E 984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 10, 1995

Born in Richmond Hill, NY, on December

10, 1913, Morton Gould has been composing

and performing as conductor of the major

symphony orchestras in the United States and

throughout the world for most of the 20th century. His first published composition appeared

in 1920 when he was just 6 years old.

By the time he was 21, Morton was conducting and arranging a weekly series of orchestra radio programs for the WOR Mutual

Network on which many of his orchestral settings were introduced.

A gifted composer, his work is characterized

by its distinctively American flavor; it incorporates folk, blues, jazz, gospel, and western

elements with the classic symphonic form.

Among his more popular symphonic works are

‘‘Latin-American Symphonette,’’ ‘‘Jekyll and

Hyde Variations,’’ ‘‘Spirituals for Orchestra,’’

‘‘American Salute,’’ ‘‘Tap Dance Concerto,’’

and ‘‘Derivations for Clarinet and Band,’’ written for the late Benny Goodman.

In addition to the National Symphony Orchestra, his music has been commissioned by

other major symphony orchestras, the Library

of Congress, the Chamber Music Society of

Lincoln Center, the American Ballet Theatre,

and the New York City Ballet.

Morton’s talents are not limited to the symphonic mode. His Broadway credits include

the musicals ‘‘Arms and the Girl’’ and ‘‘Billion

Dollar Baby’’ while his film scores include

‘‘Windjammer,’’ ‘‘Delightfully Dangerous’’ and

‘‘Cinerama Holiday.’’ His scores composed for

television include ‘‘Holocaust,’’ ‘‘F. Scott Fitzgerald in Hollywood’’ and CBS’s ‘‘World War I’’

documentary series.

His list of credits is virtually endless. At age

81 he lives in Great Neck, NY, where he still

is actively composing works which have been

commissioned by major orchestras.

It is a pleasure to salute Morton Gould and

bring the latest honor bestowed on this true

American icon to the attention of our colleagues.

A TRIBUTE TO BETTY

McLAUGHLIN, PRESIDENT, DISfTRICT 29 VETERANS OF FOREIGN

WARS LADIES AUXILIARY

HON. WILLIAM J. COYNE OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 10, 1995

Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to join

today in offering a tribute to Betty McLaughlin,

district 29 president for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Ladies Auxiliary. Betty McLaughlin

will be honored on May 12, 1995, by the

members of district 29 of the VFW Ladies

Auxiliary.

It is fitting that the Members of the U.S.

House of Representatives should have this

opportunity to reflect on the patriotic civic commitment of a woman like Betty McLaughlin.

Since joining the ladies auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1970, Betty

McLaughlin has given countless hours of her

time in support of VFW activities that celebrate

American values of family, community, and

country.

Betty McLaughlin originally joined the VFW

Ladies Auxiliary on the eligibility of her husband, Bob McLaughlin, who served with the

1st Calvary Division, 7th Calvary Regiment of

the U.S. Army during World War II. They married in 1952 and currently reside in West

View, PA. She and her husband have four

children, Robert Jr., Linda, Robin, and Sean.

They are also the proud grandparents of six

grandchildren.

Betty McLaughlin has served in a number of

leadership posts over the years since first joining the VFW’s Ladies Auxiliary. She was elected president of the West View Auxiliary in

1973 when her husband Bob served as commander. They were the first husband and wife

team to serve together as president and commander at the West View Post. During her first

term as president of the West View Post,

Betty McLaughlin was honored for her success at recruiting new members. She has

been chairman of several committees, including Americanism and Loyalty Day Safety,

Community Activities, and Cancer. She is currently serving as committee chairman for Cancer, and Americanism and Loyalty Day as well

as trustee.

Betty McLaughlin’s first appointment on the

Allegheny County Council level was as a color

bearer. After serving on many committees at

the county council level, she was elected to

the office of president of the Allegheny Council

Ladies Auxiliary in June 1982. Betty

McLaughlin was appointed department of

Pennsylvania chief of staff by department

president-elect Jean Gasior in 1990 and has

held several State chairmanships, such as

1991 chairman of the Pennsylvania Western

Area Chairman for National Home, the 1992

department of Pennsylvania chairman for Political Action Committee, and the 1993 Department of Pennsylvania western area chairman

for Americanism and Loyalty Day.

While deeply involved with the VFW Ladies

Auxiliary, Betty McLaughlin has also been active in her community and has given her time

and energy to programs sponsored by local

groups, churches, and schools. She has

served as den mother, Brownie, and Girl

Scout Mother. She is currently serving as advisor to the West View Junior Girls Unit. She

has also served the last 6 years on the election board in her local community.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, Betty McLaughlin attained the office of district 29 president of the

Veterans of Foreign Wars Ladies Auxiliary.

She has brought to this position the same

dedication and spirit that she has demonstrated in so many positions since joining

the VFW Ladies Auxiliary in 1970. I am proud

to represent Betty McLaughlin as a constituent

of the 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania and I want to wish her and her family

the very best. It is a distinct pleasure to join

with the comrades and sisters of the West

View Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2754 and

its auxiliary and junior girls in saluting Betty

McLaughlin.

AMERICA AS EXPORT

SUPERPOWER

f

HON. JANE HARMAN OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 10, 1995

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the aftermath

of the cold war presents America with a wide

range of opportunities as well as challenges to

its pre-eminent position in world commerce.

To many, the source of our success provides

comfort in the fact of these challenges. And,

indeed, the skills and technology which created the military might by which we won the

cold war afford us one means for shaping our

future response.

But skills and technology alone are not

enough. We must do more. We must carefully

assess the international environment and understand more fully the nature of our competition abroad. Thus, while the United States is

poised to build upon its superiority in world

commerce, there are some questions which

are part of our public debate which remain to

be answered. Among them are the evolving

relationship between government and business, industry’s relative strengths and weaknesses, and how we can open markets currently closed to U.S. investment and products.

The answers to these questions are not

easy ones. But a recent speech by my friend

Michael Armstrong concisely presents some

possibilities worthy of further discussion. Mike

is the chairman and CEO of Hughes Electronics, a company highly successful because

of its clear understanding of the international

environment. I commend to my colleagues his

remarks on making America an export superpower.

AMERICA AS EXPORT SUPERPOWER: REASSESSING GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN ECONOMIC

GROWTH

(By C. Michael Armstrong)

It is a tremendous honor to follow the long

line of distinguished speakers to this podium. Since its founding in the wake of

World War I, the Council on Foreign Relations has been at the very center of the public debate on America’s place in the world—

a forum for ideas, and a fulcrum for change.

I want to underscore right at the onset,

that while I am privileged to serve as Chairman of the President’s Export Council—and

while my visits to Washington have been

more frequent—I can still say, at this point,

that the views I express today are my own.

TRANSITIONS: 1945–1995

I think all of us were moved by the celebrations—the commemoration—of V–E Day.

That journey back to May 1945 to the beginning of a post-war era that was prelude to

the long Cold War no one could yet foresee—

has undeniable parallels to our present.

Today, we are once again making a difficult

crossing—ending one era and entering the

next: A new world, with new rules for the

way nations cooperate—for the way nations

compete.

As the historians in the audience today

know better than I, the outlines of our era

are only now becoming clear. Just as American GIs shook hands with Ivan at Torgau on

the Elbe in 1945—only to find an implacable

Soviet Union blockading Berlin in 1948—periods of transition unfold in unpredictable

ways.

The distance from 1995 back to the fall of

the Berlin Wall or the implosion of the Soviet Union may seem significant—but in the

handful of years since those events, we are

only now beginning to seize the opportunities—to shape a future—beyond the Cold

War’s long shadow.

Already we see more clearly that with the

passing of the Cold WAr, the coming competition will be less military than economic:

Dominion will be defined by the development

of new technologies and economic performance. I am convinced: If the measure of our

Cold War strength was military—America’s

destiny in the remainder of the century is as

an Export Superpower.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 985

As the first generation after the Cold

War—we have an opportunity that is also an

obligation. History will judge what happens

on our watch.

If we are to sustain our role of global leadership and expand our country’s economic

well-being, it will only happen if America is

the Export Superpower of the world.

And there are signs we are on track:

We’ve just passed Japan and Germany to

regain the top spot as the world’s largest exporter—12.8% of all global trade, compared

to 10.5% for Germany and 9.9% for Japan.

U.S. exports, according to the latest Department of Commerce estimates, are projected at double-digit growth—up from a

still-impressive 5 to 7% as recently as one

year ago.

Broad, bi-partisan leadership has passed

NAFTA and now GATT, opening the way to

expanded trade opportunities that will boost

GDP and job creation.

So with all this good news—what’s the

problem? Why are some of us more concerned

than confident?

Because the positive signs I’ve just mentioned coexist with a more worrisome record:

A record that points to a far different future—to a competitive implosion so fundamental it could amount to gradual economic disarmament.

We’ve got to ask:

Does a decade-long trade deficit of $1.1 trillion dollars define an export superpower?

Does a 10-year, $2.1 trillion dollar federal

budget deficit—a budget that hasn’t been

balanced since 1969—define an economic superpower?

Does an education ‘‘deficit’’ that produces

students that rank consistently in last place

among industrialized nations portend a leader of the societies of this world?

We’ve had a good run at economic success

for 50 years, but I happen to believe that we

succeeded so well economically after World

War II also because of some fundamentals:

First, we won the war without internal

economic destruction. As a result, we quickly re-tooled our war economy and dominated

global commerce.

Second, we firmly established the world’s

foremost public education system including

a GI bill that opened the door of opportunity

to millions throughout our society.

And third, we let the market system sort

through our problems which gave an adaptive America room to restructure to compete.

But is the market system alone enough to

deliver America’s economic destiny? Just

what should the government’s role be to enable our businesses to compete globally; to

enable our people to enjoy a standard of living second to none; to enable our nation to

preserve where history has witnessed the demise of others.

TECHNOLOGY V. BUREAUCRACY

To answer this, we must recognize two new

realities that are currently transforming our

world: First, with the fall of the Berlin Wall

and the Soviet Union, we are witnessing the

fall of economic, social and cultural borders

as well. There is an unmistakable, irreversible trend toward open markets—to the reality and the bounty of a global village.

Second, the phenomenon that defines our

age—the speed of technology in bringing new

products, new capabilities, new markets, new

lifestyles and new economics. In contrast to

the past, where either government or megacorporations defined markets, today the contest pits the speed of technology versus the

speed of bureaucracy—or, more precisely, the

lack of it, as the information age makes a

mockery of borders and barriers of all kinds.

It is in this context that we should ask,

‘‘How much Government do we need?’’

I believe the answer is simply, just enough.

Just enough: No more—and no less government than we need to sustain a globally

competitive society.

Enough government means getting the

night government where we need it—and getting rid of it where we don’t.

While the premise of ‘‘just enough’’ is hard

to dispute, the devil is in the details. Thus,

I would propose we answer two questions

with each policy and factor-in our quest for

exports:

What government must do.

What governments should not do.

COMPETITIVENESS, EXPORTS AND ECONOMIC

GROWTH

As we explore this question of government’s role in America’s export competitiveness, I want to be clear that our country’s

economic responsibility makes demands of

the private sector as well as public policy.

While business cannot overcome a government that shackles it with a bureacractic

ball and chain, nothing government can do—

no policy/no practice/no politics—will spark

our economic engine if American business is

not competitive.

There is sometimes a certain ‘‘no-fault’’

mentality that’s crept into American management. The antidote is accountability.

The ancient Romans had a tradition:

Whenever one of their engineers constructed

an arch—as the capstone was hoisted into

place, the engineer assumed accountability

for his work in the most profound way possible:

He stood under the arch.

If his construction was shoody—he would

be the first to know.

With out market systems, American management must, at the end, stand under the

arch.

And we’ve had our share of fallen arches.

Historically, the companies that did not respond to the international challenge are the

companies that did not reap the rewards.

Look back at the list of companies at the top

of the first-ever Fortune 500, compiled back

in 1955: Of the Top 50—1⁄3 have dropped off the

list/another 1⁄3 have merged—only 1⁄3 are still

going strong. Whatever their industry, the

companies that have kept their place all

share one common trait. They took their

American business international—conquering new markets to create new growth.

Now look ahead—to the export opportunities we enjoy: Over the next two decades, 12

countries with a combined population of 2.7

billion—more than ten times the population

of the United States—are expected to account for 40 percent of all export opportunities. For countries as well as individual companies, there’s a world out their hungry for

the goods and services we provide.

The question is whether American industry is up the challenge. Many of you know

the studies by the Council on Competitiveness of U.S. industry’s strengths and weaknesses in 94 critical, cutting-edge technologies. The most recent review showed

some positive movement—but also distressing evidence of the distance we’ve got to go

to make our positions more competitive.

While the U.S, has improved its position in

22 categories—a closer look reveals the sobering part of the story. In 11 of those 22

areas we move from the last category—‘‘losing badly or lost’’—to ‘‘weak.’’ In the other

11, we moved from ‘‘weak’’ to ‘‘competitive.’’

In not one case—not one—did we move from

competitive to strong.

Now, getting off the critical list is welcome news for anyone—but finding out the

patient has a pulse isn’t the same as watching him hop out of bed and run a marathon.

WHAT GOVERNMENT CAN DO

My promise is thus quite straightforward,

if we are to be an export superpower, it takes

both a competitive commercial base and a

competitive government system. For the

most part, over time, our market system

should define and produce a competitive

commercial base. But it is up to all of us to

define the role of government in our pursuit

of exports.

To begin, I’d suggest what government

must do.

First, while we may need a balanced budget to discipline our politicians, what we need

for export growth is a balanced economy.

We need a reasonable balance between our

country’s investment accounts and its ‘‘care

and feeding’’ accounts. Undisciplined deficits

and a disabled dollar are critical challenges

government must address.

We need competitive and well educated

graduates coming out of our schools if we are

going to have competitive products to export. It is not enough to delegate such a national policy to thousands of individual communities to solve alone. A national consensus should be followed by a thoughful results-based education strategy.

We need a political balance in our system

of government that is both principled and

practical—that is responsive, committed and

gets things done. If we elect people to spend

their time serving society, we are out of balance if they spend half their time running

for re-election. Whether it takes the form of

campaign reform or term limits—a better

balance must be struck.

Second, government must act to open markets for our exports and our investment.

The passage of NAFTA and GATT will

serve trade expansion well—and the passage

of these landmark agreements was surely a

signal from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue that America’s destiny is tied to trade.

However, we need to build on those successes, and open the markets of the second

largest commercial nation in the world. We

should all support the difficult negotiations

now underway with Japan. It will never be

easy; it will take understanding and trust on

both sides; but it must be done now. Hopefully, if sanctions are required, they will

limit Japan and not just layoff Americans.

We need to sustain our support for Mexico,

our third largest export market. It is not

politics; it is not Federal Aid; it is not a

give-away to banking interests; it is simply

in our economic self-interest.

We need to ensure market access to U.S.

consumer goods—taking aim at restrictive

standards designed to keep foreign goods out

and protect domestic producers.

We need effective, strategic negotiating

authority in government to respond, act and

conclude. Fast-track negotiating authority

is not an option—it is a necessity—if we really want to open markets.

And while we drive to open markets, we

should concurrently demand that respect for

intellectual property rights must be a condition of access to our market.

Third, in addition to opening markets, all

of our government must act as an export advocate. While we now have a sensible and

thoughtful National Export Strategy, we

need support and follow-through in the marketplace. It is terrific to see Commerce, Defense, Transportation, Energy and Ambassadors around the world, not only stating

their support, but engaging to help make

things happen. But we need more advocacy;

more agency coordination and consolidation;

more leadership in the markets, not just at

the podium.

However, I’ve heard proposals to reorganize the U.S. Foreign and Commercial Services—newly named the Commercial Service—

a network of offices across the country and

in our embassies whose clientele is American

companies trying to break export barriers

and win business. This is an area where our
E 986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 10, 1995

present policy makes sense—change would be

a mistake. It ain’t broke—so don’t fix it.

Fourth, at times, government must act as

an export financier. This is not a disguised

form of foreign aid. This is a market necessity for large and small American businesses

to compete abroad and create jobs at home.

There are many instances where businesses

and banks with their balance sheets should

fear to tread. Where the risk, the venture, or

the competition dictates that the appropriate role of government is as guarantor.

There is a critical roll for established institutions like the Export-Import Bank. ExIm can help broker blockbuster deals—like

the recent $500 million package for Indonesia’s first-ever private-sector power

project. Without Ex-Im’s political risk coverage, projects like this one would not go

forward—and the loss wouldn’t just be Indonesia’s because, in this case, the project will

provide 7000 new American jobs.

And the benefits of export financing and

export advocacy should flow so that small

businesses can become powerhouses in the

export game. There is no reason the small

firms in the industrial park down the street

can’t export to markets around the globe. It

ought to be possible in America to be an export entrepreneur.

Fifth, we must recognize that long-term

export expansion and technology leadership

are synonymous. To assure directionr and

application, we should enact a permanent

R&D tax credit. However, I would add that

irrespective of an R&D tax credit, businesses

should be investing in R&D to satisfy their

futures and stay ahead of their competitors.

But tax policy in this country has often

helped to shape our republic and assure our

future. A permanent R&D tax policy today

could help to do just that.

And sixth, we need U.S. export policy that

addresses a globally competitive marketplace, not policies rooted in the Cold War,

fashioned to contain communism rather

than expand peace and prosperity. We should

have an Export Administration Act that

minimizes licensing requirements; that implements, where needed, a licensing process

that is fast, fair and responsive; that places

commodity jurisdiction within the government where it belongs—based on today’s

technology and markets; and a Munitions

List that is rational to the realities of technology as well as the needs of national security.

Anything less constitutes a weakness of

American competitiveness—anything less

consigns our industry to a kind of bureaucratic Berlin Wall blocking American exports.

I disagree with the school of thought that

suggests a strong export strategy equals a

weak foreign policy. In fact, the truth is just

the opposite: Strong exports mean more leverage—more options, more choice in our

foreign policy.

In our current foreign policy, we seem to

think technology can be quarantined by bureaucracy. The fact is: Technology travels.

One nation’s export ban is another nation’s

economic boon: An invitation to win trade

opportunities while competitor companies

are kept in the penalty box.

On this last point, an outdated Munitions

List too often teaches the right lesson to the

wrong people.

Last month, it was a businessman stopped

at Customs for carrying a telephone on a foreign trip. The phone was equipped with a security scrambler—a technology on the Munitions List.

And that made the telephone a dangerous

weapon—right along with ballistic missiles

and nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, any foreign national can walk into an American

computer store, buy the same encryption

software that makes the phone secure—and

take it out of the country. And even that is

a waste of a plane ticket—because anyone on

the internet can e-mail the program, anywhere in the world. You can even print the

computer code on a mailing label and send it

abroad—for the price of a postage stamp.

In fact, there’s only one way you can’t

carry or sell that software abroad—and

that’s if you’re an American citizen.

While the government is busy managing

exports based on yesterday’s threats and

technology, the 1995 Cadillac now has more

computing power under its hood than the

original guidance system that landed the

Apollo space capsule on the moon.

The examples are legion:

In the 1970s the average interval between

taking a computer from the drawing board

to the market was 7 years.

Today, in some cases, a new generation

comes along every 12–18 months.

70% of American computer products have a

shelf-life of less than 18 months.

Some of the fastest growing foreign markets—some expanding as much as 7 to 10%

per year—are among the 50 to 60 countries

designated as ‘‘sensitive’’ on the Munitions

List.

That’s one-third of all the countries in the

world—fenced from U.S. high-tech goods and

services.

We’ve got to recognize the inherent tension between the speed of technology and the

speed of bureaucracy: Government policies

that slow non-threatening technology will

cost this country its competitive position in

the marketplace.

I am encouraged that secretaries Christopher and Brown have pledged their support

to work with each other, and the Congress,

for the passage of an effective Export Administration Act this year.

Each of the issues I’ve identified argue for

what is just enough government.

While 19 agencies may be too many to

achieve a coherent trade policy . . .

While the finance function government

performs may be fine-tuned . . .

While government’s role in advocating U.S.

exports may be activist in a number of ways

. . .

We cannot lose sight of the positive role

government must play in promoting our

economy’s export engine. To do anything

less would be to abandon our destiny as an

Export Superpower—and put ourselves on

the path to economic disarmaments.

If these are the areas where we need the

right kind of government to support export

expansion, there are also areas where we

need government to change or get out of the

way.

The most difficult policy that needs to be

addressed is also one of the most economically damaging policies of our government.

I’m speaking of the use of unilateral economic sanctions. Generally speaking, history

has judged unilateral economic sanctions as

an unsuccessful policy to change errant behavior. Only if unilateral sanctions are a

means of leadership to bring about multilateral sanctions, are the chances of success

able to justify the cost at home.

That’s not the case when we take a go-italone approach to sanctions. I would cite two

examples.

In August of 1993, the State Department invoked unilateral economic sanctions against

China for violations of the MTCR. This was

due to alleged shipments in 1992 by China of

M–11 missile parts to Pakistan. The State

Department chose to extend interpretation

of the Munitions List to embedded technology. Based on this interpretation, it then

forbade the export or launch of commercial

communications satellites.

As a result:

Australia and Hong Kong could not launch

their Hughes satellites—satellites that

would primarily be carrying home TV, much

of it American programming.

The Chinese canceled their orders with

Hughes for 2 satellites, mainly to be used for

tying their banking system together. This

was a $400 million order worth hundreds of

American jobs.

Then, after Chancellor Kohl visited China

and pointed out the differences between

American and German policy, China canceled a joint agreement to build 10 sat

ellites—and transferred this multi-billion

dollar agreement to Deutsch Aerospace.

Thousands more jobs were lost.

The sanctions did little to hurt China—but

they certainly registered in California, creating a new wave of unemployment potential

among people already dealing with difficult

times.

Now, there are times when government

gets it right. When the issue was piracy of

intellectual property rights involving American-made movies and other software, the

U.S. threatened the Chinese government—

and it paid off, with quick and conspicuous

results. We taught the right lesson to the

right people.

The tragedy is that if there was some process, some required involvement with affected

industry, its possible sanctions could be implemented without sustaining such large

self-inflicted wounds.

Presently the U.S. has just invoked broad

unilateral sanctions against Iran. There is

no question in my mind—and no lessons we

can look to—that suggests sanctions will

change the behavior of Iran—unless they are

multilateral. The purpose of sanctions cannot simply be to feel politically justified.

The purpose, of course, must be to change errant behavior.

In imposing unilateral sanctions, this step

by the United States should be our calling

card for them to join us. If this is not the

charge to the State Department, then the

outcome will merely be a shift in the flow of

commerce, a few thousand fewer jobs in

America, and more important, no change in

Iran’s behavior.

To learn from the lessons over time of unilateral economic sanctions, I strongly urge

the Administration to put in place a process

to involve industries affected and a policy

that recognizes that multilateral sanctions,

and ‘‘reverse’’ sanctions on the offending

country are the only effective means to

achieve our security objectives.

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the end of a

century is like a hinge in history: A time to

look to at the past—and always a time to

complete the unfinished work of the future.

The steps we take in the final five years of

this century could well spell our destiny in

the next.

Failure to understand the public and private economic imperatives of export expansion, will put us on a slow but sure spiral

into economic disarmament: Will earn us a

page in history offering a painful lesson in

decline—a lesson made more bleak because

our prospects were so bright.

Success—traveling the path that leads to

our destiny as an Export Superpower—will

bring a standard of living and a level of security the likes of which earlier generations

could never have dreamed possible.

To realize that future: We must all pay attention . . .

And America must act.

Thank you.