S7654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

So the message I got from my constituents was, ‘‘Thank you for the vote 

on the balanced budget that went 

through the Senate.’’ But they are a 

little nervous about us. They say, ‘‘You 

are on second base. Keep going.’’ So 

that is the message I bring back from 

my constituents. I think it is an important one to our Nation, because it is 

our No. 1 domestic problem, the unbalanced budget. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MEASURE PLACED ON THE 

CALENDAR—H.R. 1045 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will read H.R. 1045 for a second 

time. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 1045) to amend the Goals 2000 

Educate America Act, to eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, and for other purposes. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object to proceeding at this time to the 

bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill 

will be placed on the calendar. 

The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that I be allowed to 

speak for up to 20 minutes as if in 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CUTS IN CIVILIAN RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 2 

weeks ago the Senate passed a budget 

resolution designed to eliminate the 

Federal deficit over the next 7 years. 

The House passed its version of that 

budget the week before. 

While there are some major differences in those budgets, particularly 

on tax cuts and defense spending and 

domestic discretionary spending, there 

is one common feature, and that is a 

proposed drastic cut in Federal support 

for civilian research and development. 

That is across Government. 

There has been very little attention 

paid to this part of the budget balancing effort so far. The public attention has been concentrated on Medicare, Medicaid, education, and tax cuts 

for the wealthy. But this issue, these 

drastic cuts in Federal support for civilian research and development, may 

be the place where the Republican 

budgets that have been passed through 

the two Houses will do the most damage to our Nation’s future well-being 

and prosperity. 

Overall, civilian research and development spending will be cut 30 to 40 

percent by the year 2002 to a four-decade low as a percentage of our economy. Some agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, perhaps the 

National Institutes of Health, may be 

cut only at the inflation rate during 

the next 7 years, but all others—that 

is, NASA, the Department of Energy, 

the Department of Commerce, EPA—

all appear to be slated for much deeper 

reductions. 

For those who are not familiar with 

the budget process here—I am sure 

there are some who are watching who 

may not be—let me explain why we 

cannot be more specific about the effect of these budgets at this point. The 

budget resolutions that are still being 

considered in conference make many 

assumptions about Federal programs. 

The only binding assumption which 

came out of what we did here in the 

Senate and in the House is the assumption that affects civilian-applied research with regard to the domestic discretionary spending cap. In fiscal year 

1995, this current year, that cap is $257 

billion for total domestic discretionary 

spending. Under the Senate version of 

the budget in 2002, it will be $234 billion, or a 10-percent reduction. That is 

a 10-percent reduction coupled with 7 

years of no inflationary adjustment. 

Under the House version, the domestic 

discretionary spending total in 2002 is 

even lower. In the House version, it 

will be $229 billion. 

If civilian research is treated on average like all other programs in this 

larger category, this domestic discretionary spending category, which I 

would assume is really the best case 

that we could hope for, if that were to 

be the case, then that research and development funding would be cut 30 percent in real terms. If other programs, 

such as highway funding, law enforcement, and veterans programs are protected from cuts when funding is finally allocated by the Appropriations 

Committees, the cuts in research and 

development could reach 40 percent in 

real terms. 

Mr. President, I am tempted to ask 

what the research community in this 

country has done or failed to do to deserve this type of treatment at this 

stage in our Nation’s history. The research community won the cold war for 

us. They put men on the moon, they 

revolutionized medicine, they invented 

computers, they pioneered electronics 

and semiconductor devices. They invented a myriad of new materials that 

have fundamentally changed our lives. 

This is just as Vannevar Bush, who 

was one of the giants in the post-World 

War II generation in science, predicted 

in his report, ‘‘Science: The Endless 

Frontier,’’ about half a century ago. 

Bush had the wisdom to know nearly 50 

years ago that new scientific and technological fields would emerge that he 

could not yet imagine —semiconductor 

electronics, for example, or molecular 

biology and the material sciences, just 

to name three. Bush had the vision to 

see that Federal investments in science 

and technology could transform our 

lives and contribute to our health and 

the standard of living and the security 

of all Americans. 

Federal investment in civilian research and development did not cause 

the Federal deficit. In fact, it is quite 

the opposite. 

Mr. President, here is a chart that I 

want to direct my colleagues’ attention to. It shows civilian research and 

development as a percentage of gross 

domestic product during the 40-year period from 1961 through the year 2001 or 

2002. In 1969, which is the last Federal 

budget that we had that was in balance, Federal civilian research spending was .76 percent of gross domestic 

product, about in this range. With the 

sole exception of the Bush administration, it has trended lower for the last 

quarter of a century. In 1995, it is estimated at about .46 percent of gross domestic product, the same as it was in 

1992. 

In the year 2002, under this budget 

resolution that passed both the House 

and now a different one in the Senate, 

but the same in this regard, in the year 

2002, it will be about .27 percent under 

these Republican budgets. That assumes the best case, as I mentioned 

earlier; that is, that research is treated 

on averages the same as other domestic 

discretionary programs. 

It is not just that our civilian research investments have not caused 

our current deficit. More importantly, 

there is almost universal recognition 

that these investments have paid for 

themselves many times over by the 

growth that they have contributed to 

our economy. It is not an accident that 

American industries, from aerospace to 

agriculture to electronics to pharmaceuticals, enjoy world leadership. Federal civilian research investments are 

truly investments in the Nation’s future. Mr. President, in my view, it is 

folly to be cutting them to this extent 

over the next 7 years as we enter this 

new century. 

The cuts in Federal support for civilian research will almost surely not be 

made up in the private sector. The Wall 

Street Journal on May 22 reported on 

deep cuts being made by AT&T, by 

General Electric, by IBM, Kodak, Texaco, and Xerox in their research budgets. The reason: Private-sector firms 

have an ever narrower focus and an 

ever greater unwillingness to invest in 

long-term research projects, the benefits of which are uncertain, and usually 

the benefits of which are not 

capturable by any single firm alone. 

The governments of our major economic rivals, Japan and Germany, recognize the importance of civilian research investments. Let me show you 

another chart, Mr. President. This 

chart compares the three countries in 

1992. It shows that in 1992, the German 

Government invested .9 percent of 

gross domestic product that year in civilian research, over in the right. The 

Japanese Government invested .5 percent, directly and indirectly. Neither 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7655 

country shows any sign that it is joining us in planning to slash investment 

in research spending. It is quite the opposite. They and the other industrial 

countries around the world are seeking 

to emulate the successful American 

model of the last half century in 

science and technology, just as we 

seem bent on abandoning that model. 

Our research universities, our Federal laboratories, and our investments 

in small business research and innovation are the envy of the world. Under 

the Republican budgets, we risk losing 

a generation of research and of young 

researchers, since the best students 

will be diverted to other professions by 

the grim job prospects awaiting them 

in research careers. 

Mr. President, it is worthwhile to ask 

how we got ourselves into this fix, and 

how we can get out of it. That is something I believe will be discussed here in 

the coming months as we talk about 

these budgets. 

What we have seen over the last 2 

years is the almost complete fracturing 

of bipartisan consensus which was 

forged during the Reagan and Bush administrations on the appropriate Federal role in civilian research and development. The consensus was that the 

Federal role should stop at 

precompetitive development activity, 

which should be conducted on a costshared basis, with industry putting up 

at least half the money. One test of the 

precompetitive nature of the research 

was whether some of our industry’s intense rivals, such as Intel and Motorola, in the case of Sematech, which 

most of us are familiar with, could collaborate in a single effort. Everyone 

agreed that the Federal role should not 

include helping individual firms to get 

specific products to the commercial 

marketplace. 

Indeed, the very term, ‘‘precompetitive development,’’ was first 

coined by President Bush in a speech 

that he gave to the American Electronics Association in February of 1990. 

He was seeking to distinguish the technology policy that he was pursuing in 

his administration from the industrial 

policies of his predecessors in the 

1970’s—for example, the Clinch River 

Breeder Reactor, supersonic transport, 

and the Synfuels Corporation. 

President Bush spoke proudly during 

the 1992 campaign of his efforts to expand civilian applied research through 

a series of new, high payoff investments in critical technologies: 

A high performance computing and 

communications initiative; an initiative to improve the manufacturing and 

performance of materials; an expanded 

program in biotechnology research; the 

establishment of the U.S. advanced 

battery consortium, which was to be 

funded for 4 years; a significant increase in our aeronautics research 

budgets; and the establishment of 

seven regional manufacturing technology centers for the distribution of 

modern manufacture of tools and 

know-how. 

This notion of what the appropriate 

role of the Federal Government in research is and is not was supported in 

numerous pieces of legislation passed 

since 1980 with bipartisan sponsorship 

and with the blessing of the Reagan 

and the Bush administrations. The vast 

majority of that legislation passed this 

body unanimously. 

Indeed, the American bipartisan consensus of 1992 on the appropriate role of 

Government in civilian research and 

development was incorporated in late 

1993 into the Uruguay round subsidies 

code, and it is now the world norm that 

governments can fund the full cost of 

basic research, they can fund up to 75 

percent of the cost of applied research 

that is relevant to industry and up to 

50 percent of the cost of precompetitive 

development. They can do all of that 

without risking trade sanctions. Any 

development subsidies beyond that 

precompetitive stage are fully 

sanctionable, as they should be. 

Unfortunately, by late 1993, this bipartisan consensus that I have referred 

to had been fractured. As President 

Clinton and Vice President GORE pursued a science and technology policy 

almost identical to President Bush’s 

and did so with real commitment, 

which I commend them for, our debate 

suddenly reverted to the sort of bumper sticker level which we had mistakenly thought was behind us. Charges of 

industrial policy, charges of picking 

winners and losers were affixed to a 

broad range of civilian research programs. 

By early this year, the bumper sticker pejorative had become corporate 

welfare. That is a phrase which, unfortunately, was popularized earlier this 

year when Secretary of Labor Bob 

Reich used it to refer to tax incentives, 

tax subsidies of various kinds. 

Republican leaders argued, mistakenly, that Federal support for research 

in areas from aeronautics to computers 

to health to energy to agriculture and 

the environment was somehow illegitimate, either because it was corporate 

welfare or it represented some type of 

industrial policy. It was merely seen as 

a duplication of private sector efforts. 

As David Sanger, who has reported 

on these issues for many years, pointed 

out in an article in the business section 

of the New York Times on May 23—this 

is a quote from his article: 

Such arguments underscore the sharp difference in the way technology and trade policy is dealt with in Washington and in the 

capitals of its major economic competitors, 

where trade is considered national security 

and ‘‘picking winners and losers’’ is a phrase 

with no political resonance. 

Mr. President, the overall budget 

prospects facing civilian research in 

this country in the years ahead demonstrate just how high a political resonance this issue seems to have taken 

on today, at least in some parts of the 

political spectrum. 

I do not believe this course we have 

charted for ourselves in these budget 

resolutions makes sense for the Nation, 

and as my colleagues know I led an effort during the debate on the budget to 

make spending on research, technology 

and related trade promotion and trade 

law enforcement programs a high priority in the allocation of funds for the 

next 7 years. The amendment would 

have put the Senate on record in favor 

of maintaining the overall fiscal year 

1995 level for these programs. It would 

have conceded that there would be no 

inflationary adjustment during that 

period. But it would at least have tried 

to keep in place existing funding. It 

would have put the Senate on record 

against any net tax cuts unless we 

could first achieve that goal. 

The amendment did not seek to allocate funds within any of the various civilian research agencies. That would 

have been left, as it should be, to the 

authorizing and appropriating committees. 

By the year 2002, even under the 

amendment I offered, Federal civilian 

research and development investments 

would be at a four-decade low as a percentage either of Federal spending or 

of gross domestic product. 

Mr. President, this first chart I put 

up before makes that point very dramatically. It shows that we would have 

the lowest level of spending, the lowest 

percentage of spending of our gross domestic product on civilian research we 

have had in four decades. 

It would not have fixed the problem 

of sustaining our investments at the 

level that our economic competitors 

will be investing. Even if the amendment had been adopted, in 2002 we 

would still be spending slightly more 

than half of what the Japanese Government spends and about a third of what 

the German Government spends as a 

percentage of gross domestic product. 

Unfortunately, this very modest effort was defeated here on the Senate 

floor by a vote of 53 to 47, with all Republicans except Senator JEFFORDS

voting in opposition and all Democrats 

voting in favor. 

I also supported a comprehensive 

fair-share budget, which was a substitute offered by my colleague, Senator CONRAD, that would have balanced 

the budget while preserving funds for 

domestic discretionary programs. The 

fair-share budget provided $36 billion in 

additional discretionary funds in 2002 

for research, education, and other priorities by limiting the growth of tax 

loopholes for wealthy corporations and 

individuals. That also failed on a 60-to39 vote, largely along party lines. 

Almost a century ago, in 1899, the 

head of the Patent Office, Charles 

Duell, is purported to have proposed to 

close up shop at the Patent Office because, in his opinion, ‘‘everything that 

can be invented has been invented.’’ A 

half century later, Vannevar Bush laid 

out his starkly different vision for the 

Federal role in science and technology. 

Now, as we prepare to enter the 21st 

century, we face a choice between 

those two competing visions. Because I 

believe that the scientific and the technological frontier is still endless, just 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7656 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

as it was 50 years ago, and because I do 

not want to risk condemning our children and grandchildren to a less prosperous and less healthy and less secure 

future, I intend to continue fighting for 

Federal research investments even as 

we continue working toward a budget 

resolution. 

I hope we can restore the bipartisan 

support for these programs that was 

there until very recently, and I hope 

we can do so before serious damage is 

done to the programs. I am afraid this 

is going to take not just months but 

perhaps even years. 

Mr. President, I appreciate the 

chance to speak. I yield the floor, and 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE JAMES C. 

SELF 

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this 

month in Greenwood, SC, a terrible, 

sudden loss has been suffered by the entire community. On May 4, James C. 

‘‘Jim’’ Self—successful businessman, 

committed public servant, concerned 

community leader, and dedicated family man—was tragically killed in a 

traffic accident which no one could 

have anticipated. 

Respected for his position as chairman of the board of Greenwood Mills 

Inc., Mr. Self was born and raised in 

Greenwood and went on to earn a bachelor of arts degree from Clemson University and a masters of business administration from the University of 

South Carolina. Throughout his life, 

Mr. Self established a well deserved 

reputation as a civic leader whose activities included service on the Greenwood board of Bankers Trust, the State 

board of NCNB, and the boards of Benedict College, Junior Achievement, and 

the Greenwood YMCA. In addition, Mr. 

Self served on the Governor’s Review 

Board under John West, for which he 

was awarded the South Carolina Order 

of the Palmetto. He was also a member 

of the First Baptist Church of Greenwood. 

Let us make certain that we remember with respect and admiration the 

substantial contributions this outstanding citizen made to his family, his 

community, and the State of South 

Carolina. 

Mr. President, I know I speak for all 

those who knew Jim Self when I say 

that he will be missed greatly. My 

deepest sympathies go out to his wife—

Linda Coleman Self—and children—

Linda Elizabeth Self, James C. Self III, 

and Furman Coleman Self—and the entire Self family, including his distinguished father—Mr. James C. Self—for 

the tremendous loss they have suffered. 

TRIBUTE TO FORMER SENATOR 

MARGARET CHASE SMITH 

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, during my tenure as a Member of this distinguished body, I have had the pleasure of serving with many individuals of 

impressive character and ability. Few, 

however, possessed the unwavering 

commitment to principle and public 

service demonstrated by Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who passed away 

this week at her home in Skowhegan. I 

would like to offer her family and 

friends my deepest condolences for 

their loss, a loss suffered by our entire 

Nation. 

After an accomplished career of 8 

years in the House of Representatives, 

Mrs. Smith was first elected to the 

Senate in 1948 and served four consecutive terms. A political leader of national stature, her substantial talents 

earned her a prominent role in Republican Presidential contests. 

Mrs. Smith brought grace and wisdom to this Chamber as a dedicated 

representative of the people. An intrepid spirit characterized her work as 

a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I had the 

pleasure of serving with her. At all 

times, the safety and prosperity of the 

Nation were her sole objectives, and 

she worked to ensure that the United 

States was always prepared to defend 

liberty against any enemy. 

When our Nation was gripped in turmoil, Mrs. Smith was quick to supply 

raging debates with needed perspective 

and calming insights. She personified 

the very best qualities that define the 

American character and applied those 

commendable attributes to all of her 

work as a Member of this institution. 

Mr. President, I am confident I speak 

for all of us who knew Margaret Chase 

Smith when I say that she will be 

greatly missed. Her legacy is a standard of public service toward which 

every Member of the U.S. Senate 

should strive, and my sympathies go 

out to all those touched by her warmth 

and intelligence. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE JAMES 

BOYD ‘‘JIM’’ KLUTTZ 

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 

James Boyd ‘‘Jim’’ Kluttz passed away 

last month at his home in Laurens, SC, 

and I would like to offer his family and 

many friends my deepest condolences 

for their heavy loss. 

A dedicated reporter, Mr. Kluttz 

served as editor emeritus of the 

Laurens County Advertiser following 

his retirement from the paper in 1981. 

His tenure with the paper began in 1966, 

and Mr. Kluttz photographed and reported upon the people and places of 

Laurens County for the next 15 years. 

His colleagues described his love and 

commitment to the people of Laurens 

as follows: ‘‘(Mr. Kluttz’) was the kind 

of journalism that reflects the heart 

and soul of a community and all that is 

good in it * * * and, in many ways, he 

was the soul and conscience of our 

community.’’ Clearly, Mr. Kluttz practiced the kind of journalism that, unfortunately, is now all too rare. 

Mr. President, I know I speak for all 

those who knew Jim Kluttz when I say 

that he will be missed greatly. My 

heartfelt condolences go out to his 

wife, Alma Wyatt Kluttz, his two sons, 

James Thomas Kluttz and John Boyd 

Kluttz, his daughter, Laura Anne K. 

Smith, and their families for the loss 

they have suffered. 

f 

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? 

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES! 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more 

than 3 years ago, I began daily reports 

to the Senate to make a matter of 

record the exact Federal debt as of 

close of business the previous day. 

As of the close of business Friday, 

June 2, the exact Federal debt stood at 

$4,902,882,032,835.06, meaning that on a 

per capita basis, every man, woman, 

and child in America owes $18,611.42 as 

his or her share of the Federal debt. 

It is important to note, Mr. President, that the Senate had an opportunity to implement a balanced budget 

amendment to the Constitution. The 

Senate failed by one-vote in its first 

opportunity to bring the Federal debt 

under control. 

There will be another opportunity in 

the months ahead. 

Mr. DOLE. What is the pending business? 

f 

CONCLUSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning 

business is now closed. 

f 

COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM 

PREVENTION ACT 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the pending business. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of 

terrorism, and for other purposes. 

The Senate resumed consideration of 

the bill. 

Pending: 

Hatch Amendment No. 1199, in the nature 

of a substitute. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1199

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say 

to my colleagues that we hope to complete action on this bill very quickly, 

and I am asking my colleagues on each 

side—I think there are 67 amendments 

on the Democratic side, 30-some on the 

Republican side—to see if we cannot 

limit the number of amendments. We 

will also file cloture today and try to 

get consent to vote on that cloture motion tomorrow in an effort to expedite 

this bill. 

Immediately after the tragic events 

in Oklahoma City, I wrote to President 

Clinton expressing my hope that we 

could put aside partisanship and develop an antiterrorism plan all Americans could support. Just as partisan 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS