[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.
Order of Procedure
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, therefore, Senators should be aware that
a vote will occur in approximately 17 minutes, or at 10:07 p.m. this
evening. I hope that during the period between now and the time that
vote occurs, the Republican leader and I and the managers will be able
to work out further agreements regarding the further handling of the
pending bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I listened, as usual, with great
respect to the argument of the Senator from Missouri about this matter.
I respect the Senator from Missouri very much on trade issues and I
usually agree with him.
I serve on the Finance Committee with the distinguished Senator from
Missouri I listened to him at great length as he very clearly expressed
concerns about the GATT subsidies agreement. I do not necessarily share
his views on that, and in fact the very Airbus program that he referred
to in his argument would be actionable under the new GATT agreement.
The point is that we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. We
are not debating the GATT bill. The place to do that is in the Senate
Finance Committee. If we are to resolve that issue, then let it be in
the implementation legislation.
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and those who
might be listening, the Senate Finance Committee is preparing the
proper implementing legislation so that the GATT round can pass. It
cannot be law unless it passes the Senate Finance Committee. So the
Senator will have ample chance to do something at that time.
But the punishment that he inflicts on S. 4, which is about creating
jobs for Americans, is not fair. It is not fair to the rest of us. It
is not fair to his own colleagues who have participated over the last
few years going back to President Bush and developed this whole
concept. We are not talking about an explosion of money, and we are
also not, I might say, not talking about anything bad budgetarily. Any
money that is increased for the purposes of S. 4 are handled by
reductions in other programs in other parts of the budget.
This is a disciplined increase which just happens to reflect one of
the five major priorities that the President of the United States wants
to see happen to this country--namely job creation. It is called
technology and where appropriate the Government and industry
cooperating on technology.
Time after time, I have tried to point out, and more importantly the
chairman of our full committee has tried to point out, these decisions
are not made by Government. The decisions are made by industry. In the
venture capital fund, which we debated last night, the decisions are
not made by Government. The decisions are made by private industry.
I do not think the Senator could argue that McDonnell Douglas or the
aerospace industry could have advanced without some help from
Government. I do not think the Senator could argue that agriculture or
the semiconductor industry could have advanced or be competitive
without some help from Government.
We are not talking about a Government takeover. In fact, we are not
talking about industrial policy. We really are not. And I know those
words are very controversial. But I beg Members from the other side of
the aisle to understand that the Senator from Missouri does have a very
clear and definite problem with the GATT subsidies aspects and that he
has made this clearly known in the Finance Committee. We will clearly
have to deal with the Senator's concerns in that Committee. But this
bill is about American jobs, American jobs created by technology, and
it is a very, very good bill.
I accept the Senator's explanation that he did not choose to call for
a rollcall vote in the Commerce Committee, but, on the other hand,
there was not a single Republican who was seated while we had this vote
who said ``no.'' Therefore, I feel that there are Republicans who are
sympathetic to this, and I would plead for our colleagues to understand
this is the Senator's problem. Do not punish S. 4 just to satisfy the
GATT subsidies concerns of the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has
expired.
Who yields time? Who yields time?
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. It
deals with the cost of the bill. The comparable bill in the House, I am
told, is H.R. 820. The authorization in that bill is $1.5 billion. This
amendment changes the authorization to $1.5 billion. In other words, it
is $1.350 billion in new spending that this changes it to and it is
comparable to the figure in the House. It is a realistic amendment, I
believe. It not only matches the House but it represents still a
significant increase in spending here.
In advanced technology, the bill that is before us is 139 percent
above the current '94 funding level. In manufacturers' extension
partnerships, the fiscal year 1995 authorization is 133 percent above
the fiscal year 1994 level. In NIST laboratories, this measure
authorizes 42 percent above the fiscal year 1994 level.
Mr. President, there are areas we can save. This is an overall limit.
It does not go into the individual categories. It would leave to the
conference committee their ability to adjust the numbers or the
appropriations committee to adjust the numbers.
Mr. President, if we are going to do this, let us do it right. Let us
do it with a reasonable number. This is a modest amendment. I believe
it gives this body an opportunity to go on record for the purpose of
this bill but without getting carried away with regard to its cost.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The amendment of the Senator from Colorado is not
modest. The House bill came over in May of last year so it was for '94-
'95. Our bill is for '95-'96 and includes, as I said, these things with
respect to construction, with respect to information superhighway of
$244 million, and I could go right on down the list of the amounts.
Bottom line, it is still, Mr. President, less than what we voted out
June of last year, $1.513 billion in June of last year, which is less
now where we have got $1.370 billion. And when he talks about 1.5, he
is coupling the entire bill then of 2 years, which would be 2.8. At the
1.5 level, it would have been 3, if we followed out what we reported
out in June of last year.
So we would have to move to table that. But before making that motion
to table, let me clarify the record. I think the distinguished Senator
from West Virginia has remarked properly with respect--I do have the
transcript of both the 1992 vote and the 1993 vote before the Committee
of Commerce. I just resent right quickly the characterization that
somehow, wait a minute, this was just a bill for the chairman and it
had something in there about Hollings centers and we wanted to go
along.
Not so. Absolutely. There is no Hollings centers named. I understand
they have been calling them that. But this is not anything of pride to
help the poor old fellow along, whatever.
I worked with Senator Bingaman on this bill at length, the various
measures in there. At one time, Senator Johnston of Louisiana had a
misgiving about it with respect to the Energy Committee. We cleared
that.
We had Senator Bumpers with the Small Business Committee, and we
cleared it with him, and again with Senator Pressler on our committee.
Senator Pressler is one of the top ranking members on our committee and
would be it next year apparently. We worked with him on the bill. We
worked with Senator Burns. Senator Burns had an intern program. That
was included in here.
Of course, the leadership was given by Senator Rockefeller, the
chairman of the subcommittee. Senator Kerry, Senator Dorgan. This thing
was really worked over and it was not any courtesy amendment because of
the chairman. On the contrary, it was worked over in a bipartisan
fashion and you do not find any chairman in all that. In fact, all the
letters--and many of them I have read--have been to Senator Dole and
other Members on the other side of the aisle. But to come with that
oozing along now that I just sort of misunderstood is absolutely false.
The distinguished Senator from Missouri came to me earlier this year,
and he said, ``I have been with you on this bill but I am going to have
to do something about this subsidy thing. I am going to change on the
subsidy and oppose it to try to highlight the matter on the subsidy to
see if I can do that with respect to having amended GATT.''
Here was a Senator who led the fight for fast track to ban amendments
to GATT, and he was coming for an amendment on a bill that we had
unanimously passed out of the committee one year and unanimously out of
the committee the next year. I said, ``Well, I hope you will not do
that.'' The indication was, ``Well, I am going to try to highlight it
so we can get the administration's attention.''
But there is no question over a year ago with respect to this bill
that it represented a new venture or a new policy. February 24, of last
year, the Senator's own bill, S. 419, said Federal financial assistance
to the semiconductor industry consortium known as SEMATECH has been
successful in improving the competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor
industry.
He was one of the leaders for that. The $10 billion was in there, and
here is his statement at that time. I quote the Senator from Missouri:
And then the second piece of legislation which you pointed
out, Mr. Chairman, is the aerotech bill. It has a number of
cosponsors, both Democrats and Republicans, and the idea of
that legislation is to provide for private sector input into
the spending of about $10 billion which the Federal
Government now does each year in the research and development
area in aerospace, and also to use as a model for aerospace
what Sematech was for the semiconductor industry to make it
possible for a consortium of U.S. aerospace industries with
the support of the Government to join together in the
development of new technologies for that industry.
So we know that he was taking the actual technology and marrying it
in on the Sematech model to the tune of $10 billion. You can see
exactly as he says in this bill:
Such Government industry consortium should focus its
efforts on research, development, and commercialization of
new aeronautical technologies and related manufacturing
technologies as well as the transfer and conversion of
aeronautical technologies developed for national security
purposes to commercial applications of large civil aircraft.
That was his proposal. There has been no objection by the Senator
from Missouri with respect to these subsidies moving to this one single
industry so important to his State: $6 billion in sales to Saudi
Arabia, financed by $6.2 billion in export financing. Yet now he comes
along and says, ``Wait a minute.'' This is a new departure in his bill.
Likewise, in his bill, he says, ``such sums as necessary.'' Where does
the money come from? It is not in his bill. It is not in ours. It is
not in most authorization bills where the money comes from. It is an
authorized amount to be appropriated at a later time. That is why I
call these objections monkeyshine. They know differently. They know of
the unanimous vote for S. 4, and to come now and say, ``Well, it sort
of slipped by, and I did not look at the figure, and it really was not
unanimous.'' It was.
What they are doing now is trying to gut the bill one other time with
this particular amendment where the Senator from Missouri, and he
looked at it and he knows the figures, not only the year before last
but last year the figure in excess of what we have now before S. 4
before the U.S. Senate-- $1.513 billion. We never asked about the
amounts. He talks about burning holes in the pockets, and grabbing the
money, and they are going to make a big, big assault here, pork barrel
and everything else. But he now comes in a very sly way of saying,
``Wait a minute. I did not really pay attention to it. I knew it was
the chairman's bill, and I sort of went along.'' That is not the case
whatsoever.
It is highly questionable to watch this particular procedure, and
after 4 days and nights to come up here and try to say no, it was not
unanimous. They could have raised objection to the amounts. There were
eight Republicans there at one time. There were nine Republicans at
another time. They know how to raise objections to the bill. They know
how to vote no. And we have had divided reports in the past.
For example, on the product liability bill, I worked on that much
longer than this. But they voted me down 16 to 4. So we live in the
real world. If we oppose a bill, we vote no, even if it means
disagreeing with the chairman. Do not distort the amount and come now
with this kind of description, ``Well, it was just you know Hollings,
and the centers, and I did not pay attention, and I think I ought to
confess.'' The confession was to me last month when he came, and said,
``I don't like what happened in December with GATT and it brings out a
new issue regarding subsidies. And I am going to have to oppose it,''
when actually he has been leading the way for subsidies in the aircraft
industry. This is a subsidy bill. Yes; let us call it subsidies. It is
for all America's technologies, not just one single industry in the
distinguished Senator's backyard.
I think it ought to be brought into focus as to really what is going
on, and not mislead the colleagues, ``Well, I do not know. It just
passed by, and we just wanted to honor the gentleman and let it by
because he was the chairman.'' That is not the case whatsoever.
I yield the remainder of my time, and I move to table the amendment,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Simon). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for
the majority leader at his request.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, could I make a couple of comments before
we go to the rollcall vote?
I want to say, Mr. President----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is for a quorum call.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I continue to suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be the only first degree floor amendments
remaining in order to S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, and that
they be subject to second-degree amendments which are relative to the
first-degree amendment to which it is offered, and that no motion to
recommit be in order during the pendency of this agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader yield for that
purpose? The majority leader has the floor. Does the majority leader
yield for the purpose of questioning the presence of a quorum?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; I do. 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. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I renew my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that, in connection with that
request, I might have a minute to speak before we vote on that tabling
motion.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I make the same request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader yield for that
purpose?
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I could ask my colleagues, then, if
they would let me get the agreement, and I will propound a separate
request that Senator Chafee be recognized for 1 minute and then Senator
Hollings be recognized for 1 minute, and then we vote on the tabling
motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the list of amendments to which I
referred in the agreement is contained in a document that has been sent
to the desk. So the list of amendments will be printed. Each one of the
two sides prepared their list, and we combined them.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chafee be recognized for 1
minute and, upon the completion of his remarks, Senator Hollings be
recognized for 1 minute, and upon the completion of Senator Hollings'
remarks, the Senate vote on Senator Hollings' motion to table the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I listened to the presentation of the
Senator from South Carolina just a few minutes ago, which was in effect
a total attack on the Senator from Missouri. He did not address the
amendment or the concerns of the Senator from Missouri. He indulged in
a group of character labeling, referring to the ``sly way'' in which
the Senator from Missouri proceeded.
We all know the Senator from Missouri very well in this body, and I
think it is inappropriate that the Senator from South Carolina used the
language he did. I think that it is not fitting. It is certainly not
fitting in a description of the Senator from Missouri we know. I just
wanted the body to know how strongly I felt about the approach of the
Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Record will be printed there, and I
constrained myself, I can tell you that right now. I referred to the
facts, and he does not like being corrected by way of facts. The reason
one uses the word ``monkeyshines,'' it is a polite expression maybe for
hypocrisy, for the simple reason that you cannot come moving in
Sematech for the semiconductor industry, moving if you please for the
private aircraft industry, going along with the sales and everything
else, and come on this bill and say, with technology, now that this is
a whole new venture. We know it is not a new venture.
The langauge of the Senator from Missouri used in presenting his own
bill--I did not see any descriptive way other than to say exactly what
happened. I know how it is presented, but I stand by everything I said.
I know the rules of the Senate, and I am sorry you resent it. I resent
your resentment.
Look to the language the Senator from Missouri used in presenting his
own bill--I did not see any descriptive way other than to say exactly
what happened. I know how it is presented, but I stand by everything I
said. I know the rules of the Senate, and I am sorry you resent it. I
resent your resentment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Dodd], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from Arkansas
[Mr. Pryor], are necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], the
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], and the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Helms], are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Daschle
DeConcini
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--43
Bennett
Bond
Bradley
Brown
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Danforth
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feingold
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Hutchison
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NOT VOTING--8
Biden
Campbell
Craig
Dodd
Durenberger
Helms
Inouye
Pryor
So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1494) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for S.
4, the National Competitiveness Act.
S. 4 is a ``jobs bill' for the future. It is the first building block
of the information superhighway. To remain competitive as a nation, we
must recognize that the jobs of the future are going to be in
technology. We have the opportunity to lay that groundwork with this
bill. We will be cheating ourselves and the future of our children if
we allow this opportunity to pass us by.
S. 4 emphasizes research and development and encourages public/
private partnerships. This effort to revitalize our economic base will
ensure American competitiveness in the global economy. Strengthening
Federal support for civilian technology and manufacturing will promote
economic growth, U.S. competitiveness, and create jobs.
The programs in S. 4 are specifically targeted to small- and mid-
sized manufacturers who create the new, high-wage jobs our country
needs.
This bill is sound policy. It is a wise investment in America's
economic future. It should be noted, Mr. President that S. 4 will not
add one penny to the Federal deficit because all spending will be
funded within the hard freeze on discretionary spending. Most of the
funding comes from the reallocation of our post-cold-war R&D budget.
In closing, Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues that the
National Competitiveness Act presents us with the opportunity to do
something very exciting for the future of this country. We have the
chance to plant the seeds of a technological policy today that will
grow and develop into a strong and competitive economy tomorrow.
the national competitiveness act
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to S.
4, the National Competitiveness Act. Every Member of this body
unquestionably supports the goals of S. 4--to make the United States a
more competitive nation worldwide. Many of us differ, however, on how
to achieve this goal.
S. 4 promises bigger, more intrusive Government at a time when we
should be reducing Government and removing the handcuffs that restrict
small business. This bill doubles the size of the Commerce Department.
It triples the size of one of its agencies, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. S. 4 creates or expands at least six programs
within the Commerce Department and establishes three new advisory
boards.
The underlying assumption of S. 4 is that the Federal Government,
rather than the free market, is better suited to determine winners and
losers in high-technology industries. This logic is fundamentally
flawed and will do little to enhance U.S. competitiveness. In fact, the
only increased competition we will see, if S. 4 is enacted, will be
between Members of Congress and special interest groups fighting for
pork-barrel projects. And mark my words, precious taxpayers dollars
will flow to projects, not based on merit but on the skill of the
special interests and politicians. If anyone doubts me, I've got a
courthouse in Brooklyn to show them.
The Government can play an important role in promoting U.S.
competitiveness. But that role is not to handpick new industries to
subsidize. The key to improving the ability to U.S. businesses to
compete globally is to unshackle them: reduce taxes which punish
businesses for being successful, cut Federal spending to reduce the
deficit, eliminate regulatory burdens, and provide legal reform.
First, we must categorically reject higher taxes, and call for
specific tax reductions. The old arguments against tax increases are as
valid as they've always been. High taxes bleed an economy of its
productive power. They strip individuals of incentive and devalue their
work.
We should not only reject tax hikes, but we should also move to
reduce tax rates on labor income and capital formation. Payroll, income
tax, and other tax cuts would reduce the cost of hiring workers and
introducing new equipment. Cutting these taxes would also stimulate
savings, investment, and productivity. And unlike targeted subsidies,
tax relief would allow private funds to flow to their most productive
uses.
Second, we must balance the Federal budget. The Congress must be
prevented from buying special interest support with cash funded from
debt. Our Nation is faced with what Thomas Jefferson called ``the stark
choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.''
Last week, the Senate let an historic opportunity pass by in failing
to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We do not
have to raise taxes or gut spending programs to balance the Federal
budget, as the naysayers would have us believe.
I have a plan called ``Families First'' which would balance the books
in 8 years by capping the growth of Federal spending at 2 percent
annually. At the same time, it provides and pays for several incentives
for families to save and businesses to invest. Our debt is an unfair
burden placed on our future. It is a failure of political will. It is a
betrayal of moral commitments. We must end this legacy of excess.
Third, we must enact regulatory reform. Unnecessary regulations
impede the ability of our Nation's businesses to compete with foreign
producers, create jobs, and invest in ways that will increase
productivity.
The President and Congress should establish a Federal regulatory
budget and estimate the employment impact of regulations before they
take effect. A regulatory budget means that the Government would place
a limit on the total estimated cost imposed on the economy each year by
all Federal regulations.
Vice President Gore's report on reinventing Government cites a 1993
study which concluded that the cost to the private sector of complying
with regulations is ``at least $430 billion annually--9 percent of our
gross domestic product.'' It is essential that the Government take
steps to unleash the competitive potential of business by removing the
reams of Federal redtape that binds it.
Fourth, we must enact strong liability reform. Each year, Americans
spend more on lawyers than our top 200 corporations earn in profits.
This propensity to litigate takes it toll on U.S. businesses, as the
costs associated with exposure to lawsuits drive some firms out of
business or into bankruptcy.
One survey comparing liability costs of U.S. businesses with those of
our foreign competitors found that America spends five times as much as
its major industrial competitors on personal injury wrangling as a
share of its economy, and that the gap is widening rather than
narrowing. American liability costs are 15 times greater than in Japan
and 20 times greater than in Europe. This added cost makes U.S.
products more expensive and diverts funds from jobs and research and
development.
By driving up prices and hindering product innovation, our current
tort system impedes American competitiveness. Congress should pass
product liability reform and other tort reform legislation to limit
punitive damages and streamline court procedures to encourage
settlement. We must ease the burden of liability that closes factory
doors.
With the cold war at a close, we face a new international reality.
Success will not be measured primarily by a military balance or control
of strategic geography. It will be counted and accumulated in the
currency of commercial competitiveness. In this new international
situation, high taxes and unreasonable regulation are forms of
unilateral disarmament. They handicap our efforts to compete in open
markets. They slow our ability to respond to change. They surrender our
advantages even before we start.
I am committed to working with my colleagues to create an environment
in which high-technology industries can thrive. New businesses will not
grow when they are overtaxed or burdened by excess litigation and
regulation. Correcting these problems will do more to enhance U.S.
competitiveness than any Big Government outreach program.
murkowski amendment of risk- and cost-benefit analysis
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
Murkowski amendment on risk- and cost-benefit analysis of regulatory
actions.
While many of us believe that the protection of human health and the
environment is important, we also recognize that the cost of this
protection must be considered in the development of environmental
policy.
However, risk is a complex and relatively new tool and we must
proceed cautiously. As we set priorities, we must be more mindful of
the costs and burdens to States, municipalities, industry, and private
citizens. We also must have a commitment to the American people to
maintain the environmental progress we have achieved during the last 20
years.
Also, let me remind all of my colleagues that Executive Order 12286,
written under the Clinton administration, already requires a full cost
and benefit assessment of every major Federal regulation.
Let me quote from the order:
Each agency shall assess the costs and the benefits of the
intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and
benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.
Let's remember, risk analysis has a simple purpose. That is to
protect our environment. It must never become--as I suspect some hope
it will become--a way to gut environmental laws and regulations. Just
the opposite--it is a way to set priorities and protect the environment
more effectively.
In my committee, we are currently addressing the use of risk analysis
in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and I would ask the Members consider
our approach to risk analysis and hold off on consideration of this
issue until the Safe Drinking Water Act is up for consideration.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
amendment no. 1485
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the Economic and
Employment Impact Act amendment, so I am pleased to be a cosponsor.
I think Members of Congress should be fully informed of the impact of
proposed bills. Whether the impact is good or bad in employment terms,
it should be reliable information that is readily available.
Often, Congress acts without gauging the negative impact of
legislation on businesses and on State and local governments. Coming
from county government as I do, I know how frustrating it is to deal
with the expensive requirements thrust on local government.
Requiring Federal agencies to provide an impact statement for
regulatory actions is also an important step.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the National Competitiveness Act is a road
map for continued U.S. leadership in the international economy. As an
original cosponsor of this legislation, I want to commend Chairman
Hollings for his unrelenting efforts to provide a blueprint for
government-industry cooperation. He has set objectives that will ensure
the United States maintains healthy manufacturing and technology
sectors in the face of stiffer international competition.
Actually, Mr. President, these two sectors are rapidly becoming
seamless. The long-term health of the U.S. economy depends not only on
how our country promotes technology but how we apply and disseminate
that technology.
American manufacturing has recently gone through a painful
restructuring as firms cut to the bone during a recession which seemed
endless. These cuts were on top of the steady decline in U.S.
manufacturing that has taken place over the past two decades as
international competition improved.
Thankfully, the economy is now on the road to recovery. But the long-
term cost of the restructuring that took place is still not yet clear.
The National Competitiveness Act could not have come at a more
opportune time. Jobs in research and development were frequently the
first cut by manufacturing companies. While these workers do not
contribute to the monthly bottom line, their work directly benefits how
firms will maintain their competitiveness in the future.
Mr. President, the United States has been woefully behind the curve
on providing assistance to small- and medium-size manufacturers. One
reason German and Japanese companies have narrowed our technology edge
is outright government support for their own manufacturing sectors.
Both countries invest approximately $500 million annually on
manufacturing assistance--much in the form of networks for small firms
that disseminate information on new technologies and manufacturing
processes.
As our economy rebounds from the recession, the Federal Government
now more than ever should be a partner with industry in developing new
technologies. The National Competitiveness Act creates this
partnership.
This bill implements the President's technology initiatives by
creating comprehensive technology development and outreach programs to
achieve U.S. preeminence in advanced manufacturing technology within 10
years. These programs include:
The 21st Century Manufacturing Infrastructure program, made up of two
core components: a new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Development
Program and a Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
The new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Development Program would
support industry-led efforts to develop, refine and test advanced
computer-controlled manufacturing systems. This program will greatly
expand the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]
Advanced Technology Program, which awards matching funds to companies
and joint ventures for research in developing technologies. These
matching funds are critical for many small firms that cannot afford all
the research costs needed to develop these technologies.
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership would create a nationwide
manufacturing extension system linking the successful NIST
Manufacturing Technology Centers with new NIST Manufacturing Outreach
Centers and a greatly expanded NIST State Technology Extension Program
[STEP]. This partnership will provide funds and technology expertise to
assist states and the private sector in planning and coordinating
technology extension activities. These technology extension activities
will be of particular benefit to small, rural States like Vermont that
have limited State resources.
The Office of Technology Monitoring and Competitive Assessment, which
will provide better information on the technological capabilities of
our major trading partners. This office will help us learn from our
foreign competitors so we can improve our own technological
capabilities. To help us compete, we should learn about what our
competitors do best.
The Critical Technologies Financing Pilot Program, which will license
and regulate private venture capital companies called Civilian
Technology Investment Companies. These companies will stimulate the
flow of investment capital to technology firms by providing equity
financing and loans. This program will help high-tech firms clear their
highest hurdle on the way to growth--getting capital to expand.
The Information Technology Applications Research Program, which will
ensure that Federal agencies work together with industry and consumers
to develop advanced computing and networking applications. This new
program will coordinate the activities of various Government agencies
with the private sector to identify and promote these computer
applications in such areas as education, manufacturing and health care.
This legislation creates these new technology initiatives without
adding a cent to the Federal budget deficit. The funds needed to create
these various programs are offset by spending cuts and are well within
the strict discretionary spending caps that Congress imposed under the
1993 Budget Reconciliation Act.
The National Competitiveness Act is a wise investment in America's
future. The bill strengthens the Federal Government and the private
sector's ability to form partnerships to improve our technological
capabilities, manufacturing performance, and information
Infrastructure. These technology transfer initiatives will translate
into more high-paying jobs for Americans--an investment that will keep
paying dividends to all of us for the rest of this decade and into the
next century.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 4, the National
Competitiveness Act of 1994. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this
vitally important bill, which will renew our manufacturing base,
promote American competitiveness in the global marketplace, and create
jobs.
I also want to commend the distinguished Senator from South Carolina,
Commerce Committee Chairman Hollings, as well as his staff, who have
worked tirelessly in bringing this critical bill to the floor.
Mr. President, in 1991 I was a cosponsor of the High Performance
Computing Act, which authorized the National High-Performance Computing
Program, an innovative, Federal interagency R&D initiative.
Title VI of S. 4 expands the scope of the HPCCI, by creating the
Information Technology Applications Research Program. This initiative
will furnish large economic and social benefits to Americans.
Precommerical research conducted under title VI will complement private
sector efforts to generate new information technology applications in
education, health care, access to Government information, and
electronic libraries. This type of collaboration will translate into a
better quality of life for Americans, who will benefit from new job
opportunities, as well as access to a wide range of new products and
services.
Mr. President, section 611 of title VI would authorize the
establishment of State-based electronic libraries. This provision is
based on a bill which I authored in the first session of the 103d
Congress, S. 626, the Electronic Library Act of 1993.
Section 611 authorizes the National Science Foundation, in
consultation with other Federal agencies, to initiate a competitive,
merit-based program to support State-based electronic--or digital--
libraries.
Mr. President, the State-based electronic libraries which this
legislation envisions would provide Americans access to a vast array of
interactive, multimedia educational programs, research and
informational data sources, and networking opportunities. They would
deliver and provide access to a variety of data bases, statistics and
reports developed by Federal, State, and local governments, as well as
other information and informational services.
These State-based electronic libraries would be available to
Americans--in their homes, schools and communities--through public
libraries, electronic data bases, and telecommunications systems such
as the Internet or other publicly available networks. They also would
provide computer program support services--including education and
training to assist people in comprehending and utilizing computer
technology and locating electronic information sources.
Mr. President, properly designed, State-based electronic libraries
can promote job creation by helping businesses find new customers and
assisting in the development of a new class of information
entrepreneurs.
Properly designed, they can help people become better informed
citizens. The information held by governments at all levels should
become more accessible and usable.
Properly designed, they can be a resource for parents and teachers
who want to use technology to improve their instruction skills.
Properly designed, they will be a place where young people want to go
to learn to read, write, and explore.
This last point deserves special emphasis and attention.
Telecommunications and advanced computing technologies are viewed by
many of us as a mixed educational blessing. We regard it as a curse
when entertainment is the only use. It has shortened attention spans,
dulled the capacity of our senses to imagine and create, pulled our
communities off the street into the vortex of 100 million cathode ray
tubes, and pushed down our verbal and writing ability.
Public libraries--which made a relatively new technology, the book,
available to all regardless of income--are a uniquely American
institution. No other country has demonstrated such a commitment to
universal education and learning.
America's experiment with the public library was a decision by
private and public philanthropy to endow every American with the
opportunity to read and study. Libraries are responsible for producing
millions of informed and prepared citizens.
The late 21st century public library, however, has been eclipsed by
video stores, cable television, and the ever-expanding world of
entertainment. This year more Americans will check out video tapes at
video stores than will check out books at public libraries.
While we have been busy entertaining ourselves, the world has become
more complicated and difficult. Today's American citizen--if he or she
expects to make informed decisions--must know more, not less, than was
needed only a generation ago.
While we have been entertaining ourselves, the American workplace has
changed. Never before has the correlation between the ability to learn
and income been so strong. Never before has the need for more than just
a strong back been such a prerequisite for economic success.
To earn your way into the middle class today, a worker must be able
to do far more than a generation ago. As workers become thinkers as
well as doers, verbal skills become much more important.
Mr. President, for the sake of our culture, our democracy, and our
economy, we urgently need to turn this around. I believe that
communication and computing technology--properly applied by adults who
care about reading and writing--can help. I believe that State-based
electronic libraries could be the resource needed by communities
grappling with this challenge.
Unique collaborative partnerships are possible, and the only limit is
our imagination. Imagine, for example, a team of geography, language,
history, or science teachers at a State-based electronic library
forming a partnership with NASA in order to use full motion digitized
graphics of the surface of the earth in the classroom. Imagine a
similar partnership with the National Center for Atmosphere Research or
one of the Department of Energy laboratories to teach science in the
home for the school.
Even where there is such imagination in our community, problems still
exist. Most schools do not have adequate computers and other hardware.
Educational software development is moving ahead, but it currently is
difficult to keep up with changes in the market in order to make
decisions about the utility of the growing variety of programs.
Networking is hindered both by lack of connectivity and by
prohibitive costs of line usage. Few schools have dedicated telephone
lines or cable television connections into their individual
classrooms--although recently several regional Bell operating companies
[RBOC's] and cable multisystem operators [MSO's] have announced that
they will provide free school links to computer networks like the
Internet.
In recognition of this latter problem, the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina also has introduced S. 1822, the Communications Act of
1994, legislation which I also am proud to cosponsor. I hope to
continue work with Chairman Hollings and Federal Communications
Commission [FCC] Chairman Reed Hundt toward furnishing classrooms
dedicated access--wired or wireless--to the national information
infrastructure [NII] as soon as possible.
Mr. President, the State-based electronic library provision in S. 4
will provide a valuable resource for schools, businesses, and
households.
It would allow for prototype projects which would pull together the
hardware, software, and networking capabilities which do exist,
publicize and demonstrate the possibilities, and also demonstrate
current production capabilities.
State electronic libraries will give communities the catalyst they
need to get and keep things moving. Acting as a storer of information,
producer of useful software, as well as a trainer of people. State
electronic libraries will permit the community to accomplish a critical
goal: making certain the technology serves people and not the other way
around.
Mr. President, I cannot urge too strongly that the most important
element of this entire program is to make certain that human values
determine use. Human beings were meant to be more than efficient
shoppers and informed selectors of the latest game or entertainment
choice.
In sum, Mr. President, S. 4 and title VI in particular recognize that
high-performance computing and high-speed networking can revolutionize
many areas of American life--especially in education--ultimately
creating jobs, improving industrial productivity and promoting American
competitiveness as we move toward the 21st century.
I commend Chairman Hollings for his leadership in championing S. 4,
and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
Thank you, Mr. President.
s. 4: the national competitiveness act
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this
opportunity to express my strong support for this legislation. The
National Competitiveness Act will encourage growth in one of the
Nation's most important economic sectors, our manufacturing base. Our
goal is to increase productivity and promote better jobs and better
wages for American workers.
The need is obvious, and we have an administration that is working
with Congress to meet it. Real wages have stagnated since the mid-
1970s, and so have family incomes. As a result, families can no longer
count on steady improvements in their standard of living. It used to be
part of the American dream that each generation did better than the
preceding one, and that children could expect to do better than their
parents; now they can barely hope to do as well, and often even that
standard is difficult or impossible to achieve. S. 4 is designed to
help reverse this distressing trend by encouraging investment in new
technologies and ensuring that industry and workers have access to the
latest advances in manufacturing.
By expanding the successful Advanced Technology Program of the
Commerce Department, which offers competitive grants for industry-led
proposals, this measure will help achieve increased investment in the
development of new technology.
In Massachusetts, ATP is already helping to fund a range of
innovative projects. One company is developing technology to produce
affordable night-vision devices for law enforcement officials and those
who suffer from night blindness. Another firm is developing improved
techniques for speech recognition by computers. Without ATP funding,
these companies could not afford to undertake these projects, and our
economy would lose the benefit of these new technologies.
To ensure that such technologies actually succeed, we must help more
manufacturers take advantage of the latest advances. Small and medium-
sized businesses have difficulty in finding enough resources to stay
abreast of new developments. The Department of Commerce has begun to
address this problem by developing manufacturing extension services,
similar to those historically provided by the Department of Agriculture
to enable farmers to take advantage of new agricultural technology.
These services disseminate information about new manufacturing
techniques and practices, and help businesses implement them in the
workplace.
S. 4 will strengthen these services by establishing a Manufacturing
Extension Partnership that includes regional Manufacturing Technology
Centers, the State Technology Extension Program, and new Manufacturing
Outreach Centers.
S. 4 also includes important provisions for improving the National
Information Infrastructure and developing new applications of
technology for education, health care, and other areas, in addition to
manufacturing. I particularly commend Senator Hollings and the Commerce
Committee and its staff for their willingness to work with the Labor
Committee to ensure that the Department of Education is included among
the Federal agencies involved in this important effort, so that the
information superhighway does not bypass the nation's schools.
In addition to these technology programs that will be run through the
Commerce Department, the Defense Department has established an
extremely successful program with a comparable goal. It's called the
Technology Reinvestment Project, and it's designed to help small and
medium-sized defense firms make the transition to commercial markets.
Companies in Massachusetts have taken advantage of the project, and
many have benefited as grant winners. In addition, other firms have
gained through the partnerships they have formed to compete in the TRP,
even if they did not ultimately win grants.
The Commerce Department and Defense Department programs are major
steps in the right direction, but additional steps are also needed. To
achieve our economic goals, we also must ensure that workers are well-
trained to use new technology in the workplace. Otherwise, there is a
danger that the very real benefits of modernizing the economy will not
be shared by America's workers.
Many economists, for example, have expressed concern that the sharp
recent increases in productivity--at annual rates of 4 percent in the
third quarter of 1993 and 6 percent in the fourth quarter--resulted in
gratifying gains in profits, but not in wages. If we build better
machines, but neglect worker skills, then we will have missed one of
the most important goals of our overall technology policy--the
development of a high-skilled workforce.
This legislation puts us on the right track. I commend Senator
Hollings and his colleagues on the Commerce Committee for their
leadership in developing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
support its passage.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 2 years ago, I cosponsored with Senator
Bob Kerrey an important amendment to the intelligence authorization
bill for fiscal year 1993, directing the administration to update its
policy for the domestic and overseas sales of satellite imagery and
systems. The policy at that time allowed only for the sale of very low
resolution imagery by the commercial sector. Due to reductions in our
industrial base, the emergence of a global commercial imagery market,
and the growth of foreign satellite imagery competition, this policy
was sadly out-of-date.
Today I am pleased to announce that the administration has announced
a new policy. It will now allow U.S. aerospace companies to sell medium
resolution imagery in the commercial marketplace. It will also allow
firms to sell high resolution imagery in the future. This approach
insures that U.S. companies are able to compete on an equal footing
with foreign competitors in the international marketplace.
At the same time, the policy allows the Secretary of Commerce, at the
request of the Secretary of State or Defense, to limit the sale of
imagery when National security interests may be seriously compromised.
Disagreements between cabinet secretaries may be appealed to the
President for final resolution. This approach seems to strike the
proper balance between economic and national security. It guarantees a
stable supplier relationship between U.S. Satellite companies and its
customers, so necessary to win the market--and it protects U.S.
National security interests.
Mr. President, according to experts in the Department of Commerce,
the market for satellite imagery is expected to grow within the next 10
years to nearly $15 billion annually. This new policy positions U.S.
companies, the best satellite and imagery makers in the world, to not
just compete, but to dominate this vast market.
I am pleased that Senators Kerrey, DeConcini, and I were at the
forefront in leading the fight to update this policy--and not just with
the amendment 2 years ago, but with hearings, letters, and constant
meetings under the auspices of the select committee on intelligence. We
followed up, keep the pressure on when the bureaucracy was grinding to
a halt, and made this policy change happen.
Let me say a few things about the impact of this new policy. First, I
have been watching the drawdown in defense for some years. It affects
the industrial base, and, at some point, you can not maintain the
critical skills necessary to build high quality systems as budget cuts
continue. If we want to fly high quality imaging systems that work and
are reasonable in cost to meet our National security needs, we had
better not let the base shrink to the point where we lose the skilled
labor force. One way to do that is to allow our satellite companies to
compete in the global marketplace for new business. This new policy
helps our defense and intelligence communities maintain quality
systems.
Let me also stress that other countries are moving into the imagery
business. The Russians are offering imagery at 2 meter resolution, and
several reports suggest the French may be able to offer imagery at 1-3
meter resolution in the near future. Nevertheless, the satellite
imagery business is a business in which we retain a competitive
advantage. But if we do not move to dominate the market, we will lose
it. This means we will lose high quality, high paying jobs, the type we
want our citizens to have. This new policy will make it more likely
that this will not happen.
Finally, let me note that if we dominate the market, we can set the
agenda. Better that we build, operate, and, if necessary, export under
close supervision, these systems than that others do so. To not follow
such a policy is to create the conditions for the uncontrolled
proliferation and use of these systems by others--and that is not in
our national interest.
Mr. President, this new policy is a positive step forward. It allows
us to compete in a potential $15 billion annual market, while at the
same time protecting the critical flow of technology or information.
Everyone wins, and I'm proud to have been part of this win-win effort.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S.
4, the National Competitiveness Act of 1994.
We won the cold war because there was a national commitment to win
it. We dedicated the resources to the research and development and to
the manufacturing that were required to win. That dedication produced
the best military in the world, and much of it was produced by
Californians.
Now, in the post-cold-war period, we are engaged in another great
competition, for economic prosperity. In order to successfully compete
with out rivals around the world, we must once again have a national
commitment to dedicate the resources we need to fight and win. And once
again, California is ready to accept the challenge to do the research
and development of the new technologies that will lead to the new
industries that produce the best products in the world.
The bill before the Senate today contains a number of provisions
which I believe will spark our Nation's manufacturing sector and
improve our national competitiveness.
This legislation officially establishes the manufacturing extension
partnership to link and strengthen existing manufacturing extension
centers. The partnership aims to help small- and medium-size business
learn about modern manufacturing programs. The partnership will also
operate an information network and clearinghouse designed to provide
information support. I believe that this kind of information
dissemination is vital to future economic growth.
This is not Soviet-style centrally planned economics, as opponents
have charged. On the contrary, it is exactly the kind of economic
policy in which we should be engaged. The private sector develops the
technology and the public sectors assist in spreading the word.
This is similar to an initiative I sponsored last year to create an
economic conversion information clearinghouse within the Department of
Commerce. Now, by dialing one telephone number, individuals and
communities can learn all about defense conversion programs. Why not
allow small businesses to learn about advanced manufacturing procedures
by the same process?
This legislation addresses the link between high-performance
computing, high-speed networking, and American industrial
competitiveness though the Information Technology Applications Program.
This critical technology--a lane on the much-talked about information
superhighway--has the potential: To improve education--by providing
students nationwide with access to educational resources anywhere in
the country; to improve the health care system--by furnishing better
and more timely information to health care providers; and to increase
workers productivity--especially in the manufacturing sector.
Mr. President, my home State of California is a leader in high-
technology and high-technology manufacturing. And I hope that my
colleagues know that California has fallen on hard times lately. This
is precisely the kind of legislation that can help California out of
this recession and help put it back on top.
We won the cold war and we can win again, if we have the courage to
dedicate the resources required. S. 4 is a significant step in that
direction and for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support its
passage.
____________________