot be reversed, then sooner or later the 
     American standard of living must pay the penalty.
       The indictment of American industry has multiple counts. 
     Products made in the United States are said to be inferior to 
     foreign goods; this complaint extends both to consumer 
     products, such as cars and clothing, and to industrial 
     commodities, such as steel and semiconductor chips. American 
     factories are accused of inefficiency; the work force is said 
     to be indifferent and ill-trained; and managers are 
     criticized for seeking quick profits rather than pursuing 
     more-appropriate long-term goals. Designers, engineers, and 
     the research community are also named in the indictment, on 
     the grounds that America's best technology has been surpassed 
     in many fields.
       Some of the charges can be backed up by quantitative 
     evidence. The United States buys far more overseas than it 
     can sell in other countries, which has resulted in a huge 
     current-account deficit: $161 billion in 1987. Most of this 
     imbalance is generated by trade in manufactured goods. Growth 
     in productivity, a crucial indicator of industrial 
     performance, has been slower in the past 15 years than it was 
     for at least two decades before; moreover, the rate of 
     productivity improvement in the United States has fallen 
     behind that in several Western European and Asian nations. 
     Certain American industries that once dominated world 
     commerce--automobiles and steel come immediately to mind--
     have lost much of their market share both at home and abroad; 
     in a few industries, attitudinal complexes compete with one 
     another. Only an extraordinary optimist could believe, for 
     example, that the current wave of takeover activity is an 
     efficient way to deal with the organizational deficiencies 
     of American industries. In at least one respect, its 
     tendency to favor short time horizons, we believe it is 
     part of the problem, not part of the solution.

                       Why Manufacturing Matters

       The Commission has concentrated much of its effort on 
     identifying and prescribing cures for weaknesses in 
     manufacturing performance. But how important is 
     manufacturing? Its share of total employment, more than 30 
     percent not long after World War II, has been shrinking 
     steadily and is now below 20 percent. Meanwhile, employment 
     in the service sector has been increasing both in absolute 
     terms and as a share of the total. By this measure, at least, 
     manufacturing is less important than it was in the past. 
     Indeed, some see a transition from manufacturing to services 
     as an inevitable and desirable stage in the economic 
     development of the nation, with the U.S. increasingly leaving 
     manufacturing to other countries.
       We think this idea is mistaken. A large continental economy 
     like the United States will not be able to function primarily 
     as a producer of services in the foreseeable future. One 
     reason is that it would have to rely on exports of services 
     to pay for its imports, and this does not seem realistic. In 
     1987 gross U.S. exports of services, excluding income from 
     overseas investments and overseas sales of government 
     services, were worth about $57 billion, whereas the total 
     value of goods and services imported into the United States 
     was about $550 billion. Trade in services is increasing, to 
     be sure, and the United States is among the world's largest 
     exporters of services. Imports as well as exports of services 
     have been growing rapidly, however, and U.S. trade in 
     services, excluding official transactions and investment 
     income, is approximately in balance.
       The notion that the United States could eventually become 
     almost exclusively a producer of services is all the more 
     implausible when it is recognized that all of the 
     manufactured goods now produced domestically would have to be 
     imported (and hence paid for with exports of services). In 
     1987 the total value of manufactured goods purchased in the 
     United States was about $1 trillion, nearly 20 times the 
     volume of services exported. Moreover, the long-term trend in 
     the United States is toward increased demand for 
     manufactured goods. Between 1960s and 1986 total spending 
     on manufactured goods other than food and fuel in the 
     United States increased threefold in real terms. In short, 
     it is unreasonable to expect that the United States could 
     achieve a trade surplus in services large enough to 
     satisfy its huge appetite for manufactured goods, if all 
     such goods had to be imported.
       There is also reason to believe that if large sections of 
     American manufacturing industry were ceded to other 
     countries, high-wage nonmanufacturing industries would follow 
     them, including many of the service industries that provide 
     inputs to manufacturing, such as design and engineering, 
     payroll, inventory and accounting, finance and insurance, 
     transportation, repair and maintenance of plant and 
     equipment, testing services, and the like. According to a 
     recent estimate by the Congressional Office of Technology 
     Assessment, private service industries supplied 17 cents of 
     inputs toward each dollar of manufacturing output.
       The United States thus has no choice but to continue 
     competing in the world market for manufactures. The ultimate 
     scale of American manufacturing industry is not known, but it 
     will not be trivial. The important question is not whether 
     the United States will have a manufacturing industry but 
     whether it will compete as a low wage manufacturer or as a 
     high-productivity producer.
       If labor and capital were perfectly mobile across national 
     borders, there would be less need to worry about the 
     viability of American industry. Labor and capital resident in 
     the United States would earn what they could elsewhere, or 
     they would go elsewhere. But labor is far from mobile 
     internationally, and capital, while more mobile, is not 
     perfectly mobile. Hence, the best way for Americans to share 
     in rising world prosperity is to retain on American soil 
     those industries that have high and rapidly rising 
     productivity. Manufacturing, and high-technology 
     manufacturing in particular, belongs in this category.
       A related fact is that manufacturing firms account for 
     virtually all of the research and development done by 
     American industry. They thus generate most of the 
     technological innovations adopted both inside and outside 
     their own industry. High technology manufacturing industries 
     account for about three-quarters of all funding for research 
     and development, and the other manufacturing industries 
     account for most of the rest. The roots of much of the 
     technological progress responsible for long-term economic 
     growth can ultimately be traced to the nation's manufacturing 
     base. Because of this connection, high-technology and 
     high-value-added services as well as products depend on 
     the presence of a healthy, technologically dynamic 
     manufacturing sector.
       Finally, even if all the economic arguments for the 
     importance of manufacturing were somehow rendered moot, the 
     nation's manufacturing base would still remain fundamentally 
     important to national security. The Department of Defense has 
     estimated that it purchases about 21 percent of the gross 
     product of U.S. manufacturing industries and over a third of 
     the output of high-technology manufacturing industries; it 
     depends on virtually every sector of the manufacturing base 
     for its materiel. For the nation to become heavily dependent 
     on foreign technology for its defense would be politically 
     and militarily untenable.
       These arguments for the importance of manufacturing still 
     do not explain why it is the exclusive focus of the 
     Commission's report. Manufacturing may be essential, but it 
     accounts for less than a fourth of the GNP and for less than 
     a fifth of all employment. Further, manufacturing is 
     certainly not the only troubled sector of the economy; as 
     shown in table 2.1, productivity growth in many 
     nonmanufacturing industries has been significantly worse. 
     Since these other segments now account for such a large part 
     of the economy, progress in them is essential; the nation 
     cannot sustain an overall improvement in its standard of 
     living without them, no matter how well manufacturing 
     performs.
       Again, then, why did the Commission study only 
     manufacturing? In part, we were choosing the segment of the 
     economy with which MIT, an institution with technology at its 
     core, has the closest ties; we chose it because we know it 
     best. We should also acknowledge that the choice may have 
     caused us to miss certain causes of productivity weakness or 
     opportunities for productivity growth. We suspect that one 
     such neglected area may be low productivity among white-
     collar workers, which is emerging as a particularly serious 
     problem in the services sector and which deserves more 
     careful attention than we have been able to give it.
                                  ____



         technological weaknesses in development and production

       In the postwar years the United States invested heavily in 
     research, and the investment paid off, sometimes in 
     surprising ways. Basic research, undertaken for its own sake, 
     often led to commercial applications that could not have been 
     predicted at the outset. Likewise, research for defense needs 
     generated innovations useful for the civilian economy. These 
     experiences shaped current expectations for science and 
     technology.
       There are important truths embodied in these expectations. 
     Investment in basic scientific and engineering research is 
     essential for long-term economic growth. Defense research can 
     bear commercial fruit. But the nation's technological 
     strength depends on far more than the health of its research 
     laboratories, important as that is. Prowess in research does 
     not lead automatically to commercial success. New ideas must 
     be converted into products that customers want, when they 
     want them, and before competitors can provide them, and the 
     products must be made efficiently and well. Ralph Gomory of 
     IBM recently observed, ``You do not have to be the science 
     leader to be the best consumer of science, and you do not 
     have to be the best consumer of science to be the best 
     product manufacturer.''
       The United States is still unarguably the leader in basic 
     research. The scale of its scientific enterprise is 
     unequaled, and it is second to none in making new 
     discoveries. Yet U.S. companies increasingly find themselves 
     lagging behind their foreign rivals in the commercial 
     exploitations and discoveries. Transistor radios, color 
     televisions, videocassette reorders, and numerically 
     controlled machine tools are just a few examples of products 
     now dominated by foreign manufacturers, even though the major 
     enabling technological advances were first made in the United 
     States.
       There is irony in this situation. The industrial lead built 
     up by the United States earlier in the century rested in no 
     small part on its superior performance in exploiting 
     inventions made elsewhere. Later, during the first two 
     decades of the postwar era, American firms dominated the 
     early stages of the product cycle in most industries. Because 
     of the unrivaled strength of the nation's research base and 
     the industrial weaknesses of other countries, U.S. firms were 
     almost always first to market with new products. In many 
     cases overseas rivals eventually did acquire the technology, 
     and their lower labor costs sometimes enabled them to 
     manufacture the products more cheaply. By then, however, the 
     American firms had moved on to the next generation of new 
     products.
       Today the industrial nations of Europe and Asia have 
     greatly expanded their technological capabilities. They can 
     understand and rapidly capitalize on promising technological 
     discoveries made anywhere in the world. They have also 
     developed their own private and public research 
     establishments. The emphasis of their research is somewhat 
     different, however. They have focused on applied research and 
     on product and process development. As a result, they have 
     greatly shortened the time between discovery and 
     commercialization.
       In the United States, meanwhile, outstanding successes in 
     basic science and in defense research have left the product-
     realization process a poor cousin. As firms in other 
     countries have improved their capabilities in these 
     downstream areas, shortcomings have become evident in the 
     performance of American industry in developing new products, 
     engineering them, and manufacturing them. Specifically, our 
     industry studies have revealed several closely related 
     deficiencies in this area. American companies evidently find 
     it difficult to design simple, reliable, mass-producible 
     products; they often fail to pay enough attention at the 
     design stage to the likely quality of the manufactured 
     product; their product-development times are excessively 
     long; they pay insufficient attention to manufacturing 
     processes; they take a reactive rather than a preventive 
     approach to problem solving; and they tend to under-exploit 
     the potential of continuous improvement in products and 
     processes.

                            Who Is to Blame?

       The persistent failures of American industry to convert 
     technologies into products have several root causes. In 
     earlier chapters of this book industrial managers and 
     executives have already been accorded a generous share of the 
     blame. In the immediate postwar years they were complacent; 
     they held stubbornly to an outmoded mass-production model; 
     they set inappropriate financial goals; they relegated 
     product realization and production engineering to second-
     class status; and they failed to make the investments in 
     plant, equipment, and skills necessary for timely product 
     development and efficient manufacturing.
       But managers are not the only responsible parties; another 
     detrimental influence has been the apparent indifference of 
     government. Whereas the governments of most other industrial 
     nations have actively and explicitly promoted research and 
     technology for economic development, U.S. policy for science 
     and technology has traditionally focused on basis research 
     and paid much less attention to the commercial development 
     and application of new technologies. The latter has been seen 
     as the responsibility of the private sector. The Department 
     of Defense, NASA, and other government agencies have invested 
     heavily in technology development, but usually with specific 
     missions in mind; commercial spinoffs are sometimes cited by 
     those promoting the programs, but little is done to foster 
     commercial exploitation. Recently, as concern about the 
     nation's competitiveness has grown, the government has begun 
     to assume a more active role in supporting the 
     commercialization of technology. In the main. though, these 
     efforts have focused on the commercialization of new 
     products. Only very recently (in programs such as Sematech, 
     the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, and the 
     Industrial Base Initiative, sponsored by the Department of 
     Defense) has the federal government paid much attention to 
     questions of manufacturability and process technology.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Starting right there with the very first sentence: ``To 
live well, a nation must produce well.''
  Now we are not legislating here about government regulations. That is 
an ancillary issue, outside the scope of this bill. We do not have 
anything in the 140-some pages to do the regulatory matters related to 
the banking industry or Davis-Bacon in labor or environmental impact 
statements or economic impact statements or paperwork or any of these 
other things.
  ``To live well, a nation must produce well.''
  It goes on to say:

       The Commission has concentrated much of its effort on 
     identifying and prescribing cures for weaknesses in 
     manufacturing performance. But how important is 
     manufacturing? Its share of total employment, more than 30 
     percent not long after World War II, has been shrinking 
     steadily and is now below 20 percent.

  This is 5 years ago in 1989:

       Meanwhile, employment in the service sector has been 
     increasing both in absolute terms and as a share of the 
     total. By this measure, at least, manufacturing is less 
     important than it was in the past. Indeed, some use a 
     transition from manufacturing to services as an inevitable 
     and desirable stage in the economic development of the 
     nation, with the U.S. increasingly leaving manufacturing to 
     other countries.
       We think this idea is mistaken. A large continental economy 
     like the United States will not be able to function primarily 
     as a producer of services in the foreseeable future. One 
     reason is that it would have to rely on exports of services 
     to pay for its imports, and this does not seem realistic.

  Going on:

       There is also reason to believe that if large sections of 
     American manufacturing industry were ceded to other 
     countries, high-wage nonmanufacturing industries would follow 
     them, including many of the service industries that provide 
     inputs to manufacturing, such as design and engineering, 
     payroll, inventory and accounting, finance and insurance, 
     transportation, repair and maintenance of plant and 
     equipment, testing services, and the like. * * *
       The United States thus has no choice but to continue 
     competing in the world market for manufacturers. The ultimate 
     scale of American manufacturing industry is not known, but it 
     will not be trivial. The important question is not whether 
     the United States will have a manufacturing industry but 
     whether it will compete as a low-wage manufacturer or as a 
     high-productivity producer.
       If labor and capital were perfectly mobile across national 
     borders, there would be less need to worry about the 
     viability of American industry. Labor and capital resident in 
     the United States would earn what they could elsewhere, or 
     they would go elsewhere. But labor is far from mobile 
     internationally, and capital, while more mobile, is not 
     perfectly mobile. Hence, the best way for Americans to share 
     in rising world prosperity is to retain on American soil 
     those industries that have high and rapidly rising 
     productivity. Manufacturing, and high-technology 
     manufacturing in particular, belongs in this category.
       A related fact is that manufacturing firms account for 
     virtually all of the research and development done by 
     American industry. They thus generate most of the 
     technological innovations adopted both inside and outside 
     their own industry. High technology manufacturing industries 
     account for about three-quarters of all funding for research 
     and development, and the other manufacturing industries 
     account for most of the rest. The roots of much of the 
     technological progress responsible for long-term economic 
     growth can ultimately be traced to the nation's manufacturing 
     base. Because of this connection, high-technology and high-
     value-added services as well as products depend on the 
     presence of a healthy, technologically dynamic manufacturing 
     sector.

  Going on, Mr. President, I do not want to have to read the entire 
matter. But let us say this:

       In the postwar years the United States invested heavily in 
     research, and the investment paid off, sometimes in 
     surprising ways. Basic research, undertaken for its own sake, 
     often led to commercial applications that could not have been 
     predicted at the outset. Likewise, research for defense needs 
     generated innovations useful for the civilian economy. These 
     experiences shaped current expectations for science and 
     technology.
       There are important truths embodied in these expectations. 
     Investment in basic scientific and engineering research is 
     essential for long-term economic growth. Defense research can 
     bear commercial fruit. But the nation's technological 
     strength depends on far more than the health of its research 
     laboratories, important as that is. Prowess in research does 
     not lead automatically to commercial success. New ideas must 
     be converted into products that customers want, when they 
     want them, and before competitors can provide them, and the 
     products must be made efficiently and well. Ralph Gomory of 
     IBM recently observed, ``You do not have to be the science 
     leader to be the best consumer of science; and you do not 
     have to be the best consumer of science to be the best 
     product manufacturer.'' * * *
       Yet U.S. companies increasingly find themselves lagging 
     behind their foreign rivals in the commercial exploitation of 
     inventions and discoveries. Transistor radios, color 
     televisions, videocassette recorders, and numerically 
     controlled machine tools are just a few examples. . . .
       Today the industrial nations of Europe and Asia have 
     greatly expanded their technological capabilities. They can 
     understand and rapidly capitalize on promising technological 
     discoveries made anywhere in the world. They have also 
     developed their own private and public research 
     establishments. The emphasis of their research is somewhat 
     different, however. They have focused on applied research and 
     on product and process development. As a result, they have 
     greatly shortened the time between discovery and 
     commercialization.
       In the United States, meanwhile, outstanding successes in 
     basic science and in defense research have left the product-
     realization process a poor cousin.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The persistent failures of American industry to convert 
     technologies into products have several root causes.
       They go down and list these things. But managers are not 
     the only responsible parties; another detrimental influence 
     has been the apparent indifference of government. Whereas the 
     governments of most other industrial nations have actively 
     and explicitly promoted research and technology for economic 
     development, U.S. policy for science and technology has 
     traditionally focused on basic research and paid much less 
     attention to the commercial development and application of 
     new technologies.

  Then it goes on to talk about how we ought to join together with the 
private sector.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial dated April 
6, 1992 in Business Week, be printed in its entirety in the Record 
here.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Forging a Growth Policy for America

       Call it the light bulb theory of growth. For some years 
     now, America's most competitive companies have been its 
     brainiest, the ones making the supercomputers and cellular 
     phones, the spreadsheets and the synthetic drugs--the new 
     products that dot our high-tech lives. In the global-growth 
     sweepstakes, these companies lead the pack, and their 
     competitors overseas in similar cutting-edge industries have 
     become formidable opponents. They all rely on ideas--ideas 
     for raw materials, product designs, manufacturing processes, 
     and, ultimately, for commercial products.
       In such an environment, knowledge counts for more than 
     capital or labor. The nations that will prosper will be those 
     that create new knowledge best and are able to transform it 
     most effectively into new products and technologies. The end 
     of the cold war with its prospect of big defense cutbacks 
     breathes new life into an old question: Should the U.S. have 
     a policy to promote technology and industry? We say the 
     government must have an important role in spurring the 
     attainment of knowledge and the generation of ideas, 
     including research and development, scientific and technical 
     education, the diffusion of technological knowledge, and help 
     to industry in exporting science- and technology-based 
     products (page 70).
       America needs a new growth policy for the 1990s, an 
     industrial policy that acknowledges that ideas drive growth. 
     Government should provide a fertile environment for 
     individuals, companies, and industries to pursue new ideas 
     and new techniques, and it should be willing to spend money 
     and even lose money today in order to ensure more vigorous 
     growth tomorrow. Supporting tuition for engineering and 
     science students and making the research and investment tax 
     credits permanent would be good moves. So, too, would 
     reallocating defense R&D spending toward civilian R&D.
       And because so many people across so many industries 
     benefit from ideas that serve as building blocks for new 
     technologies and products, it's not right to assume that 
     individuals or individual companies can or even should 
     shoulder all the costs of developing new ideas. Even today, 
     the U.S. government is supporting supercomputing and biotech 
     research. Some basic ideas are, in economists' parlance, 
     public, or at least quasi-public, goods and deserve to 
     received public financing.
       The critics will chorus that government shouldn't interfere 
     with the marketplace. An industrial policy, they argue, puts 
     government in the position of picking winners and losers. An 
     industrial policy costs billions of dollars. An industrial 
     policy smacks of central planning, the critics charge, citing 
     the catastrophic failure of the Soviet command economy.
       A coherent, knowledge-based growth policy can avoid the 
     pitfalls the critics worry about. First, policies must be 
     designed in such a way that no particular industries are 
     favored. Parceling out research dollars via a scientific 
     peer-review process and requiring business to make matching 
     investments in some cases should protect the process from 
     being hijacked by political interests. Shifting federal 
     dollars out of other existing programs, such as military R&D 
     spending, is one way to hold down costs. No, America doesn't 
     want a Ministry of International Trade & Industry or a 
     Gosplan. But even in the former Soviet Union, the diversion 
     of good ideas to the defense industry produced some 
     unparalleled high-tech accomplishments, just as in the U.S., 
     the diversion of talent and resources to the defense sector 
     brought new advances. It's clear that when government sets 
     out to achieve something, the returns can be high. In the 
     post-cold-war world of ideas, industry and government can be 
     partners for growth.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is where, amongst others who testified before us 
who said let us get going, we put it on the trade bill. As a result of 
having put it on the trade bill we had a hard time: No, this is not the 
Bush policy, this is not the Bush figure. But it is far below the 
figures recommended by all the private sector; far below the figures, 
$143 million, that the ranking member, formerly Chairman of Commerce 
under President Reagan, voted for. It is $143 million less--this is 
what we are recommending here rather than what Senator Danforth voted 
for:

       The end of the cold war with its prospect of big defense 
     cutbacks breathes new life into an old question: Should the 
     U.S. have a policy to promote technology and industry? We say 
     the government must have an important role in spurring the 
     attainment of knowledge and the generation of ideas, 
     including research and development, scientific and technical 
     education, the diffusion of technological knowledge, and help 
     to industry in exporting science- and technology-based 
     products.

  The report anticipated the critics:

       The critics will chorus that government shouldn't interfere 
     with the marketplace. An industrial policy, they argue, puts 
     government in the position of picking winners and losers. An 
     industrial policy costs billions of dollars. An industrial 
     policy smacks of central planning, the critics charge, citing 
     the catastrophic failure of the Soviet command economy.
       A coherent, knowledge-based growth policy can avoid the 
     pitfalls the critics worry about.

  That is why I want to allude to this particularly, because this is 
what we have in this bill:

       First, policies must be designed in such a way that no 
     particular industries are favored.

  That is the Advanced Technology Program, the extension, and services 
outreach centers. I will state that again: ``Can avoid these 
pitfalls.'' We thought the same thing. We are not pell-mell down the 
road, and we are certainly not with any Bush policy, you are right:

       First, policies must be designed in such a way that no 
     particular industries are favored. Parceling out research 
     dollars via a scientific peer-review process and requiring 
     business to make matching investments in some cases should 
     protect the process from being hijacked by political 
     interests. Shifting federal dollars out of other existing 
     programs, such as military R&D spending, is one way to hold 
     down costs.

  That is when you get the so-called cuts in defense, permitting the 
increases here. We are not increasing anything in the overall. In fact 
it is a net loss. We are cutting back, really, both. We cut back what 
the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from South Carolina, leading 
on this bill, voted for in the Commerce Committee last year in June 
when we reported the bill:

       No, America doesn't want a Ministry of International Trade 
     & Industry or a Gosplan. But even in the former Soviet Union, 
     the diversion of good ideas to the defense industry produced 
     some unparalleled high-tech accomplishments, just as in the 
     U.S., the diversion of talent and resources to the defense 
     sector brought new advances. It's clear that when government 
     sets out to achieve something, the returns can be high. In 
     the post-cold-war world of ideas, industry and government can 
     be partners for growth.

  That is the business world talking. As I read the amendment of the 
Senator, he said kill it. I would hope the Senator does not want to 
kill the modest momentum we have going, bearing in mind that this is 
far less than what we voted for. It has been cut back and it is far 
less than what the business leadership, the technological world says it 
ought to be: $4 billion to $8 billion. At best, 2 years from now we get 
to $1.4 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina is very 
instructive. I hear what he is saying. As far as numbers and history 
and background regarding these measures, I leave those things in the 
province of the chairman and the ranking member who is now on the 
floor.
  I can see there has been a response to my remarks about President 
Bush. I do understand that. President Bush's proposal--and these 
figures I do know because they come from the Congressional Record--was 
for a manufacturing technologies bill. That was the very narrow scope 
of it, limited only to manufacturing: $10 million for fiscal year 1993; 
$145 million for fiscal year 1994; and fiscal year 1995 was $125 
million. It went to the House, and the House raised it to $2.2 billion. 
The House sent back a very broad-based bill, much broader in scope than 
originally proposed, including manufacturing and other civilian 
technology programs.
  That is what happened to that legislation. It perished because of its 
own greed and corporeal fat. So that was the end of that.
  I listened to Senator Hollings' dissemination of the report he 
cited--but there are some very interesting philosophical differences 
the two parties have on the issue of competitiveness.
  The purpose of my amendment is to deal with competitiveness and not 
just deal with ``high tech.'' President Clinton said each nation is 
``like a big corporation competing in the global marketplace.'' I think 
that is quite revealing.
  It suggests that if we erase the line between public and private 
sectors, America will then be able to achieve its maximum potential 
when it comes to being competitive in the international marketplace.
  On page 3 of the committee report, this bill we are dealing with, we 
are told:

       The Department of Commerce has a leadership role to play in 
     this new era.

  And this--

       Expanded efforts at the Department of Commerce can be 
     important steps toward developing a comprehensive industry-
     led national system to finance needed industrial 
     technologies.

  And just down the page a bit in the report, we are told that 
America's competitors are succeeding because they are being supported 
by their governments. It is all right here in the committee report.
  The premise of this S. 4 is a national industrial policy. That is in 
the report of the committee. This grand assumption, I think, really 
needs a closer look, because one international competitor of envy is 
Germany. President Clinton has said on more than one occasion that 
``Germany is the model.''
  I lived there. I have a great affection for that country and its 
leaders and its citizens. But let us examine Germany for a moment. 
Germany's massive industrial policy appears to have done very little to 
relieve the huge problems that confront that country's economy 
presently. They have a skyrocketing unemployment rate of 12 percent. 
Their work force is now 25 percent less productive than ours.
  I must say, if there is a historically consistent role model of 
success, it is not Japan, it is not Germany, it is the United States of 
America. Ira Magaziner and Robert Reich wrote a book together in 1982 
called ``Minding America's Business.'' The book advocated a U.S. 
industrial policy by offering a quantitative basis for such policy. 
They said:

        Our standard of living can only rise if capital and labor 
     increasingly flows to industries with high value-added per 
     worker and if we maintain a position in those industries that 
     are superior to that of our competitors.

  I guess if we were to follow the logic completely through, then we 
should be further subsidizing the tobacco companies because they are by 
far the No. 1 manufacturing sector in this country when it comes to 
value-added per worker. No one can match tobacco companies on that 
score. Oil refining, automobiles: Distant second, distant third.
  So Ira Magaziner and Robert Reich are calling for an industrial 
policy that would funnel capital and labor into the cigarette 
industries. I do not think that will happen.
  So you see, there will be somebody picking winners and losers under 
their plan.
  Finally, I simply add that, yes, technology is important and so are 
high-tech firms, but the fact is there are other industries of equal 
importance to this country. How about the oil and gas industry where I 
come from, which has just gone into the ``bowwows.'' Out. Gone. And no 
one is paying attention. We cannot get the ear of anyone as we talk 
about relief for an oil and gas industry, which is truly on the ropes, 
because of the cost of the product and because of Government 
regulations, Mr. President. We are talking about the major source of 
our energy, as long as we still like internal combustion machinery.
  What about the uranium industry? Is it not ``high tech?'' It is the 
``highest tech'' thing you can ever imagine. I bet they will not get 
much out of this bill. I cannot imagine it. They are going to lose out 
in the pick, and yet there are 109 reactors in this country. Pretty 
high-tech stuff, too; about as high tech as you can get. They will not 
be picked, you can bet on that.
  So you see, maybe the opponents, when they use the phrase ``picking 
winners and losers'' are wrong, but when you see the lists of the 
potential participants and those who are going to be lined up on the 
track for the ``great race,'' you can see that there will be pickers of 
winners and losers just like a regular racetrack.
  These are things that trouble me. I like the phrase ``high tech.'' I 
think of what my good friend, Ed Markey, in the House said, when they 
talk about the super information highway. He said the good news is we 
have a new thing called the super information highway. He said the bad 
news is nobody knows what it is. That is about where we are when we are 
talking about high tech.
  But if we are talking about something that is just distributed by the 
Secretary of Commerce, even with a peer review, even with all the rest, 
you can bet that industries that are really on the ropes will not be in 
that selection process, and this is a very disturbing thing.
  The amount of money is also disturbing to us. These are some of the 
reasons for my amendment. If you really want to do something, then pass 
our regulatory reform alternative and not just provide funds through 
this process. Many of us think S. 4 will not accomplish anything more 
than the mission--not of the Senator from South Carolina, but of the 
administration--to enhance the position of the Department of Commerce 
in America.
  I have real concerns about that. That Department happens to be 
operated by the person who was the chairman of the Democratic National 
Committee, whether we like that or not. I do not want to be too 
partisan, but that is who is there. He is very, very savvy, very 
articulate and a very able man. He is looking for more ``turf,'' and he 
is looking for more arena. He has the ear of his President because he 
helped Bill Clinton get the title ``Mr. President.''
  That is another aspect to this. I know that may detonate a great 
miasma of clouds through the Chamber, and it is not intended to do 
that. But these are some of the concerns of those on our side of the 
aisle. What is the purpose, the real purpose of this unless it is 
picking in the most adroit places and the most appropriate places to 
ladle out some plenty big bucks?
  It is odd that the high-tech firms are not in Wyoming, they are not 
in North Dakota, they are not in Indiana. They are in the big places 
like California and New York where there is much ground to be tilled 
for 1996.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Hollings].
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Very few, I take it, in South Carolina, too.
  But it is really disappointing to have injected in here the Secretary 
of Commerce, who is a former chairman of the party. After all, we had 
the former chairman of the Republican Party, who was President here for 
4 years while we fought him, and then he finally came around to it.
  The distinguished Senator from Wyoming talked very casually. There is 
no program to be found that started off at $10 million and has gone to 
$2 billion, something like he is talking about. What we did back then 
is resolve the National Bureau of Standards into the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology. And the Bureau of Standards is still 
funded at $300 million in this one, less than any extension centers and 
some of the others.
  So it is very poor practice to lump together 2 years and say $2 
billion something, when it is $1.2 billion for next year and $1.4 
billion for 1996, including all of these programs of the National 
Science Foundation and National Information Infrastructure and much 
more. And then to go back and quote Ira Magaziner in 1982. Come on. We 
marked up this bill--we never have had Ira Magaziner connected with 
this bill in my life, and I have lived this bill since we started it 
even before 1988. For the last 8 years, I have been knocking on the 
door trying to get something. It was only part of an amendment.
  I have other amendments over in the Finance Committee to do away with 
the export sales offset and various other things of that kind, again 
with respect to enforcing our dumping laws, with respect to enforcing 
the free trade zones, with respect to transfer pricing to get the IRS 
involved, and so on. This was part of a bill. I never heard of Mr. 
Magaziner in relation to this bill. His field is health. He is not on 
this particular score that I know of. And then to just quote him, so he 
could drag in Ira Magaziner.
  Of course, that side is in heat over Ira, which is obvious since 
health care is on the griddle. There have been a few who have accepted 
his statistics, so we just spread across the spectrum here the name Ira 
Magaziner like he is associated with this bill. Likewise they invoke 
the name of the former chairman of the Democratic Party. The name that 
should be mentioned is Craig Fields, previously at DARPA in the 
Department of Defense, and now a member of the Economic Competitiveness 
Council, backed up by all the leaders of the National Science 
Foundation. I cannot get a more outstanding group of scientists and 
engineers, experts in technology, and everything else of that kind. It 
is they who support this bill.
  And then come and talk about the big bucks when it is less than what 
we unanimously reported out in June of last year. The distinguished 
Presiding Officer, as a member of the committee, realizes we have cut 
it back. Last year, it was $1.513 billion. Now, instead of $1.513--
$1,513,000,000--this bill provides $1.370 billion for all of these 
endeavors here listed. It is $143 million less than what Republican 
colleagues on the committee supported.
  The figures of the Senator here are totally inaccurate. His 
explanation of the genesis of this is totally inaccurate. Everybody 
knows. They cannot give one example. We have had Secretary Brown, the 
former chairman of the party, administering this for over a year. Name 
a center that he put in politically, or a grant that he has made 
politically.
  Well, they know that is sheer nonsense. They do not give any example. 
They do not give any amendment. They just spew out all these nongermane 
matters, and finally come around and say, well, we do not like it 
because the former chairman of the party is the Secretary of Commerce. 
This is a disgrace.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Baucus].
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Simpson 
amendment, which attempts to add the provisions of S. 177, the Dole 
Private Property Rights Act, to this bill.
  Why do I oppose it? For a lot of reasons. First, this amendment would 
write into law an executive order on takings; that is, takings under 
the fifth amendment to the Constitution, signed not by President 
Clinton, not by President Bush, but by President Reagan 6 years ago. It 
would incorporate lock, stock, and barrel that executive order under 
President Reagan signed 6 years ago. It would, therefore, carve into 
legislative stone an Executive order which, as far back as 1988, the 
Congressional Research Service concluded: First, overstated the 
likelihood of a taking; second, was out of step with Federal case law 
on takings; and third, had the potential to burden the implementation 
of important Federal programs.
  This amendment would saddle this President and all future Presidents 
with what President Reagan's own Solicitor General, Charles Fried, 
described as a quite radical plan to undermine Government's ability to 
protect the health, safety, civil rights, and environment of all 
Americans. In short, this amendment would make bad law.
  How would this amendment make bad law? By writing into law the 
provisions of Executive Order 12630, signed in March 1988 by then 
President Reagan. That Executive order has three fatal flaws. First, it 
interprets takings in a manner which goes far beyond any interpretation 
by any Federal court. Second, it makes the Attorney General the czar of 
all regulations promulgated by the executive branch. And third, it 
chills the ability of Federal agencies to issue regulations to protect 
our citizens' health, safety, civil rights, and environment.
  Let me address each of these. First, by writing the Executive order 
into law, the amendment undermines two centuries of Federal 
jurisprudence defining what constitutes a taking in violation of the 
fifth amendment of the Constitution. As recently as 1992, in the now 
famous case of Lucas versus South Carolina Coastal Council, the U.S. 
Supreme Court reaffirmed that property owners become entitled to 
compensation for takings of their property when Government action 
deprives them of all economically viable use of their property. The 
Supreme Court essentially reaffirmed prior Supreme Court 
interpretations of the fifth amendment.
  The Executive order, however, declares that Government action may 
result in a taking of private property--get this--even if there is only 
a partial diminution in the value of property, even where there might 
be temporary restrictions on the use of the property, or where there is 
simply a delay in Federal Government decisionmaking.
  I ask, Mr. President, what is a partial diminution? How much is 
partial? Who decides how much is partial? What about temporary? How 
temporary? Just a little bit temporary? Major temporary? How are we 
going to decide? What Federal agency is going to decide how temporary? 
What about delay? How much of a delay? A week? A day? A month? Two 
years?
  Mr. President, there is a reason that takings should properly be 
decided in the judicial arena; that is, by courts, not by bureaucrats. 
Courts decide what constitutes a taking under the fifth amendment of 
the Constitution on a case-by-case basis. Each case is different, with 
unique circumstances. If this Executive order passes, no regulation can 
be issued until the Attorney General has certified that the agency has 
determined there will not be a taking because of a partial diminution 
of value or a temporary restriction of use or because there is a delay 
in the agency's decision. Obviously, it is a process that cannot work.
  The amendment before us would write the Executive order's extensive 
and unjustified definitions of takings into the law. Broadening the 
scope of potential takings in this manner would greatly increase the 
potential liability of the American taxpayer for what up until now have 
been legitimate forms of Government regulations designed to protect 
Americans' health, safety, civil rights, and the environment.
  Second, by legislating the Executive order, the amendment would make 
the Attorney General the czar--or, in this case, the ``czarina''--of 
all Federal regulations issued by any Federal agency.
  The Executive order requires the Attorney General to issue guidelines 
for agencies to follow to avoid takings in carrying out their 
activities and to ensure that the policies of Federal agencies are in 
line with the guidelines and the Executive order. The amendment 
prohibits any new Federal regulations on any subject from taking effect 
until the Attorney General has certified that the agency issuing the 
regulations is in compliance with the Executive order. Thus, the 
Attorney General could veto any Federal regulation issued by any agency 
on the grounds that it does not comply with the Executive order's 
interpretation of what constitutes a taking. Again, this is wide open; 
a slight diminution; a slight delay; temporary restrictions. These 
could be takings under the Executive order.
  I have the highest regard for Attorney General Reno. However, I do 
not believe that she should be passing final judgment on the wisdom of 
regulations to control emissions of toxic substances under the Clean 
Air Act, to determine whether a species should be listed as threatened 
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, or to establish factory 
ventilation requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
  If the Founding Fathers did not see fit to make the Attorney General 
first among equals in the Cabinet, I do not see why we should allow 
overzealous ideologues in an earlier administration to do so by 
incorporating it into law today. I might add that Attorney General Reno 
herself, in an April 26, 1993, letter to Senator Glenn, and in a March 
9, 1994, letter to the majority leader, has expressed the 
administration's opposition to the Dole bill and this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of those letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 1993.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Glenn: I am writing to express the 
     Administration's concern about S. 177, legislation that would 
     codify Executive Order 12630 issued by President Reagan in 
     1988. It is my understanding that an amendment to this effect 
     may be offered when the Senate considers your bill to elevate 
     the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet Department 
     status.
       This legislation would require federal agencies to engage 
     in an additional, elaborate process of review of proposed 
     regulations. It would prohibit any regulation from becoming 
     effective until the Attorney General has certified that the 
     agency is in compliance with the terms of the Executive Order 
     ``as in effect in 1991.''
       This Administration is, of course, committed to protecting 
     the legitimate property rights of American citizens. We 
     believe, however, that freezing this Executive Order into law 
     would be unwise. Codifying the Order as it stood in 1991 
     would prevent this and any future administrations from 
     revising the Order to make it consistent with interpretations 
     of the law governing takings, as enunciated by the Supreme 
     Court. Finally, the legislation would create a private right 
     of action that would extend beyond that now available under 
     the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
       I respectfully suggest that this legislation represents an 
     unnecessary incursion upon the executive authority of the 
     President and, accordingly, should not be adopted. Thank you 
     for your consideration of this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.
                                  ____



                                Office of the Attorney General

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1994.
     Hon. George Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mitchell: I understand that a ``takings'' 
     amendment may be offered to S. 4 that would in effect codify 
     Executive Order 12630, issued by President Reagan in 1988. I 
     write to restate this Administration's opposition to such an 
     amendment.
       On April 26, 1993, I wrote Senator Glenn expressing concern 
     about a similar attempt to legislate a requirement that 
     federal agencies engage in an additional, elaborate process 
     of review of proposed regulations.
       This Administration continues its commitment to protecting 
     the legitimate property rights of American citizens. However, 
     such an amendment could limit the ability of this and any 
     future administrations to revise the Order to make it 
     consistent with interpretations of the law governing takings, 
     as enunciated by the Supreme Court.
       I respectfully suggest that this legislation represents an 
     unnecessary incursion upon the executive authority of the 
     President and, accordingly, should not be adopted. Thank you 
     for your consideration of this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, third, this amendment, like the Executive 
order, will chill the ability of Federal agencies to issue regulations 
protecting Americans' health and safety, civil rights, and the 
environment, or any thing else, for that matter. The Executive order 
requires Federal agencies to perform ``Takings Implication 
Assessments'' on virtually anything they do: regulations, proposed 
regulations, proposed legislation, comments on legislation, and policy 
statements. These Takings Implication Assessments are to be based on 
the Executive order's erroneous and overbroad interpretation of what 
constitutes a taking. Apply those incorrect standards, agencies will be 
wary of incurring takings claims. Consequently, agencies may shy away 
from adopting regulations governing the number of fire exits in food 
processing plants, requiring employers to provide health insurance, 
expressing a view on legislation to guarantee the civil rights of 
disabled Americans, or requiring the cleanup of toxic waste in an 
economically disadvantaged community.
  With potential consequences like these, it is easy to see why this 
amendment is opposed by diverse groups like the AFL-CIO, the American 
Public Health Association, the National Citizens Coalition for Nursing 
Home Reform, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National 
Wildlife Federation, the United Steelworkers of America, and many 
others.
  Mr. President, as you can see, there are strong substantive reasons 
why we should not adopt this amendment. But let me add one more reason: 
The amendment presents a false choice between supporting and opposing 
protection of private property rights. The amendment is billed as one 
to protect private property rights. Vote for it, its proponents say, 
and you will support protection of private property. Vote against it 
and be branded as a foe of one of the most basic tenets of American 
democracy--the right to property. Mr. President, it is not that simple.

  There is an excellent article by Betsy Carpenter in the March 14, 
1994, issue of U.S. News & World Report entitled, ``This Land Is My 
Land,'' which describes the takings debate.
  I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the article be 
included in the Record. Allow me, however, to now read a few excerpts 
from this article:

       [I]n fact, though America's land-use policies have been 
     among the freest in the world, private property rights have 
     never been absolute, say historians. Even in colonial 
     Massachusetts, property rights were sometimes abridged in the 
     interest of promoting social goals, says David Konig of 
     Washington University in St. Louis. To build and preserve a 
     sense of community, for example, villagers in many Puritan 
     towns weren't allowed to sell their land to outsiders or 
     build their homes more than half a mile from the meeting 
     house. There even were prohibitions on hunting--regulations 
     echoed in today's rules protecting endangered species. By the 
     late 1600's, for instance, deer populations had been so 
     ravaged by overhunting and habitat destruction that owners 
     were forbidden from killing deer on their property.
       The fundamental rule, then as now, was that owners could 
     not use their land in any way that harmed the community, 
     according to John Humbach, a law professor at Pace University 
     in White Plains, N.Y. ``We've always agreed that some land 
     uses are socially intolerable,'' says Humbach. ``It's just a 
     matter of which are which.''

  The article concludes with the following:

       Ultimately, the controversy between land rights activists 
     and environmentalists boils down to the perennial question of 
     how to balance private rights with the public good. Though 
     the basic question has remained the same since the colonial 
     era, circumstances have changed--and greatly. Two hundred 
     years ago, when there was a superabundance of undeveloped 
     land and neighbors were often tens of miles away, it was 
     pretty hard to use land in a way that harmed the community. 
     Now, many parts of the country are densely settled, and 
     scientists have a much richer understanding of how countless 
     small assaults on the part of millions of individuals can 
     threaten a region's ecological health. Says Pace University's 
     Humbach: ``Property rights are important, but so is the 
     livability of the land.''

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From U.S. News & World Report, Mar. 14, 1994]

This Land Is My Land--Environmentalism Is Colliding With the Rights of 
                            Property Owners

                          (By Betsy Carpenter)

       By all rights these should be glory days for 
     environmentalists. The nation's vice president is the author 
     of a green bestseller, and a battalion of environmental 
     leaders hold top administration jobs. Yet the movement is 
     faltering badly. From the newspaper oped columns to the 
     corridors of Congress, greens are under attack as elitists 
     who don't see or care about the problems of ordinary working 
     people. Moreover, the movement has suffered a string of 
     setbacks in Washington, D.C., including the recent departure 
     of a sympathetic Bureau of Land Management chief and the 
     defeat of a bill that would have elevated the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to departmental status.
       These setbacks are only the opening volleys, however, of an 
     all-out war brewing between environmentalists and a 
     burgeoning force on the political landscape known as the 
     property rights movement. Land rights advocates are 
     challenging as unvarnished land grabs on the part of the 
     government a host of environmental laws, from the Clean Water 
     Act to the Endangered Species Act. Already, activists from 
     both camps have traded shots in state capitols and the 
     courts, and a Supreme Court case this month will test the 
     potency of both arguments. The struggle cuts to the heart of 
     the fierce convictions Americans hold about private property 
     and individual liberty, and the outcome will determine the 
     future of the nation's dwindling undeveloped lands.
       The property rights credo is simple: The government should 
     compensate landowners any time green regulations lower the 
     value of property. But behind this proposition is the broader 
     goal of drastically curtailing the overall environmental 
     regulatory scheme. Says Donald Schmitz of the Fifth Amendment 
     Foundation, a property rights group in Santa Monica, Calif., 
     ``It would cool [the government's] jets significantly if it 
     had to pay people for what it stole.''
       The land rights rebellion bubbled up as a coalition of 
     small grass-roots groups in the mid-1980s, right about the 
     time that the environmental agenda shifted to restrictions in 
     the use of private property. Today, it is a powerful force 
     composed of hundreds of organizations backed by conservative 
     think tanks and special-interest groups, including farmers, 
     developers, loggers, miners, and oil and gas producers. When 
     the environmental movement was launched in the early 1970s, 
     the government focused on curbing the poisons spewed out by 
     big polluting industries. Once industry's worst excesses were 
     checked, however, the feds began tackling the environmental 
     damage brought about by development and urban sprawl. 
     Suddenly, legions of property owners were feeling the pinch 
     of regulation, too.
       For some, that pinch has felt more like a stranglehold. 
     Yshmael Garcia of Winchester, Calif., asserts that he lost 
     his home to a wildfire last October because of the endangered 
     Stephen's kangaroo rat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
     state and county fire officials discouraged him from plowing 
     a proper firebreak around his home because the equipment 
     might have damaged labyrinthine burrows where the rats live. 
     Says Garcia, ``Now, I'm homeless, thanks to a bunch of 
     bureaucrats and so-called environmentalists.'' According to 
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman Connie Babb, a 
     plowed firebreak would not necessarily have saved Garcia's 
     home. ``Those fires were jumping six-lane highways,'' she 
     says.
       At the root of this civil war are a dozen words seemingly 
     tacked on to the end of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of 
     Rights: ``. . . nor shall private property by taken for 
     public use, without just compensation.'' According to legal 
     historians, the original purpose of the ``takings clause'' 
     was to make sure that owners would be paid when their land 
     was actually seized, which was not uncommon in Revolutionary 
     times with two armies grabbing acreage to build roads and 
     quarter soldiers. In addition, the largely wealthy, landed 
     Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that when the Constitution 
     granted the masses political power, they would not turn 
     around and redistribute the holdings of the rich.
       Both land rights advocates and environmentalists concur 
     that when the government actually seizes land--for roads and 
     schools, for instance--owners deserve to be compensated for 
     their losses. But the land rights camp takes the argument 
     further, maintaining that regulation without compensation is 
     tantamount to stripping owners of freedom of speech, due 
     process and other fundamental liberties set out in the Bill 
     of Rights. ``The right to own and use private property is 
     sacred,'' says Nancie Marzulla of the Defenders of Property 
     Rights, based in Washington, D.C. ``It's been that way since 
     the nation was born.''


                          historic perspective

       But, in fact, though America's land-use policies have been 
     among the freest in the world, private-property rights have 
     never been absolute, say historians. Even in colonial 
     Massachusetts, property rights were sometimes abridged in the 
     interest of promoting social goals, says David Konig of 
     Washington University in St. Louis. To build and preserve a 
     sense of community, for example, villagers in many Puritan 
     towns weren't allowed to sell their land to outsiders or 
     build their homes more than half a mile from the meeting 
     house. There even were prohibitions on hunting--regulations 
     echoed in today's rules protecting endangered species. By the 
     late 1600s, for instance, deer populations had been so 
     ravaged by overhunting and habitat destruction that owners 
     were forbidden from killing deer on their property.
       The fundamental rule, then as now, was that owners could 
     not use their land in any way that harmed the community, 
     according to John Humbach, a law professor at Pace University 
     in White Plains, N.Y. ``We've always agreed that some land 
     uses are socially intolerable,'' says Humbach. ``It's just a 
     matter of which are which.''
       Until recently, property rights activists fought their 
     campaign primarily through the courts. In the past six years 
     the movement has chalked up several victories, but judges 
     have not embraced the entire agenda. Indeed, in a number of 
     landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that 
     reasonable regulation of land use is constitutional and that 
     the state need not pay unhappy landowners every times 
     regulations lower land values.
       At the same time, the Supreme Court has emphasized that 
     governments cannot ride roughshod over property owners and 
     has laid down two key tests for deciding when owners 
     generally deserve compensation. First, the government must 
     open its coffers when a property owner suffers a permanent 
     ``physical occupation''--no matter how minor--such as when 
     the government mandates that cable television lines be strung 
     across a property. Also, the state has to compensate a 
     property owner when a regulation goes ``too far,'' such as 
     when a property's economic value is destroyed. In 1992 the 
     Supreme Court ruled in favor of a South Carolina developer, 
     David Lucas, who lost the right to build on two oceanfront 
     lots, for which he had paid nearly $1 million, after the 
     state adopted a coastal zone management plan.
       A case now before the Supreme Court will clarify another 
     murky area of the law: whether restricting land use is 
     justified absent a direct and immediate link to environmental 
     damage. The case, which will be heard March 23, concerns, 
     Florence Dolan of Tigard, Ore., who sought to enlarge her 
     plumbing and electrical supply store. The city granted her 
     permission on the condition that she set aside about a 10th 
     of the property for a bicycle path and a greenway along the 
     flood plain of an adjacent creek. When Dolan protested, the 
     city maintained that the greenway was needed to help handle 
     increased water runoff from the larger store and parking lot, 
     while the path would ease traffic congestion caused by 
     Dolan's growing number of customers.


                             daily damages

       Florence Dolan's son Daniel Dolan argues that the city's 
     terms are ``extortion, pure and simple.'' But 
     environmentalists fear that a Dolan victory could severely 
     limit governments' ability to impose a variety of important 
     green regulations. By all accounts, many of today's 
     ecological problems stem from the ordinary activities of 
     millions of people, not the actions of a handful of dirty 
     industries. For instance, fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay are 
     declining in large part because of polluted runoff from city 
     streets, farms and septic tanks across a 64,000-square-mile 
     watershed. Protecting the bay hinges on state and local 
     governments managing growth, says Ann Powers, vice president 
     and general counsel of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 
     Annapolis, Md. According to Powers, a Dolan win could 
     ``completely tie the hands of local governments.''
       As it has become clear that the Supreme Court will not give 
     the land rights movement a total victory, its activists have 
     increasingly carried their crusade to Congress, attempting to 
     attach land rights amendments to every important piece of 
     environmental legislation and in the process paralyzing the 
     Clinton administration's environmental efforts. Last October, 
     for instance, conservative lawmakers tried to slap a land 
     rights amendment onto legislation authorizing a government 
     survey of plant and animal species. The amendment, sponsored 
     by W. J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, a Louisiana Democrat, would have 
     required the government to compensate owners if the economic 
     value of their property dropped by 50 percent or more as a 
     result of survey data. The amendment was defeated, but the 
     debate was so vociferous that environmentalists are putting 
     off reauthorization of the controversial Endangered Species 
     Act for at least another year.
       ``The premise [of the property rights argument] seems to be 
     that the individual produces while the government just takes 
     away,'' argues environmentalist Jessica Mathews, a senior 
     fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. But often the 
     reason that land is so valuable in the first place, she 
     asserted in a Washington Post essay, is because the 
     government has built interstates and bridges, provided flood 
     insurance and paid for sewer lines. ``Perhaps, then, property 
     owners should pay every time a government action raises the 
     value of their property,'' she wrote. ``It makes just as 
     little sense.''
       Land rights activists have also taken the battle to state 
     capitols, where in the past two years fully 39 states have 
     considered land rights legislation. Most of the measures, 
     known as ``assessment bills,'' would require states to study 
     the potential costs of compensating owners before writing any 
     new regulations. Some states have considered more-radical 
     proposals that, like Tauzin's amendment, would mandate 
     compensation whenever regulations cut the value of property 
     by a certain percent.
       Most of these bills have been defeated because state 
     legislators conclude that such laws would not only break the 
     bank but undermine basic health and environmental 
     protections. At present, only four states--Delaware, Indiana, 
     Utah and Washington--have laws in place, though legislation 
     is pending in several others.


                             for everyman?

       Property rights advocates often portray themselves as 
     average ``moms and pops'' fighting a rearguard action against 
     powerful bureaucracies and environmental organizations. But a 
     look at who owns land in America reveals that by and large 
     the property rights movement represents the wealthier and 
     more powerful segments of American society, according to John 
     Echeverria, counsel for the National Audubon Society in 
     Washington, D.C. First, the movement benefits from the 
     lobbying clout of many rich special-interest groups. In 
     addition, most of the privately owned land in America is 
     concentrated in the hands of relatively wealthy individuals 
     and corporations. Indeed, according to Charles Geisler of 
     Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., 5 percent of landowners 
     in this country, including corporations, have title to three 
     quarters of the privately held land. Moreover, says Geisler, 
     landownership is growing more monopolized all the time.


                           a delicate balance

       Still, according to experts, when land-use rules change, 
     small landowners are often hit hardest, because they have a 
     high proportion of their total wealth tied up in real estate. 
     Government officials are beginning to recognize that the 
     property rights movement includes a contingent of ``regular 
     people'' who have been steamrollered by overreaching 
     regulations. ``It is clear that the federal government needs 
     to get more user-friendly for small landowners,'' says 
     Department of Interior spokesman Kevin Sweeney. He points out 
     that preserving small, isolated patches of natural lands in 
     the midst of sprawling development, as some of today's laws 
     require, does not always make ecological sense. Nor does it 
     make much sense economically to treat owners of small parcels 
     of land the same as major landholders, who often can afford 
     to set aside a portion of their holdings to preserve the 
     environment.
       Ultimately, the controversy between land rights activists 
     and environmentalists boils down to the perennial question of 
     how to balance private rights with the public good. Though 
     the basic question has remained the same since the colonial 
     era, circumstances have changed--and greatly. Two hundred 
     years ago, when there was a super-abundance of undeveloped 
     land and neighbors were often tens of miles away, it was 
     pretty hard to use land in a way that harmed the community. 
     Now, many parts of the country are densely settled, and 
     scientists have a much richer understanding of how countless 
     small assaults on the part of millions of individuals can 
     threaten a region's ecological health. Says Pace University's 
     Humbach, ``Property rights are important, but so is the 
     livability of the land.''

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, each of us in the Senate has sworn an oath 
to uphold the Constitution, including the fifth amendment's protection 
against taking private property for public use without just 
compensation. I care deeply, as I believe all Senators do, about 
protecting private property rights. But I also care deeply about 
ensuring American's health, safety, and civil rights, and protecting 
the environment. That is why I believe the best way to protect private 
property rights and ensure these other important public rights is by 
being faithful to the Constitution as it is interpreted by the Federal 
courts.
  Under our system of government, the courts have the duty to interpret 
the Constitution. For two centuries now, the courts have done so. The 
courts interpret the Constitution to determine what constitutes a 
taking of private property in violation of the fifth amendment. In 
doing so, the courts strike a balance between private property rights 
and the public's rights to the type of community we all want to live 
in.
  I think we do the Constitution, and ultimately the American people, a 
great disservice when we try to ignore the courts and legislate, as 
this amendment does, with unwarranted, unbalanced, and ideologically 
driven interpretations of the Constitution.
  For all these reasons, Mr. President, I urge Senators to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, to some degree, what this comes down to is some public 
concern about the overzealous issuance of regulations--too much redtape 
in the Federal Government. That is a very legitimate concern. But the 
answer is not this amendment. It is not this takings proposal.
  Let me remind Senators, for example, of the Endangered Species Act. 
In the 20 years of its existence, there have been two claims of takings 
in the Federal courts--two. And no court has found that the Endangered 
Species Act has resulted in a taking. In 20 years, under the Clean 
Water Act, there have been just three cases in which a court has found 
a taking. It just does not happen.
  The answer, then, to concern about overregulation is for Congress to 
do a better job in handling excessive rules and regulations. We are 
doing that. For example, the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
which has jurisdiction over most of our environmental statutes, just 
last week concluded markup of the Clean Water Act. What do we do in 
that legislation? No. 1, we reduce mandates. The public is concerned 
about excessive mandates, unfunded mandates. We reduce those so that 
now overflow and storm water requirements will be much less burdensome 
and onerous on our cities.
  In the Safe Drinking Water Act that we are taking up, communities are 
concerned about excessive monitoring of their water systems and 
excessive standards for the water systems. We will be reporting out 
legislation in our committee this week, or the following week, which 
dramatically addresses those points and reduces the monitoring 
requirements and reduces the standards in a way consistent with public 
health. We are responding.
  Mr. President, I might say that part of the answer to excessive 
regulations is for this body to have strong oversight hearings. We in 
the Environment and Public Works Committee are doing just that. We are 
making sure that the agencies follow the intent of the Congress. The 
way to do that is to have very aggressive oversight hearings, and ask a 
lot of tough questions of the agencies to make sure they do not go 
afield.
  Mr. President, that is basically the way to deal with excessive 
regulation. It is not to pass this amendment--particularly an amendment 
which includes the takings amendment, which incorporates an Executive 
order that makes no sense, and that I think will be causing a lot more 
problems than we are going to solve.
  I did not address the gridlock that amendment would create. The 
American people are very tired of gridlock. President Clinton ran on 
the platform of change, to end gridlock and solve problems. We are 
passing legislation which does that. But if this amendment passes, 
believe me, we have not begun to see gridlock. We have not begun to see 
gridlock, because if this amendment passes, everyone is going to be 
reinterpreting whether or not something is a taking or not, as 
interpreted by each agency, and as interpreted by the Attorney General. 
Boy, then you will see litigation, then you will see gridlock.
  Frankly, I do not think that is the intent of the sponsors. I do not 
think that is their intent, but that will be the effect if this 
amendment passes--a dramatic disservice to the American public. For all 
of these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to not vote in favor of 
the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chair. Just to 
correct the Record relative to the statement made by my colleague from 
Wyoming, Senator Simpson said that four new bills had been added to the 
S. 4 floor version. The Gore bill, S. 2937, was in the original S. 4. 
It was not added. The fact of the matter is that the Gore bill, S. 
2937, has been cut from $244 to $209 million. The Bingaman bill that he 
referred to is included in the DOD authorization legislation. S. 1537, 
by Senator Rockefeller, is not in S. 4. Senator Wofford of 
Pennsylvania, his small bill was a series of amendments with no 
authorizations and was added before the Commerce Committee vote. So I 
wanted to make that absolutely clear.
  The opponents lump together 2 years of appropriations to argue we are 
going from $10 million to $2 billion. I wish we could, incidentally, 
because it would be wonderful to take it out of Defense, some of that 
$40 billion over there, and at most $2 billion over here in the 
advanced technology, commercialization of our technology and advanced 
technology. I wish we could. But this is bipartisan, and everybody 
studied and looked, including OMB, which cut us back on the amounts. 
These are not any kind of new bills all of a sudden coming up.
  Another particular reference was made, of course, to the Secretary of 
Commerce. I compliment the Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown. They talk 
about him as the former chairman of the Democratic Party, and I do so 
advisedly. I will never forget my colleague to the north, in North 
Carolina, running for reelection, and the hundreds of thousands, over 
$1 million he got from the national committee. My colleague down in 
Georgia similarly got a million-plus dollars. Old Hollings never got 
anything. I understand when I made that statement, the party got 
$25,000 at one time.
  Let me say this: Chairman Ron Brown was not out politicking for old 
Hollings' reelection in 1992. But I still admire the gentlemen. I think 
he is an outstanding Secretary of Commerce. I have seen them all, for 
40 years now, and have worked with them over the many, many years. I 
really admire his diligence and his conscientiousness, particularly in 
regard to technology, where Secretary Brown has coordinated this team:
  Mary Lowe Good, who is the Under Secretary of Technology, and she 
comes as the senior vice president for technology from Allied Signal. 
It was only yesterday that colleagues said she had testified before the 
Finance Committee relative to the General Agreement of Tariffs and 
Trade, and how outstanding she was, how balanced and how cogent she was 
in her presentation at that particular time. We have had nothing but 
wonderful praise from both sides of the aisle for Mary Lowe Good. She 
is not out there ``dishing out big bucks,'' as the Senator from Wyoming 
states.
  Similarly, we were very fortunate in bringing over as the former 
office director of the Defense Research entity, DARPA, from the 
Department of Defense, Arati Prabhakar. She is head of NIST. Right to 
the point, the Senator from New Mexico said he had Arati Prabhakar come 
out to New Mexico. Senator Domenici, my counterpart --and he and I 
worked closely together on the budget, and we worked closely together 
as the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce appropriations. But 
Arati Prabhakar went out there to Sandia Laboratories and other 
facilities in New Mexico, and Senator Domenici was exclaiming how 
fortunate we are to have this consummate professional who is thoroughly 
familiar and motivated with respect to playing catchup ball and getting 
our country back on top of the technology heap. And she is not there, I 
can tell you now, dishing out the big bucks.
  Graham Mitchell, the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, from 
GTE Laboratories, is the planning and forecasting director there and 
was formerly with General Electric. These are the folks there now. If 
you had, as intimated, the head of the party, he would have brought 
along three assistants to help because he is traveling a lot. Any 
Secretary of Commerce is responding to many, many duties. He would have 
three there handling it and say ``dish out the money.''

  I will never forget, that is exactly what happened with OEO and 
President Lyndon Johnson when I was there serving under him in the 
early days and the election was coming on. He told Sarge Shriver, ``Get 
it out; get it out.'' That is why we had the Black Panthers meeting and 
fighting with some other group up in Chicago. They were just dishing 
out the money hither, thither, and yon, to get it. That is 30-year-old 
politics.
  In the olden days, we watched these things. Our Republican colleagues 
watched these things. I am glad that they do. That is why we have this 
bipartisan effort, and that is why we passed this out unanimously from 
the committee last year in June, and it has been passed by unanimous 
vote here in the U.S. Senate the year before that.
  With respect to dishing out the big bucks, here are the endorsements 
that have come from the Advanced Technology Coalition. The Advanced 
Technology Coalition endorsing this includes AEA--the American 
Electronics Association. I happen to know--having been around town long 
enough you know their propensity and you know their politics. You do 
have to raise money. All of them have been supportive of me, but not 
nearly so supportive as compared to if I had been a Republican. In 
fact, I have had a lot of them ask me, on account of my often 
conservative views, and views on the budget, and my views with the 
distinguished Chair trying to pay the bill around this town, why don't 
I join the Republican Party. Maybe this is the reason why they come 
with this extraneous nonsense here when you have a good measure, 
unanimously passed, and engage in this. This would be embarrassing to 
me. If I saw our side engage in this, I would go to George Mitchell and 
say: ``Look here. Let us cut that nonsense out.''
  We have a lot of good work to do up here in Washington. Let us not 
all of a sudden, when you get a measure that has been unanimously 
passed, thoroughly vetted, and with all the support you could possibly 
ask, start dragging in Ira Magaziner and Ron Brown, former chairman of 
the Democratic Party, and that kind of thing. That is an embarrassment.
  Here are the groups whose names are associated affirmatively with S. 
4: The American Electronics Association, the Modernization Forum, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the Microelectronics and 
Computer Technology Corp., Honeywell, Inc., the National Society of 
Professional Engineers, Business Executives for National Security, 
IEEE-USA, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 
Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronics Circuits, 
Wilson and Wilson, American Society for Training and Development, 
Catapult Communications Corp., Dover Technologies, Texas Instruments, 
Columbia University, Motorola, Intel Corp., Cray Research, Electron 
Transfer Technologies, Electronic Data Systems, American Society for 
Engineering Education, U S West, Electronic Industries Association, 
Tera Computer Co., Convex Computer Corp., Association for Manufacturing 
Technology, Semiconductor Research Corp., American Society of 
Engineering Societies, AT&T, and on down the list.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter and the 
enclosure and endorsements attendant thereto be printed in the Record 
at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Factsheet on S. 4,, the National Competitiveness Act


                              the proposal

       S. 4 will help American industry improve competitiveness 
     and create and retain jobs by reauthorizing the technology 
     and manufacturing assistance programs of the Commerce 
     Department's Technology Administration, especially its 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The 
     bill also authorizes several other Federal manufacturing and 
     computer initiatives.
       The Senate will consider a modified version of the reported 
     bill. The Commerce Committee approved S. 4 without objection 
     on May 25, 1993. S. 4, in turn, is based on S. 1330, which 
     passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 30, 1992. The 
     House companion to S. 4 is H.R. 820.


                            main provisions

       NIST manufacturing research and extension. S. 4 directs 
     NIST to continue its existing manufacturing research efforts, 
     and also reauthorizes NIST's Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership (MEP). The MEP program currently supports 7 
     Manufacturing Technology Centers around the country, which 
     give small manufacturers technical advice on improving 
     productivity, boosting profits, and saving jobs. The MEP also 
     awards State Technology Extension Program planning grants to 
     states, manages 42 DOD-supported extension projects in 25 
     states, and soon will support small Manufacturing Outreach 
     Centers to serve less urban areas. S. 4 is a step towards to 
     Administration's goal of eventually creating over 100 
     extension centers, large and small, to provide technical 
     assistance nationwide to America's 360,000 small 
     manufacturers.
       NIST Advanced Technology Program. S. 4 also reauthorizes 
     the ATP--the government's principal civilian program to help 
     industry develop new technologies which have broad economic 
     value but also have risks or costs too steep for companies to 
     undertake alone. By helping companies solve technical 
     problems associated with new ideas, the ATP helps U.S. 
     industry avoid cases like the VCR--where Americans invent a 
     technology only to see others solve technical problems 
     quickly and get to market first. ATP projects are industry-
     led, cost-shared, and selected by merit review. The ATP only 
     funds research; it does not subsidize commercial products. 
     Since its creation in 1988, it has supported 89 projects with 
     200 research partners in 34 states. The FY 1994 appropriation 
     is $200 million; S. 4 authorizes $475 million for FY 1995 and 
     $575 million for FY 1996.
       NIST laboratories. Since 1901, NIST and its predecessor, 
     the National Bureau of Standards, have provided technical 
     services to American industry--particularly precise 
     measurement and quality assurance techniques which help 
     companies improve quality, lower costs, and speed new 
     products to market. NIST also has the leading Federal 
     laboratory on fire and building safety. S. 4 reauthorizes 
     these activities.
       NSF manufacturing research and training. S. 4 also 
     authorizes $75 million at NSF to expand its manufacturing 
     research and training activities.
       Information technology applications research. Title VI of 
     S. 4 revises the current High-Performance Computing and 
     Communications Program to require Federal computer agencies 
     to work with computer users and vendors on research to 
     develop new advanced computer applications in the socially-
     important areas of education, health care, manufacturing, and 
     information.
       Other provisions. The bill also contains several other 
     authorizations, including ones for the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Technology, industry advisory groups, an 
     upgraded DOC office to monitor foreign technology, and a new 
     DOC-Small Business Administration pilot program to support 
     private technology venture capital companies. A new title VII 
     in the floor version contains amendments to the 1990 Fastener 
     Quality Act, a law which regulates the manufacture and sale 
     of high-strength bolts used in safety-related applications; 
     the revisions were recommended by both NIST and the official 
     Fastener Advisory Committee.
       Authorizations. The floor substitute contains FY 1995 
     authorizations totalling $1,370 million and FY 1996 
     authorizations of $1,478 million. Any new appropriations 
     based on these authorizations will be within the 
     discretionary budget's hard freeze. A budget table is 
     attached.


                       talking points on the bill

       S. 4 is an economic growth bill. It reauthorizes programs 
     at the Commerce Department and elsewhere that support 
     industry's own efforts to stay at the cutting edge of 
     technology, improve manufacturing, and create and retain 
     American jobs. In an era when American companies face serious 
     long-term competition in technology, S. 4 is a vital 
     investment in the Nation's economic future.
       S. 4 focuses on today's priority--helping general 
     manufacturing and manufacturing jobs. The Federal Government 
     has long provided research support to several industries, 
     including agriculture, aerospace, energy, and medicine. But 
     while overall manufacturing employs 19 million Americans, as 
     late as 1992 less than 1 percent of the government's annual 
     $70 billion research budget went to support general 
     industrial development. S. 4 follows the proven model of 
     agricultural research and extension by expanding similar 
     support for U.S. manufacturing and technology firms, 
     including small companies.
       S. 4 does not fit the caricature of ``industrial policy.'' 
     The bill definitely will help industry--just as other Federal 
     research programs help agriculture, aircraft, and so forth. 
     But S. 4's programs do not fit the old stereotype of 
     ``industrial policy.'' In the ATP, industry--not government--
     picks technologies, runs research projects, and pays over 
     half the costs. S. 4's programs are not pork; peer-review is 
     used for the ATP and NSF, and manufacturing center proposals 
     are evaluated by the National Academy of Engineering. 
     Moreover, NIST and NSF only support research; they never 
     subsidize commercial products. These are high-quality 
     programs.
       S. 4 will not bust the budget or lead to massive government 
     spending. All appropriations will be within the freeze on 
     discretionary spending, and even with this bill Commerce 
     Department technology programs will amount to less than 2 
     percent of Federal research spending. Is that too much to 
     spend in support of general American manufacturing?
       Leading industry groups strongly support S. 4. Endorsement 
     letters have been received from, among others, the American 
     Electronics Association, the National Association of 
     Manufacturers, and the National Coalition for Advanced 
     Manufacturing. This bill supports industry's own technology 
     efforts, and was written in close consultation with industry.
                                  ____



                                Advanced Technology Coalition,

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 1994.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: On behalf of the Advanced Technology 
     Coalition, we want to express our strong support for the 
     Senate version of the National Competitiveness Act, S. 4.
       We believe that the bill deserves bipartisan support. We 
     ask that you vote for the bill when it reaches the floor in 
     the very near future. Its passage is essential to 
     strengthening the ability of our companies and members to 
     compete in the international marketplace; in short, S. 4 
     means jobs and will contribute to our nation's long-term 
     economic health.
       Combined, the Advanced Technology Coalition represents 5 
     million U.S. workers, 3,500 electronics firms, 329,000 
     engineers, and 13,500 companies in the manufacturing sector. 
     The Coalition is a diverse group of high-tech companies, 
     traditional manufacturing industries, labor, professional 
     societies, universities and research consortia that have a 
     common goal of ensuring America's industrial and 
     technological leadership.
       The members of the Advanced Technology Coalition have 
     invested an enormous amount of time working with both the 
     House and the Senate in developing and refining the National 
     Competitiveness Act. The Coalition believes that its views 
     have been heard by Congress and reflected in the bill.
       In short, we believe that S. 4 will promote American 
     competitiveness and enhance the ability of the private sector 
     to create jobs in this country. We hope that you will play a 
     leadership role in ensuring its passage. We would be happy to 
     sit down with you or your staff to discuss the bill in 
     greater detail.
           Sincerely,
       American Electronics Association (AEA).
       National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
       The Modernization Forum.
       Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC).
       Honeywell, Inc.
       National Society of Professional Engineers.
       Business Executives for National Security.
       IEEE-USA.
       Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI).
       Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronics 
     Circuits (IPC).
       Wilson and Wilson.
       American Society for Training and Development.
       Catapult Communications Corporation.
       Dover Technologies.
       Texas Instruments, Inc.
       Columbia University.
       Motorola.
       Intel Corporation.
       Cray Research.
       Electron Transfer Technologies.
       Electronic Data Systems (EDS).
       American Society for Engineering Education.
       U.S. West, Incorporated.
       Electronic Industries Association.
       Tera Computer Company.
       Southeast Manufacturing Technology Center.
       Convex Computer Corporation.
       Association for Manufacturing Technology.
       Semiconductor Research Corporation.
       American Society of Engineering Societies.
       AT&T.
       Hoya Micro Mask, Inc.
                                  ____

                                        The National Coalition for


                                       Advanced Manufacturing,

                                 Washington, DC, February 8, 1994.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: On behalf of the National Coalition 
     for Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM), I want to express our 
     strong support for the Senate version of the National 
     Competitiveness Act, S. 4.
       We believe that the bill deserves bipartisan support and 
     ask that you join many of your colleagues in supporting the 
     bill when it reaches the floor. Its passage will enhance the 
     ability of U.S. manufacturing companies to compete in the 
     international marketplace. S. 4 would also help to expand the 
     pool of high skill, high wage jobs for the American 
     workforce.
       NACFAM especially supports the manufacturing provisions of 
     the bill (Title II) which, among other things, will develop a 
     national system of manufacturing extension centers and 
     technical services. This system will improve the ability of 
     the nation's 360,000 small and medium-sized manufacturers to 
     modernize through the adoption of advanced manufacturing 
     technology and related processes critical to increasing their 
     productivity, product quality, and competitiveness.
       These small- and medium-sized manufacturers are the 
     backbone of our domestic industrial base. Manufacturing 
     establishments with fewer than 500 employees represent 98% of 
     the nation's total, employ two-thirds of the manufacturing 
     workforce, and produce nearly half of the nation's value 
     added in manufacturing.
       NACFAM, a non-partisan, non-profit, industry-led coalition, 
     has worked as a catalyst for public-private cooperation in 
     modernizing America's industrial base for over 5 years. 
     NACFAM's rapidly growing membership includes 65 corporations, 
     175 manufacturing technology centers (making NACFAM the 
     largest association of such centers) and 27 national trade 
     and technical associations (representing between them over 
     80,000 companies and thousands of technical education 
     institutions).
       Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration of S. 
     4, I remain,
                                                        Leo Reddy,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                                  Computer Systems


                                               Policy Project,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1994.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hollings: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP) in support of your 
     efforts to enact legislation to establish an information 
     applications technology component of the High Performance 
     Computing Act, Title VI of S. 4.
       CSPP strongly believes that the research framework 
     established by Title VI of S. 4 will complement efforts by 
     the private sector to develop applications for an enhanced 
     national information infrastructure (NII). Title VI 
     authorizes funds for precommercial research that will 
     stimulate the development by the private sector of new 
     applications in education, healthcare, access to government 
     information and services, and digital libraries. These 
     applications have the potential to create new products, 
     services, and jobs and to improve the quality of life for all 
     Americans by bringing the benefits of the information age to 
     everyone.
       The United States is currently the world leader in 
     computing and communications technologies. An enhanced 
     national information infrastructure will not only help us 
     maintain that lead, but will put our information technology 
     advantage to work for all Americans. CSPP believes that 
     initiatives such as those authorized by Title VI of S. 4 will 
     contribute significantly to successful and rapid evolution of 
     the NII.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Lewis E. Platt,
         Chairman and CEO, Hewlett-Packard Co., Chairman, CSPP 
           Working Group on Information Infrastructure.
                                  ____

                                               American Industrial


                                           Extension Alliance,

                              College Park, MD, February 14, 1994.
       Dear Senator Hollings, The Senate will soon be considering 
     Senate File 4, a bill that will directly impact the ability 
     of American industry to compete in world markets. This 
     important bill contains a section on manufacturing extension 
     that is designed to provide the United States with an 
     effective system of assisting industry in modernizing 
     technical, management and processing systems. There is 
     preponderance of evidence that our industries lag in 
     utilizing modern equipment and systems, and this federal 
     effort will bring cohesion to the disparate systems now in 
     existence.
       The members of the American Industrial Extension Alliance 
     are firmly behind efforts to strengthen this country's 
     technical assistance programs and bring this needed service 
     to all the states. The Alliance members represent most of the 
     industrial extension programs that now exist, but we are well 
     aware of the size of the problem is beyond the capabilities 
     of these few programs. We support the position of the 
     National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing and the 
     expanding Manufacturing Extension Partnership at NIST.
       Your support in strengthening American manufacturing firms 
     by the passage of Senate File 4 will be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                          David H. Swanson, Ph.D.,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                              American Society for


                                     Training and Development,

                                 Alexandria, VA, February 4, 1994.
     Re S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act of 1993.

     Member,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The American Society for Training and 
     Development (ASTD), on behalf of more than 55,000 corporate-
     based human resources development specialists, urges your 
     support for S. 4, the ``National Competitiveness Act of 
     1993,'' when it is considered on the floor in the coming 
     days.
       The ``National Competitiveness Act of 1993'' establishes 
     key underpinnings of a national technology policy based on 
     outreach to the private sector, the targeting of assistance 
     to small and medium-sized companies, and the integration of 
     worker training with technology assistance.
       ASTD specifically supports provisions to create 
     Manufacturing Outreach Centers and expand the activities of 
     the existing Manufacturing Technology Centers. Enactment of 
     these provisions will help companies gain increased access to 
     manufacturing assistance, implement the best manufacturing 
     technology and processes at least cost, and train workers in 
     maximum utilization of technology and productions systems.
       ASTD is the world's largest association dedicated to 
     advancing workforce training in conjunction with 
     technological progress and the creation of high performance 
     workplaces. We look forward to swift passage of this 
     important initiative during the 2d session of the 103d 
     Congress as a critical step to improve U.S. competitiveness.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Curtis E. Plott,
                                                President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                           The American Society of


                                         Mechanical Engineers,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 1994.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: On behalf of the Technology Policy Group 
     of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), I 
     urge you to support S. 4, the ``National Competitiveness Act 
     of 1993,'' which is scheduled to be brought to the Senate 
     floor this week.
       This important legislation will provide the underpinning 
     for a realistic national technology policy. It includes 
     provisions that support the development and use of 
     manufacturing technologies which are essential for continued 
     U.S. gains in productivity and industrial competitiveness. 
     The bill also calls for industry participation in the 
     development of advanced manufacturing program strategies 
     through the use of an advisory committee to assure that the 
     infrastructure and new knowledge gained from the program will 
     be effectively utilized by U.S. manufacturers.
       ASME has accorded competitiveness a high priority in our 
     1994 public policy agenda. This letter is written on behalf 
     of the Technology Policy Group, a group of ASME members with 
     expertise in the field of competitiveness, and reflects its 
     views, rather than an official position of ASME.
       Again, I urge your support of this legislation to further 
     the nation's industrial competitiveness.
           Sincerely,

                                                  John Parker,

                                                   Vice President,
                                             Government Relations.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, from the Council on Competitiveness, I 
have from Paul Allaire, Council Chairman, chairman and CEO of Xerox, a 
letter dated March 7, 1994:

       On behalf of the Council on Competitiveness--a coalition of 
     chief executives from U.S. industry, higher education and 
     labor--I would like to express my support for S. 4, the 
     National Competitiveness Act.

  As you can see the Chairman is Paul Allaire of Xerox; Tom Everhart of 
California Institute of Technology; Henry Schacht, Cummins Engine Co.; 
Jack Sheinkman, of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, 
AFL-CIO, CLC; Donald R. Beall, of Rockwell International; John L. 
Clendenin, BellSouth Corp.; George M.C. Fisher of Eastman Kodak Co.; 
Katharine Graham, the Washington Post; William Hambrecht, Hambrecht & 
Quist Inc.; Jerry Jasinowski of National Association of Manufacturers; 
Tom Labrecque, of the Chase Manhattan Corp.; Peter Likins of Lehigh 
University; Robert Mehrabian of Carnegie Mellon University; Thomas J. 
Murrin, Duquesne University; Michael Porter of Harvard; James J. Renier 
of Honeywell, Inc.; Albert Shanker of the American Federation of 
Teachers; Ray Stata of Analog Devices; Jerre Stead of NCR; William 
Steere of Pfizer; Gary L. Tooker of Motorola; Charles M. Vest, the head 
of Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Arnold Weber of Northwestern 
University; William Weiss of Ameritech; A.D. Welliver, of the Boeing 
Co.; Lynn R. Williams, the United States Steel Workers; John A. Young 
of Hewlett-Packard, and on down. The Distinguished Fellow is Erich 
Bloch and others listed here.
  They said:

       We commend your continued support for these initiatives and 
     urge you to play a leadership role in their implementation.

  And they say:

       S. 4 authorizes over $350 million in fiscal year 1995 and 
     fiscal year 1996 for a coordinated interagency program to 
     support research, technology development and pilot projects. 
     * * * These applications will help translate the potential of 
     a 21st century information infrastructure into tangible 
     economic and social benefits for the American people.

  And they endorsed significantly expanding the advanced technology 
program, S. 4.
  Here is what they are talking about when they talk about big bucks 
and all this. They are here. Here are the business folks--

       S. 4 increases funding for ATP to $567 million in fiscal 
     year 1996 and requires that the Department of Commerce 
     develop a long-term plan for the program. These provisions 
     will promote increased private-sector investment in critical 
     enabling technologies and allow ATP to have a more strategic 
     impact on U.S. industrial competitiveness.

  They say S. 4 will:

       Support the development and diffusion of technology 
     especially to small- and medium-sized manufacturers.
       S. 4 directs the Department of Commerce to work with 
     industry to develop new generic advanced manufacturing 
     technologies and consolidates existing NIST quality programs 
     into a NIST National Quality Laboratory. It also combines 
     existing Federal and State extension programs into an 
     integrated Manufacturing Extension Partnership to help small- 
     and medium-sized manufacturers in all geographic regions to 
     adopt modern manufacturing technologies and create high 
     performance workplaces. These initiatives will enhance U.S. 
     industry's ability to develop and manufacture competitive 
     products and promote long-term economic growth.

  When they emphasize that extension partnership for manufacturing 
which, yes, increases this bill, to have it managed by the Department 
of Commerce now at the commercial and business end rather than the 
defense end, that was the movement endorsed by the Republican 
conversion committee 2 years ago. They said we ought to get on with 
this and let us support this and let us support the Advanced Technology 
Program, and let us get that thing from defense over here in proper 
hands and properly peer reviewed. Yet some Senators who previously 
endorsed it now come and say it is a new program or a new philosophy.
  Then, of course, Mr. President, we have this endorsement this morning 
from the National Association of Manufacturers--addressed, this one is 
to Senator Wallop:

       NAM supports S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act and 
     urges you to vote for its passage. This legislation will 
     markedly enhance the ability of U.S. manufacturing firms to 
     access and adopt modern manufacturing technologies and 
     techniques. It does so by improving the coordination of 
     existing, yet unconnected, institutions at the Federal, State 
     and local levels. The industrial extension network provided 
     for by S. 4 would be a resource that companies of all sizes 
     and sectors could use to help modernize their manufacturing 
     operations. The result will be a stronger manufacturing base 
     and a stronger U.S. economy.
       The National Competitiveness Act also builds on existing 
     legislation, championed by then-Senator Gore and signed into 
     law by President Bush, that boosts research and development 
     efforts in the area of high-performance computing and 
     networking. High-performance computing will be a key generic 
     technology underpinning our 21st century information 
     infrastructure.
       The agenda for improving U.S. competitiveness does not end 
     with the passage of the National Competitiveness Act, but we 
     believe enactment of S. 4 will be a significant step in the 
     right direction. Again, we urge your support for this 
     legislation.
  Mr. President, in the face of all of that thoroughness, in the face 
of that outstanding array of expertise and experience and endorsement, 
now comes the Simpson amendment and says slash and burn; just get rid 
of it. Do not now really get any kind of a Davis-Bacon, or do not get 
any kind of reform for regulations or banking regulations, do not do 
that as an amendment to the bill, rather as a substitute. Just kill the 
bill.
  And, by way of killing, they add on various Democratic Senators' 
bills, hoping to put them in the juxtaposition of saying, ``Wait a 
minute. I have to vote for my bill and then I have to vote to kill the 
entire thing.''
  I mean, come on. That is no way to do business. We had one amendment 
which said, absurdly, that none of the amounts authorized should be 
appropriated.
  I hope we can sober up and understand what is afoot here.
  I am glad to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Governmental 
Operations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio.
  (Mr. HOLLINGS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GLENN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I rise somewhat with regret, because I have to rise to 
oppose the Simpson amendment. I do not question the motivation of what 
my distinguished colleague from Wyoming is proposing. I do think it is 
the wrong legislation to pass at this time, because we have other 
considerations regarding many of the things being proposed by this 
amendment.
  I oppose the amendment basically for several reasons, among them the 
following:
  Rather than cure some of the gridlock that we know is endemic in 
Government, I think this will create more gridlock in Government. I 
think it will create Government redtape and paralysis by analysis. I 
think it will increase Government spending and I think it will weaken 
important public health, safety, and environmental protections.
  Further, this amendment is being hastily considered without hearings 
and without the careful study and consideration we should give to 
something of this importance.
  This amendment sort of takes a ``three blind mice'' approach to 
legislating. It is an approach where the Senate makes national 
decisions with little study or foresight as to their impact. In other 
words, it adds more problems to what they are trying to cure with this 
amendment to this legislation.
  Now, what also troubles me is this would happen just as the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs is in the midst of considering these issues. We 
already have hearings scheduled, so we are not ignoring these things. 
We are addressing them. We want to have the hearings that we have 
scheduled so we can bring out all the pros and cons on each one of 
these issues.
  How does this amendment create more Government bureaucracy, red-tape, 
gridlock, and spending? The amendment does it through a number of ways. 
Just listen to this list.
  First, it requires regulatory impact statements, risk assessments, 
regulatory flexibility analyses, taking assessments or cost-benefit 
analyses on virtually every single piece of legislation considered by 
Congress and every single regulation promulgated by Federal agencies.
  Now, does it make sense to do them on the literally hundreds and 
hundreds of bills that we consider each year, or on the thousands upon 
thousands of regulations that Federal agencies put out each year on all 
of them?
  While I certainly want to cut down on some of those rules and 
regulations, I want to make sure the rules and regulations that are 
promulgated are needed. But I do not think it is necessary to say that 
we automatically would go through that whole list of things that I just 
read that would apply to all the legislation and all the rules and 
regulations that are written over in the agencies, pursuant to the 
legislation that we pass here.
  I submit, if we really are prepared to do that kind of an analysis on 
these thousands of things, what we should call this is a lawyers' full-
employment bill, because that is what it is going to be. We are going 
to require more lawyers than we have in Washington, DC, to run these 
kinds of analyses if we do it on every single thing that is proposed 
before the Congress.
  Does it make sense to conduct some of these assessments or analyses 
on certain pieces of legislation or regulations? That is a different 
question. I have to answer a resounding yes to that. Of course, it 
does. And, of course, we should make those assessments and analyses on 
certain pieces of legislation.
  But before we go ahead and impose this on the whole legislative 
process--we are going to risk shutting down the legislative and 
regulatory process--we ought to study where detailed analysis makes 
sense and contrary to where it is wasteful and duplicative.
  That is what the committee hearing process is all about. That is what 
it is for.
  I want to emphasize again that my Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
which is the committee with jurisdiction over these particular items, 
is taking very seriously the problems of administrative paperwork and 
regulatory burdens on State and local Governments, business, consumers, 
and the public. We are not sweeping these problems under the rug. We 
are trying to address them, but do it in a logical way that brings out 
the pros and cons on each one of these procedures.
  Last fall, the committee held hearings on the problems of State and 
local Governments and what they face from unfunded Federal mandates. We 
have scheduled further hearings for early April to review specific 
legislative remedies, and I plan to report out mandate relief 
legislation later this year.
  I met just a short time ago, during the National Governors Conference 
when they were in here, in a meeting of the Governors, who let us know 
about their problems with regard to unfunded mandates. We appreciated 
their views on this thing and I agree with them on most of their 
concerns. So we want to address that.
  But, in terms of addressing the problems of regulatory and paperwork 
burdens on business, the economy, and competitiveness, we have 
scheduled three hearings so far for later this spring. They are already 
scheduled.
  So it is clear the committee is not sitting still, wringing its 
hands. We are committed to tackling these problems head-on. We have a 
schedule and we have a timeframe to do exactly that.
  Now, let me discuss some of the concerns and problems with some of 
the specifics in the Simpson amendment.
  First, the various analyses that it advocates will cost the taxpayers 
money. These things do not come for free. To do a regulatory impact 
analysis, a risk assessment, or a cost-benefit analysis properly takes 
planning and resources. They do not just fall out of trees someplace 
all completed.
  How much do they cost? Well, EPA estimates that on a major rule it 
spends roughly $500,000 for a study of the rule's impact.
  Now, I am not saying that every single rule or every single 
regulation that is written is going to have that kind of an economic 
impact. But I am not saying a lot of them will not exceed that, also.
  If you extrapolate even a portion of that cost to all the rules and 
regulations, both minor and major, we are not talking about peanuts, we 
are talking about millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars in 
new Government spending, a new bureaucracy supposedly to try to cure 
the old bureaucracy that is out of whack. I agree that it is out of 
whack, but we are looking at it, we are trying to come up with 
legislation that considers all of these different things, considers the 
costs and considers the effectiveness. That is what we are looking at.
  The amendment also requires ``takings'' assessments on all 
regulations. Again, these types of assessments are costly, not to 
mention burdensome and paperwork intensive.
  Further the Constitution is quite clear about compensation to private 
property owners in case of a Government taking. This clause has fully 
protected citizens' property rights for more than 200 years, and when 
the Government has overstepped its bounds, the courts have intervened 
to protect citizens' rights.
  The process up to now has worked pretty well and should not be, 
really, taken out of its current context unless we look at it very 
carefully, make careful examination, and give some thought as to its 
long-term consequences.
  I agree wholeheartedly that we may need to change some of the 
Government's responsibilities. We have moved into a new level, where 
certain rules and regulations or legislation we pass here does have a 
takings impact that may need to be considered more in the light of 
modern business and industry than we had before. But the point I make 
is let us look at it very carefully. Let us not just pass it out here 
on the floor and maybe make some legislation that is going to cost 
billions and billions of dollars in compensation as a result of the 
takings legislation without looking at it very carefully.
  Furthermore, the amendment does not simply direct agencies to protect 
private property rights. Far from it; what it really does is to lock 
into law a Reagan administration Executive order that legal experts 
criticized from the beginning as inconsistent with Supreme Court 
rulings. Now, it is even more out of date--on March 23, the Supreme 
Court will be considering what experts describe as the most important 
regulatory takings case in 15 years. Are we trying to preempt the Court 
before it has even considered the case. I think certainly the time is 
not at hand to do that. Let us let the Court make its decision.
  The Simpson substitute includes the Wallop amendment on regulatory 
flexibility. I support the goals of my colleague's amendment. Hearings 
before my committee have shown that Federal agencies have done a poor 
job complying with the Reg-Flex Act's objectives and requirements for 
developing more flexible, less burdensome regulations that impact small 
business and small governments. We have additional legislation on that. 
I, too, have introduced legislation to put some teeth into the act. But 
I am concerned that the Wallop amendment's requirement for judicial 
review of agency analysis of the indirect effects of a regulation will 
open the courts up to a flood of litigation.
  Once again, what are we doing here? Are we just providing for a 
lawyers full employment act? This increases regulation and increases 
the legal review of all these things, I think unnecessarily. I am not 
saying there are not some parts of this that need to have that kind of 
approach; a legislative approach. But let us look at it in the light of 
hearings and know what we are doing, rather than just passing this out 
here on the floor right now.
  While some judicial review of parts of the Reg-Flex Act may be 
appropriate, it is a subject that needs further study.
  Given its other paperwork-creating and bureaucracy-generating 
provisions, it's ironic to note that the Simpson substitute contains an 
amendment proposed by Senator Danforth, S. 560, the Nunn-Bumpers 
paperwork reduction bill. I would note that I have my own bill, S. 681, 
to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act. Senators Nunn, Bumpers, and 
I are currently working together, along with the administration, to 
reauthorize the act. We have scheduled hearings on May 19 in my 
Committee on Governmental Affairs to review the consensus compromise 
that we will have worked out by then. While S. 560 has many worthy 
provisions, we should allow the committee process to go forward and not 
consider the bill at this time. Our negotiations will produce a bill 
that can become law this year, but moving the Simpson amendment to 
preempt that process makes no sense at this time.
  I would add, I have a real sense of deja vu when it comes to this 
particular item. Way back in the last administration we had an 
agreement with Dick Darman who was the head of OMB at that time on how 
we were going to work this out with the Paperwork Reduction Act. We 
had, on the other side of the aisle, an anonymous rolling hold, one of 
the more obnoxious things I have seen since I have been in the U.S. 
Senate and I am on my 20th year here. I see my distinguished colleague 
presiding now smiling, because an anonymous rolling hold gets his 
hackles up too. I know that.
  I ran into this in the waning days of a session. We had agreement 
with the administration, had a sign-off. We still have a letter in the 
files how we are going to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act.
  What happened? I came over. I thought we had unanimous consent to get 
this passed on the floor. No, we had a hold on it on the other side of 
the aisle.
  So I thought I knew who had the hold on it. I went and I saw the 
person. I will not use names at this particular point. The person said: 
Oh, no, I took my hold off yesterday.
  These are all anonymous. Whoever puts the hold on, leadership does 
not let that be known. We are trying to figure out who had the next 
hold, because they still would not let the thing loose. And by the time 
we got that figured out, which we finally did, the session was over, 
the bill died, the Paperwork Reduction Act did not get reauthorized, 
and we are still living with that series of anonymous holds even though 
we had the administration sign off on it. Dick Darman signed off. I 
still have a letter in the file that he agreed with it.
  That is several years ago now. We are still working to try to get 
this reauthorized and I think we will be able to do that. But to me it 
makes a lot of sense to run this through the committee, let us do the 
pros and cons of it, and not pass something and preempt the committee 
activity out on the floor right now with this bill.
  The Simpson amendment addresses many important issues but I think the 
solutions proposed, as I have stated through my remarks here this 
morning--the solutions I believe will slow if not stop the basic 
processes of government. It is going to cost millions of dollars of new 
Government spending to implement these things. It cannot help but do 
that. You do not do all these analyses for nothing.
  In its effort to curtail regulation and reduce paperwork it winds up 
creating more. As I said earlier, you could call this a lawyers' full 
employment bill. It is going to put everybody to work doing all these 
analyses and so on. I agree we have to have some of these done but to 
make it as sweeping and all inclusive, and in effect shut down 
regulations, shut down rules of Government, shut down the 
implementation of what we pass here with legislation on the floor and 
require all those same kinds of analyses here, too--I think we should 
look at very carefully before we pass this legislation. The committee 
process in our current legislation and hearing plans provide the forum. 
I did not suddenly schedule hearings on these subjects. They have been 
already scheduled for some time before our distinguished colleague from 
Wyoming ever brought this amendment up. So we have had this scheduled 
that we are going to have the hearings on it. We will look at these 
things and provide a forum to examine the issues in further depth.
  For all those above reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the Simpson amendment or vote ``aye'' for tabling, if that is the 
decision of the floor manager of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to take the floor briefly to say 
a few words in opposition to the Simpson substitute and a few kind 
words about S. 4, that we have had on the floor, now, for some long 
while.
  It was not too many days ago that we all watched the Olympics. The 
Olympics are a lot of fun to watch. They are interesting. They are 
going to get your competitive juices flowing. The Olympics have events 
in which, at the end of the events, the contestants do the best they 
can and they either win or lose. If they win they get a medal, if they 
lose they get nothing. It is a very simple concept: Winners get medals, 
losers go home.
  But it is not just on the athletic field that there is competition in 
this world. We are involved in an Olympics of sorts. We are involved in 
a competition that is a pretty intense, keen--tough competition in the 
economic arena. It is not a competition that produces medals. The 
winner of the economic competition produces jobs and opportunity. The 
losers lose jobs and opportunity. That is the way the economic Olympics 
works. If you win you grow; you produce opportunity and strength for 
your country. If you lose you diminish; your economy shrinks.
  What has happened in recent years? As I said the other day, when I 
went to school I just got up in the morning and understood we were the 
biggest, the best, the strongest, the most. We won just by competing in 
the morning. That was the economic strength of the USA. Now we face 
tough, shrewd economic competition from other countries.
  Some of us say--the distinguished Presiding Officer, myself, and 
others--just as when you are involved in any competition, you need to 
have some teamwork. You need to work together with those who have the 
same interests as you do and you need to have a plan to understand what 
you are going to do here, how you are going to get to the finish line, 
what is your goal, what kind of plan are you going to use to get there.
  Some say, with great pride, not only do we not need a plan, we do not 
have a plan and I would like to keep bragging about it, they say.
  Not having a plan in this country for how we are going to enhance our 
economic strength is surely something we ought to stop bragging about.
  We had about 1\1/2\, 2 years ago a fellow come to speak in this town 
who was one of the chief economists of one of the largest banks in 
Japan. What he said made a memorable impression on me. I do not know 
whether it is true or not, but here is what he predicted. He said their 
economic modeling predicted by 1997, Japan would be the largest 
manufacturing country in the world, and just after the year 2000, Japan 
would be the world's economic leader.
  He said they invest every year in Japan--at that time--$440 billion 
more in new plants and equipment than we invest in new plants and 
equipment in this country. Of course, we understand what that means. 
You win in the economic competition when you produce a better product 
and sell it at a better price. Part of that represents what kind of 
factories you have, what kind of manufacturing facilities you have, and 
what kind of technologies you have. That is the point, the reason we 
are debating this bill on the floor today.
  It is hard almost to go around during the day and find anybody in 
this country who makes anything anymore. People are selling things back 
and forth and competing, but it is hard to find somebody who is making 
real products. This bill relates to manufacturing especially--and I 
want to highlight that part of the bill, manufacturing technology.
  Why is that important? I do not think this country can long remain an 
economic giant unless it retains its economic base through 
manufacturing. This bill relates to that. Some say, ``Well, the private 
sector does just fine.'' We took an economic detour for a decade with 
the private sector running up, wallpapering America with junk bonds, 
loading S&L's with junk bonds. We had one guy make $600 million in 1 
year, 1 year's salary from junk bond sales was $600 million. Then he 
got 2, 3, 4 years at hard tennis at some minimum security prison, got 
out and kept most of his money. That is the private sector at its 
worst.
  What happened in the decade when others were investing in plants and 
equipment? Our big shots were wallpapering America with junk bonds. We 
need to develop a plan and to say the private sector is just fine, it 
will take care of itself, we can help the private sector and should 
help the private sector, not by telling them what to do but by creating 
mechanisms in which we share all across this country research in 
critical technologies, information about manufacturing technology, and 
give the opportunity to those small manufacturers all across this 
country who want to compete and win the ability to do that. Give them 
information, give them the kind of things that we develop in research 
and know-how to allow them to better compete internationally.
  We in this country have been a leader in the manufacturing of 
airplanes. Did that come about because some private companies decided 
we are going to decide to build a jet airplane, a commercial jetliner? 
No. It came about through our military establishment. We sunk an 
enormous amount of research into building military jet airplanes, and 
from those military jet airplanes, the technology was used then for 
enormously significant commercial contributions. The 707's, big four-
engine jets, that comes from the technology we learned in the military 
that then became a commercial technology. That is Government; 
Government to business, a partnership, and we became the leader. Think 
of the hundreds of billions of dollars that has meant to our economy.
  Now we are told on the floor today that this bill that we put 
together, S. 4, that says let us find ways so instead of fighting each 
other--the private and public sector--we are helping each other. The 
public sector, the Government, finds ways to help the private sector 
become more competitive and win in this economic competition. And 
carefully constructed in this legislation are a series of steps to do 
that, to say here is a helping hand, let us find ways to facilitate the 
exchange of information, the development of technology, additional 
research, distributing that research and helping American business.
  Now we have someone come to the floor and say, ``Well, that might be 
all well and good, you might think that is the right approach, but we 
come from the side of the aisle that says we want to brag about having 
no plan, so we're going to substitute for what you offered. We will 
just get rid of everything you constructed over a number of years and 
we offer sort of a vegetable soup package of legislative issues, some 
of which have had hearings, some of which have not, some of which we 
know about, some of which we do not. And we would like now to offer 
this, and without the product of any careful research or careful 
evaluation, let's just go ahead and have a vote on this as a substitute 
for all of the other things that we have put together to try to create 
this public-private sector partnership.''
  I look at this substitute. There are some things in here that I can 
agree with. Some of them have had hearings, some of them are coming to 
the floor in other pieces of legislation. Some of them I have never 
heard of before. A number of them have had no hearings, a number of 
them look like they are brand new ideas. It is an interesting use of 
the legislative process to decide the way to develop ideas and 
legislate them is just to bring them to the floor with no notice and 
just bypass all rational discussion and debate in the hearing process; 
let us just have a vote on it before we even discuss it and know much 
about it. That is a thoughtless way to legislate. I am not suggesting 
that this is a thoughtless substitute. I am just saying any time we are 
put in a position of voting on legislation that is comprehensive or 
substantive, parts of which have had no hearings, that does not, in my 
judgment, advance or serve the legislative interests of producing good 
public policy.
  Let me make one final point, Mr. President, and let me try to make it 
as emphatically as I can. There is a major, major difference in 
philosophy among many of us on this floor that is at the root of this 
debate. Some say and boast continually that we ought not have any plan 
in this country, the private sector is just fine; we do not need any 
plan in terms of where we are going or where we are headed or what we 
are doing.
  Others say, if you are involved in the competition and the other side 
has a plan, they have a training camp, they all get together and make 
joint decisions and they help each other, whereas our side says, we do 
not need any training camps, we do not need any plan, let us just sort 
of show up, we will all wear different uniforms and all have a 
different approach, that we can compete effectively.
  We cannot. The fact is other economies around this world that have 
been successful have some notion of what it is the investment is going 
to produce.
  Let me ask a quick question: Does anybody think this country will do 
well if we have no automobile industry left? That is not going to 
happen because we happen to be on the rebound for a lot of reasons. But 
are there not certain sectors, manufacturing sectors, without which a 
strong country cannot perform? I am just picking automobiles as an 
example.
  The answer, in my judgment, is yes, there are. There are certain 
concentric economic activities without which a strong country cannot 
function, and we must understand that, and we must reach out and say, 
``All right, this sector is critically important to this country's 
future. What can we do to strengthen it and improve it and help it 
compete against other countries around the world?''
  That is the purpose of this bill. It is very simple. The question is, 
do you want to do something or do you want to do nothing? Do you want 
to continue to boast we have no plan, or do you want to decide to 
advance this country's economic interest with S. 4? That is the 
question before us.
  If you believe as I do that S. 4 makes good sense for this country, 
is long overdue and ought to be passed as quickly as possible, then we 
ought to vote no on this substitute and vote yes on S. 4.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DORGAN. 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 (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota has made a 
very powerful statement. He talked of winners and losers, and the 
winners getting medals and the losers going home.
  I note that at the end of World War II, the United States had the 
only strong economy, whereas the economy of Japan was devastated. Today 
the Japanese per capita income is $23,325, and the great powerful, only 
superpower in the world, the United States has a per capita income of 
only $19,815.
  That carries me back to the original comment made by the 
distinguished junior Senator from Florida, who came early in the 
Chamber here at 9 o'clock this morning and talked about how we do not 
want to get into industrial policy. Look what happened to Japan. He 
says Japan went and put its efforts behind high definition television 
and found that that is not going to be the technology of the future and 
therefore Japan is distraught, is lost in this economic Olympics.
  They can make many, many more mistakes before the United States ever 
catches up with them if we make the mistake of this particular Simpson 
amendment by way of a substitute.
  I wish we could debate the economy. I wish we could debate 
international trade and GATT. I will never forget being told that the 
foreign policy, the security of the United States is like on a 3-legged 
stool. We have the one leg here, the values that we have as a Nation, 
and that is, of course, very strong. We have just sacrificed lives to 
feed the hungry in Somalia. There is no question about the values of 
the United States for the principles of freedom the world around.
  The second leg is that of your military power, and we know about that 
with respect to our vast defense establishment.
  But the third leg is that of the economy. And that leg is weak and 
fractured. And going right to the competition down on the field, there 
is the Japanese competition. Japan fielded its team out there. And 
Japan has got its Government, the combination of MITI and the Ministry 
of Finance correlated together. They are the Government. That is what 
runs Japan. So the Japanese have the quarterback on the field calling 
the plays, and we have the best players, we have the most productive 
industrial worker in the entire world. The players are there, but the 
Government quarterback is up in the grandstand whining, ``Be fair. Be 
fair; I want a level playing field. I want a level playing field.''
  Absolute nonsense. Whoever heard of anybody in economic affairs being 
fair. Why do you think we have laws against monopoly? Why do you think 
we have antitrust laws? Why do you think we have health laws to protect 
our health? Why do you think we have safety laws?
  I can go right on down the list. Do you think the market is going to 
act safely? Do you think the market is going to act for good health? 
For 13 years we heard the litany of deregulate, deregulate; get rid of 
the Government; the Government is not the solution, the Government is 
the problem.
  They whined around here for 13 years and you see where we are. The 
economic leg is fractured. We are behind the curve, and we are trying 
to play catchup ball and the best of the best in industry, the best of 
the best in technology, the best of the best in graduate education, the 
best of the best in manufacturing has come in here in a uniform fashion 
with organized labor saying we are joining hands and let us go with 
this bill S. 4.
  They come here with the monkeyshines of wait a minute; the Secretary 
of Commerce is former chairman of the political party and the big bucks 
here are going to the party chairman and we are going to deal out the 
bucks. Sheer nonsense. They ought to be embarrassed.
  They mentioned Arati Prabhakar, because she is the Director of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology. On this woman's 
outstanding record with the Defense Advanced Research Programs office, 
DARPA; managing a total annual budget of $300 million, and 300 
contracts with 65 companies including large electronics manufacturers, 
traditional defense contractors, midsized and small technology firms, 
50 universities, and 30 other laboratories.
  Now, that is where this money is going, to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, and I am sure the distinguished lady had no 
idea her record would be used in this debate, but I use it because it 
is very pertinent, very relevant in the context of the reckless charges 
of some sinister industrial policy here, the idea that this is a new 
philosophy.
  The distinguished director of NIST, she has been managing these high-
tech programs at Defense. She has been doing exactly what the 
Republican task force said on defense conversion, get the money out of 
defense and get it over to Commerce, get it into business hands, get it 
into technology, get it into the commercialization of our technology, 
and to do exactly what they say to do.
  But the Director of the Office of Management and Budget has written 
us a letter in support this morning. I would like to put it in the 
Record at this particular point. It is dated March 9, to myself, the 
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

       I am writing to express the Administration's objections to 
     the amendment to be offered by Senator Simpson to S. 4, the 
     National Competitiveness Act of 1993. This amendment proposes 
     significant policy changes which could have serious negative 
     consequences.
       This amendment could lead to sweeping changes in labor law, 
     worker protection, and Federal regulatory management. Largely 
     speaking, these proposals have not been fully reviewed by the 
     Senate or Administration and warrant further consideration 
     before they are enacted into law. Furthermore, I would note 
     that the Administration is currently working to address many 
     of the issues contained in the Simpson proposal.
       In his March 7th letter to the Senate Majority Leader, the 
     President expressed his support for swift Senate action on 
     this legislation and urged that the Senate not adopt 
     extraneous amendments tht would delay enactment of the bill. 
     Clearly, the controversial nature of the proposals contained 
     in the Simpson amendment would significantly delay--if not 
     jeopardize entirely--the enactment of S. 4. I urge strongly 
     that the Senate reject the Simpson amendment and work quickly 
     to pass S. 4.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leon E. Panetta,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. President, I think the main point to be made is that here we have 
countering the pleas with respect to the big bucks and the small bucks. 
They are talking about politically giving out pork and starting a big-
bucks program. They never called that program, over in the Defense 
Department, such a thing. There was not any new philosophy arguments 
there. We have supported it for years, and it had a $300 million budget 
that the Director had with 300 contracts with 65 companies, electronic 
manufacturers, defense contractors, midsized and small technology 
firms, 50 universities, and 30 other laboratories--all pursuant to the 
Republican Defense Conversion Task Force filed year before last, signed 
by the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, my 
colleague, Senator Danforth.
  We are doing conversion, so we not only take the programs over, we 
not only take the Directors of those programs, and put the 
distinguished lady as the Director of NIST, but they still bellyache 
about ``pork'' and ``ballooning,'' and ``new philosophy.''
  I can tell you here and now, when you do what they ask you to do, 
then they just come politically here with slash and burn and 
substitute. Just get rid of the National Bureau of Standards, which is 
the fundamental part. That is the big one. Look at these figures. They 
are talking about amounts. You will find that the Bureau goes up, up, 
and away.
  So that is what we want to do, instead of the research in DARPA; yes, 
get that commercial research up, up, and away. That is intended. We 
have the best doing it, who have been doing it with acclaim over in the 
Department of Defense: Arati Prabhakar and Under Secretary Mary Lowe 
Good.
  I do not know how you do it better and gain the confidence of any who 
would have a question, be they Republican or Democrat, to ensure that 
we do not start a pork program.
  I emphasize again we reported the bill out at $1.5 billion for next 
year. That was supported by the Senator from Missouri, and now comes 
the amount in the bill, $1.3 billion. So in actual figures, it is a 
cut. I hate to see it. I wish we could get way, way more into that 
program, as the private sector experts have recommended.
  We need to really get going when we realize we now have only seven 
manufacturing technology centers, and we hope to get only another 
seven. The administration says that by the turn of the century they 
hope to get 100. The competition that the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota was commenting upon, Japan, has 170 of them. And it is 
working. That is where you get the high productivity. That is where you 
get the quality. That is where you get the high pay. That is where you 
get the higher per-capita income. Fledgling little Japan is a country 
now that has won the gold medal as to per-capita income. Meanwhile, we 
are still languishing here with diversionary amendments on banking 
regulations, labor regulations, impact statements, pesticides, post 
offices, anything in the heaven's world that they can think of except 
an amendment relevant to the bill.
  This is the fourth day of it, Thursday. We started on a measure that 
had been passed unanimously through both Houses, ready in conference, 
could not get it then up as a reported bill with all the conferees, 
Republican and Democrat; then again last June, unanimously out of the 
Committee on Commerce, all the Republicans and all the Democrats 
supporting it, and at a higher amount than what we have at the present 
time. Now they come and say just get rid of the program.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much. I want to thank 
my friend from South Carolina for his courtesy.
  I wish to address an aspect of the Simpson amendment which I am 
responsible for placing in there. In all honesty, it should not be 
necessary for this part of the amendment.
  I am going to relate to you a situation that many Americans have 
already heard about because Paul Harvey talked about this situation. 
Many Americans read about this in Reader's Digest, in last January's 
edition. I am going to tell you about an incident that happened in 
Garden City, ID.
  There was a construction accident. A trench caved in and it buried a 
worker. Two people happened to be going by and they heard the 
commotion; they heard the muffled screams. So they ran to the side of 
this trench cave-in, and they saw what had taken place. They saw just 
one inch of the buried victim's head. Of course, he was covered with 
dirt and debris and was pinned in this trench and could not breathe.
  So these people that happened to be coming by immediately began to 
dig the debris from around that individual's head so that he could 
breathe again. Then that trench began to fill with water. So they 
rerouted the water so that this individual would not drown until 
emergency personnel could get there with the appropriate equipment so 
they could extricate him.
  Thank goodness for the victim that these individuals happened to be 
going by. For their efforts, the mayor of Garden City, ID, acknowledged 
them in a proclamation as heroes; and indeed they were heroes.
  Unfortunately, those heroes received from their Federal Government 
citations, citations from OSHA of nearly $8,000.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire Readers Digest 
article, entitled ``Fined for Heroism,'' in the January edition of 
Readers Digest under the section of ``That's Outrageous,'' be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        [From That's Outrageous, Reader's Digest, January 1994]

                           Fined for Heroism

       Kavin Gill and another employee of DeBest Plumbing Inc. had 
     to act quickly to rescue 21-year-old Dwight Kaufman after a 
     dirt trench wall collapsed on him at a construction site near 
     Boise, Idaho. Using their hands as tools, they dug the dirt 
     from around his head before a rescue crew arrived and pulled 
     him out of the ditch.
       ``We could hear muffled screams. You could just see about 
     one inch of the back of his head,'' Gill said. His shoulders 
     were pinned from the collapsed piece. With his head covered, 
     I think he would have died.''
       But the federal Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration didn't see it that way. It fined the Boise 
     plumbing company nearly $7875 because the good Samaritans 
     failed to put on hard hats and took no precautions against 
     other trench walls falling on them during the rescue.
       Idaho OSHA Director Ryan Kuemichel said that ``rescues must 
     only be attempted after taking proper precautions to ensure 
     that victims are not injured in secondary cave-ins.''
       But Gill said he, fellow worker Myron Jones and a bystander 
     didn't have the time to find their hats, remove water from 
     the trench and shield the walls.
       Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R., Idaho) asked the Labor Department 
     to review the case, and the fines were dismissed. Kempthorne 
     says he will draft legislation that exempts acts of heroism 
     from OSHA fines. ``Thank goodness there are still people in 
     this world who are willing to help their neighbors--despite 
     an absurd bureaucratic mind-set in the federal government 
     that would seem to discourage saving a life,'' Kempthorne 
     said.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, let me tell you about these citations. 
They received one citation of $2,250 for not properly being trained in 
recognizing and avoiding unsafe conditions. That is of the two people 
that happened to be walking by, or driving by, that had nothing to do 
with this construction site--two employees of DeBest Plumbing. They 
received a second citation, a $1,125 penalty because they did not first 
run to their vehicles and retrieve hardhats.
  It has been pointed out that if they had taken the time to run to the 
trucks to get their hardhats, in all likelihood, it would have created, 
potentially, greater injury to the victim, if not death.
  They received a third citation for $2,250 for working in an 
excavation where water had accumulated. This is outrageous.
  They received a fourth citation from OSHA of $2,250, because the 
employees should have shored up the walls of the trench before 
attempting to rescue the victim. That is the letter of the law, but it 
is not the spirit of the law.
  If these good Samaritans that happened to be going by had abided by 
OSHA's interpretation of the letter of the law, in all likelihood we 
would have had a victim who was then deceased.
  I had my office in Idaho contact the OSHA office there and say: 
``Surely, there has been a mistake. Surely, you do not intend to fine 
these two heroes $8,000.'' They said: ``Oh, yes we do.'' Then they went 
on to explain that the agency felt it was necessary to cite everyone 
for any possible violation, and then let them appeal the decision.
  So you have to go to a review, and you have to go to court in order 
to get citations removed that should never have happened.
  Mr. President, this portion of the Simpson amendment that I have 
added is necessary. It appears today in our Federal bureaucracy that we 
are now going to have to legislate common sense and build it into the 
law because, unfortunately, we have Federal regulators that, in their 
intent to be so strict in their enforcement of the letter of the law 
and their assessment of fines, are not using common sense.
  I believe--as I think all Americans do--that heroes deserve 
commendations, not citations. We need to ensure that we honor heroes 
and not punish them. Therefore, Mr. President, that is why this 
particular aspect of the Simpson amendment is there, so that these 
regulators know that there will be an exemption so that when a heroic 
act takes place that saves lives, they can abide by the spirit of the 
law, not the absolute letter of the law.
  Mr. President, I yield back to the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho. I had to smile when he said we are going to legislate common 
sense. He has a good initiative, and he has a good cause. I have 
listened with tremendous interest. But, in fact, if he thinks he is 
going to legislate common sense to the Government, I can speak from 
hard experience over 27 years up here. Does the Senator realize the 
stupidity of Government. Does he realize that this particular entity, 
OSHA, elects Senators?
  I remember about 20 years ago when OSHA elected Senator Wallop. 
Senator Wallop ran in his campaign a good little TV ad against the late 
Senator Gale McGee of Wyoming, and it said: ``Do you know what those 
fools in Washington in OSHA are requiring here for the rancher to round 
up his herd? They said you have to get a toilet bowl.'' And they had a 
video of the toilet tank around the animal's head, and his head was 
bent down--I can see it now. The ad said this is what Washington 
requires of us. Elect Wallop.
  They elected him; there is no question about that.
  You and I are going to be dead and gone and that crazy crowd will 
still be in the bureaucracy. They are still putting out bad decisions 
of that kind. But it has no relation whatsoever to this bill. We have 
140 pages, and you cannot find OSHA, or safety, or any of those other 
regulations in this particular measure. This is technology. This is 
every bit of research into technology, in the outreach extension, 
advanced programs, the peer review. But OSHA--I did not intend to pass 
a bill on OSHA.
  That is why we are somewhat distraught, because here we have, 
perhaps, as the Senator has described it, a perfectly fine initiative 
relative to OSHA. Hopefully, we can legislate common sense separately. 
Maybe I would support the distinguished Senator from Idaho then. But 
right now we have Republicans and Democrats and a movement going here 
with all the best of knowledge, already unanimously reported out of the 
committee, and we are being distracted into OSHA.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate his comments. 
Under the umbrella of this underlying bill, we are dealing with 
competitiveness. And what I have heard repeatedly from business people 
is that if we would get the Government off their backs, they can be 
more competitive. Here we have a situation where the Government has 
erred in judgment, and it is on their backs. So we are trying to 
correct that.
  I agree with the good Senator from South Carolina that, as I said in 
the beginning, it is unfortunate that this is even necessary, and that 
we have to talk about this. It may be impossible to legislate common 
sense. But we are the folks that are elected by the other people of 
this Nation to come in here and, hopefully, bring some common sense in.
  When we see a Federal agency that has run afoul, I think we have to 
bridle it back. That is what this accomplishes. But again, the reason 
that it is germane, in my opinion, is the fact that if we are going to 
be competitive, we ought to look for every opportunity we can to get 
the Government off the backs of the good folks that are out there 
trying to be competitive.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree. The Senator is correct. Any time you can get 
the Government off your back--and that expression is used just as 
frequently in South Carolina as in Idaho. But this amendment is not 
aimed at getting technology competitiveness going. I guess that any 
subject could be brought up under the rubric of competitiveness and 
described as such, but that is really stretching it. I am sure the 
Senator realizes that.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. If the Senator will yield. I ask the good Senator 
from South Carolina, in the event that this is not successful in 
today's debate, would the Senator be willing to cosponsor with me this 
same amendment, in a stand-alone situation at some other time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. The way you have described it, I was powerfully 
interested in it. That thing ought to be corrected. There is no 
question about it.
  Let me ask the Senator, because I know nothing about it, where is it 
in hearings or why have we not made progress on his bill?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, if I may respond, this occurred at the 
end of last year. So, we talked with OSHA officials. They felt they 
could correct this through other means.
  I went ahead and prepared the language, which really reflects 
language which I think OSHA would be headed toward. This gets us there.
  So, this is the first opportunity that I have had to bring it 
forward. But, again, if it was not successful in this particular issue, 
then I appreciate greatly that the Senator would join me as a partner 
because it ought to happen.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, I hope we can have hearings and flesh it out and 
bring it to the floor.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rockefeller], is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might 
speak as in morning business for a period of up to 15 minutes and at 
the conclusion of my remarks that my remarks be placed in the Record at 
the appropriate place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the distinguished Chair.

                          ____________________