Summary:
All articles in Senate section
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 24, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages S7281-S7343]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume consideration of
Senate Concurrent Resolution 13.
The clerk will report the pending business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for the
fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.
Pending:
(1) Harkin-Bumpers amendment No. 1126, to reduce
unnecessary military spending, holding military spending to a
freeze in overall spending over 7 years protecting readiness
and modernization activities and shifting the savings to
education and job training, restoring a portion of the
reductions proposed for those programs in the resolution.
(2) Feingold-Hollings amendment No. 1127, to strike the
budget surplus allowance provision (Section 204) from the
resolution to eliminate the use of the fiscal dividend for
further tax cuts.
(3) Snowe amendment No. 1128, to increase funding for
mandatory spending in function 500 (Education).
(4) Bumpers amendment No. 1130, to strike the proposed
change in the budget process rules which would permit the
scoring of revenue derived from the sale of federal assets.
Amendment No. 1128
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would ask my chairman of the committee if
it would be in order for me at this time to yield 10 minutes off the
bill in opposition to the Snowe amendment to the Senator from
Massachusetts?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
How much time remains on the Snowe amendment?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Snowe has 67 minutes; the
opposition has 35 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would prefer to yield 10 minutes off the opposition
to the amendment. Is that what the Senator wanted?
Mr. EXON. The Senator from Ohio wants 10 minutes.
I would start out today by saying to all the Senators that we are
extremely strapped for time. Five minutes here, ten minutes there,
under ordinary circumstances would be in order. I think we have about
what--4 hours maximum left? How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three hours and 45 minutes.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, 3 hours and 45 minutes, with about 70
amendments. We will have to extremely limit our time. I think that the
requests--may I suggest that we yield 8 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts and 8 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DOMENICI. And 8 minutes to the senior Senator from Ohio.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I might ask if I could have 4 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me see how the opposition goes. I have none for
myself at this point. Then I will see.
I yield 8 minutes to Senator Kennedy, 8 minutes to the junior Senator
from Ohio, and 8 minutes to the senior Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. President, one of the most important aspects of the whole budget
resolution is what it does in the areas of higher education, as well as
education generally.
I took a few moments of the Senate's time just 3 days ago to outline
where I thought we were on the whole issue of education in this
country. We take pride in our higher education system. Of the top 149
universities worldwide, 127 of them are here in the United States. Our
system works well. We provide superb higher education in this country.
If there is a basic problem, it is the cost of higher education. We
have tried to address this problem at the Federal level.
Our Federal education policies have been worked out in a bipartisan
way over the period of years since the early 1960's when a judgment was
made that it was in the national interest to support higher education.
Individual contributions, private sector contributions, and Federal
assistance have created the world's best education system. Together, we
support educational opportunities for our Nation's citizens, and at the
same time, [[Page S7282]] we support the outstanding research that is
going on in places like the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and
other research agencies. Our system is working, and it is working well.
The charts we reviewed a few days ago in this Chamber show that
providing higher education to our citizens contributes to this country
immeasurably. The clearest example of this was the cold war GI bill
which returned $8 for every $1 that was invested in education.
Investments in education continue to be an investment in our country.
Now, the Budget Act that is before the Senate today effectively cuts
$65 billion from education, $30 billion of it out of higher education,
and the remainder out of other education support programs over the
period of the next 7 years.
That is a one-third cut in higher education. The suggestion by
members of the Budget Committee that these cuts are not going to touch
the Pell grants, that we are going to hold them harmless, is basically
hogwash. Even when we hold the Pell grants harmless, we see a 40-
percent reduction in what has been a lifeline for young people to go on
to higher education.
Mr. President, 70 percent of all the young people in my State need
some kind of assistance to go to the fine schools and colleges, the 4-
year colleges and the 2-year colleges in my State. And 75 percent of
that assistance comes from Federal support to higher education.
What is amazing to me is that after we have had this dramatic cut,
and the Senate has rejected the efforts by Senator Harkin, Senator
Hollings, and others, to restore education funding, we now have this
amendment that restores a meager 10 percent of the proposed reduction
in Federal support to higher education.
The explanation about how we are going to avoid instructions to the
Labor and Human Resources Committee that will be charged with going
ahead with these cuts is enormously interesting to me.
We had a debate here on the floor of the U.S. Senate about how we
ought to eliminate home equity--farm home equity and home equity of
young people--in our calculations of student assistance eligibility.
Why? Because the value of the farms have gone up over the period of
recent years. That has been true in the heartland of this Nation, just
as it has been true in the increased value of homes as a result of
inflation that students have nothing to do with. Including home equity
in calculations for student aid eliminated the sons and daughters of
working families whose principal problem is the value of their farm
went up or their home went up.
A second debate we had here on the floor of the U.S. Senate,
supported by Republicans as well, was to give young people a few months
after they get out of college to find a job.
We wanted to make sure that they were not going to have to repay
their loans for a short period of months--and we are talking a few
months--after they graduate, when they are trying to find a job. That
decision had the support of Republicans and Democrats alike. Now we are
finding out that this grace period will be gone as well. Students are
going to be penalized again.
I do not know how it is in other parts of the country, but I can tell
you the job market in my State is not flourishing for young people who
are graduating from college. They are able to get jobs, but it takes
them a little while and their salaries to begin are low. Now the
Republicans want to penalize them for that.
If you want to talk about a figleaf over a problem, the Snowe
amendment is just that. This is a 10-percent restoration from the
budget cut. Some will say, given the fact we have been voted down and
voted down and voted down, we ought to grab this, because it is the
only thing we are going to get. The fact of the matter is, this
amendment proposes to find offsets from travel, bonuses, and other
agencies, but these are not binding instructions. The appropriators
decide on those instructions. There is nothing to guarantee that
education will be off limits.
So on the one hand, the Snowe amendment may restore some benefit to
those who need Stafford loans, but you are taking money away from the
sons and daughters of working families who need the help and assistance
provided in a title I program or a school-to-work program. There are no
guarantees here that you are not going to just put it back in one part
of education and sacrifice another part.
So we should be thankful for any kind of restoration of funds to
education. But I must say to the parents who are watching this debate
that what they ought to understand is that we are going to see a one-
third cut in the area of education, a $65 billion loss over the period
of the next 7 years. The effect of this amendment, if it is successful,
will be a restoration of $6 billion of those funds.
The Senator from Connecticut, myself, the Senator from Minnesota, and
others will be offering, at an appropriate time, a very modest
amendment to restore $28 billion, not the full amount, but just $28
billion, with offsets from corporate welfare and tax provisions.
It is extraordinary to me that once again we talk about educating
children in this country, but the Budget Committee could only find $20
billion out of $4 trillion reductions in tax expenditures to turn to
this important venture. We could have gotten the $60 billion. You would
have thought they could find the billionaires' tax cuts where you find
billionaires turning into Benedict Arnolds, where they make fortunes,
hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, and then give up their
citizenship and go overseas and avoid any kind of taxes. You would have
thought they could find----
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself another minute.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has no more time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yielded myself 8 minutes and I was given 10, I
believe.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is incorrect. The time of the Senator
has expired.
Senator DeWine.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in very strong opposition to
the amendment of my friend, the Senator from Maine. This amendment,
frankly, will hurt the very people it purports to help, our young
children.
The Snowe amendment would support programs that are, in fact,
meritorious. But it would do so with an offset that would cause serious
harm to the future of U.S. competitiveness in a very important high-
technology industry. It would do so with an offset that would cause
serious harm to U.S. competitiveness in an increasingly tough and
competitive world. The offset assumes a reduction of $1.124 billion in
aeronautic research and development.
Let me explain the real world consequences this cut would have, and
especially what it would do to some very important programs at NASA.
One of the programs has to do with the advanced subsonic technology.
This program addresses future technology needs covering the whole
spectrum of subsonic aviation, from commercial jets to small aircraft.
First of all, this program has already perfected techniques for
detecting and evaluating corrosion and cracks in aircraft. These
techniques have now become a part of the industry. If we make this cut,
the cut proposed in the Snowe amendment, our future ability to increase
air safety will be seriously impaired.
Second, our ability to decrease the harmful environmental effects of
aircraft will also be seriously impaired. To remain globally
competitive, U.S. aviation has to stay ahead of international
environmental standards. Thanks in part to the advanced subsonic
technology program, we are doing that today. It would be wrong to lose
our competitive edge in this area.
Third, our ability to improve satellite air traffic control would
also be seriously hurt by a cut in this program.
All of these areas--aircraft safety, the environment, air traffic
control--are legitimate concerns of the Federal Government and have
been an area where the Federal Government has been involved for
decades. In these areas, NASA is engaging in high-risk research that
individual companies simply cannot and will not undertake.
Furthermore, Federal investment in this technology has important
roots in the history of our country, as I will explain in a few
moments. NASA's role, really, is to develop high-risk, high-
[[Page S7283]] payoff, precompetitive technologies so they can then be
passed along to private industry. This is something that only NASA can
do. And this investment is essential to the future of the U.S. aircraft
industry. The continuing growth of U.S. market share depends on our
ability to ensure that aircraft are safe, cost effective, and able to
comply with ever more stringent environmental regulations.
There is a long history of Government involvement in basic,
precompetitive research. Back in 1917, the United States established
the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics to engage in basic
precompetitive research. The NACA was a precursor of NASA and did the
same kind of forward-looking work that would be cut under this
amendment.
Earlier this month we, of course, celebrated the 50th anniversary of
the end of World War II. Every single airplane that helped win that war
was made possible by NACA's testing facilities. No single corporation
had enough money to be able to invest in the kind of wind tunnels that
were used to test these planes. NACA's Ames facility did have those
resources. No single corporation had the resources to do the basic
research on how wings should be shaped. NACA did have the resources.
For almost eight decades, NACA, and its successor agency, today's
NASA, have been making the kind of investment in America's aviation
knowledge base that no corporation could possibly match. Every single
plane in America today has NASA's technology somewhere in it. The
little piece of wing that juts out perpendicular from the wing tip--
known as a winglet--was designed by NASA. The winglet increases the
fuel efficiency of an airplane by 5 percent, and that 5 percent can
make a big difference in making U.S. planes competitive.
Just this week the Boeing 777 was unveiled. Major components in that
plane were designed some 15 years ago in NASA's laboratories, not with
a view toward the product line of any particular corporation, but
because, over the long run, the long term, America needs that
technology know-how.
Another research project threatened by this amendment is NASA's high-
speed research program. Before investing the roughly $20 billion that
might be necessary to develop a high-speed civil transport aircraft,
private companies need to know whether such a plane could be built in
compliance with environmental and safety standards.
If we allow the United States to fall behind in the quest for this
technological breakthrough, the U.S. share of the long-range global
aircraft market could drop below 50 percent. It would be a horrible
blow to the trade deficit, to high-technology jobs, and to something in
many respects even more important, our national sense that America is
leading the world in the future of high technology.
America's ascent to the role of global superpower was made possible
in large part by the ability of America's aviation pioneers to invest
in the future.
Education--so ably advocated by my good friend from Maine--has to do
with preparing our children for the challenges of the future. This
program--the program that would be cut by this amendment--is building
that future. I think cutting this program would be a very shortsighted
measure--and the losers would be our children.
Tens of thousands of American children can grow up to work in high-
technology aviation jobs--if we do not foreclose that option by making
shortsighted decisions today.
In aviation, there is a truly global market. Over the next 15 to 20
years, the global demand is expected to be between $800 billion and $1
trillion.
A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that a 1-percent gain in
U.S. market share creates 9,000 new jobs--and $120 million in Federal
revenues--each year.
Aviation already contributes over $25 billion a year to the U.S.
balance of trade. That's more than any other U.S. manufacturing
industry.
And aviation already generates almost a million high-quality jobs in
this country.
If we allow this cut to go forward, we will fall behind in our effort
to develop technologies that will keep America on top of this global
market.
I think we should continue to invest in a high-technology future for
this country.
I think NASDA's research on aviation plays a fundamental and
irreplaceable role in that process.
That is why I will be voting ``no'' on the amendment proposed by the
Senator from Maine. To vote ``no'' on this amendment is to say ``yes''
to a high-technology future for Amercia's children.
I will conclude by summarizing as follows: We hear a lot of talk on
this floor about making sure our children have good jobs, high-paying
jobs, high-technology jobs, and they should not be confined, as some
people on both sides of the aisle have said, to flipping hamburgers.
This type of research gives these good high-paying jobs to our
children.
I urge, therefore, a ``no'' vote on the Snowe amendment. I urge a
vote for our future.
I see my time is almost expired. I see my friend and colleague from
Ohio, who has a tremendous amount of experience in this area, has risen
to speak and will be speaking in just a moment. I look forward to
listening to his comments.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I regret we have such a short time here
this morning to deal with this.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by
Senators Snowe, Abraham, Grassley, Brown, Kassebaum, Cohen, Lott, and
Chafee.
I support the goal of the amendment--to provide increased funds for
higher education. My record is clear and unequivocal on education
funding. These funds must be increased, but not in the way proposed by
the proponents of this amendment.
I do not know that there has been an education bill which I voted
against since I have been in the Senate for over 20 years. My record is
very clear in that regard.
I want to speak about the offsets that are required here that would
provide the money for this particular amendment. I would like to speak
about two of the offsets that the amendment identifies and discuss the
impact which these cuts would have on our economy and our Federal
workers.
First, the amendment would zero out two important NASA programs. This
Nation has gotten to be what it is because we put more into research,
and the inquiry into the unknown, into pushing back the frontiers of
science, and then we develop the industry and the business once that
has occurred. That has been the hallmark of America. We have been the
envy of the world in doing that; the envy of the world.
So these programs in our R are seed-corn type programs that whole
industries benefit from. We have seen in the past money spent at NASA
in aeronautical research which in particular had led to the development
of an aircraft industry in this country that has been leading in
exports second only to farming, to agricultural products, in years
past.
Dan Goldin, the Administrator of NASA, was given aid by the
administration, and was tasked to downsize some, and he went ahead and
did it. He did it, and he has a program in NASA, a 5-year budget, which
was about $122 billion in fiscal 1993. The 1996 request is now $82
billion for the next 5 years. So they have been cut by one-third in
just 2 years.
NASA has stepped up to the plate to reduce bureaucracy and improve
the way it does business. These programs are the R or seed-corn type
programs which many of my colleagues have heard me speak about in the
past. This amendment would zero out NASA's High-Speed Research Program,
and NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology Program.
Before I talk about these specific programs, I would like to observe
that NASA has already absorbed more than its share of budget cuts. A
couple of figures will illustrate what I am talking about. In fiscal
year 1993, NASA's 5-year budget request was about $122 billion. The
fiscal year 1996 request is now $82 billion for the next 5 years. NASA
has been cut by one-third in just over 2 years.
Dan Goldin's leadership of the agency is currently going through a
painful process of reducing its budget by $5 billion over the next 5
years. Mr. Goldin [[Page S7284]] believes that this can be achieved
without eliminating programs. He has a tough row to hoe to achieve this
and he just cannot do it if we impose another cut like this on his
budget over there.
These programs are valuable. They are not something that we just pick
up and lay down as a whim. Further cuts in NASA's budget will simply
result in the elimination of current programs.
And Mr. President, I suggest that, if this amendment is approved, the
future of NASA's three aeronautic research centers--Lewis Research
Center, Ames Research Center, and Langley Research Center will be in
jeopardy.
Now, let me talk about the High-Speed Research Program first. The
goal of this program is to help develop the technologies industry needs
to design and build an environmentally compatible and economically
competitive high-speed civil jet transport for the 21st century. The
technology developments are to reach an appropriate stage of maturity
to enable an industry decision on aircraft production by 2001.
Mr. President, the technologies currently needed to develop such a
transport are beyond the state of the art. NASA estimates that industry
will need to invest more than $20 billion to bring such a transport to
market. A $20 billion industry just with this one development alone;
$20 billion we are talking about, and we are talking about cutting back
the research that will make that possible.
Studies have identified a substantial market for a future supersonic
airliner to meet rapidly growing demand for long-haul travel,
particularly across the Pacific.
Those that have been to the Southeast Asian area recently know how
that area is really expanding economically. Over the period from 2005
to 2015, this market could support 500 to 1,000 aircraft, creating a
multibillion sales opportunity for its producers. Such an aircraft will
be essential for capturing the valuable long-haul Pacific rim market.
As currently envisioned an HSCT aircraft should be designed to carry
300 passengers at Mach 2.4 on transoceanic routes over distances up to
6,000 nautical miles at fares comparable to subsonic transports.
Now let me talk about the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program.
The goal of NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology program is to
develop, in cooperation with the FAA and the U.S. aeronautics industry,
high-payoff technologies to enable a safe, highly productive global air
transportation system that includes a new generation of environmentally
compatible, economical U.S. subsonic aircraft. Some of the technologies
and issues being studied and developed in this program include:
First, fly-by-light/power-by-wire: a fully digital aircraft control
system which would be substantially lighter, more reliable and
efficient than current control systems.
Here is one that ought to get the attention of every single person
who is hearing my voice, and every single person in this Chamber: Aging
aircraft. My colleague from Ohio mentioned that a moment ago.
Second, aging aircraft: To develop new ways of inspecting aircraft to
determine their airworthiness.
When you see a black storm cloud on the horizon the next time you are
taking off out of Washington National or Dulles in a 727 aircraft over
20 years old, I think you would be interested in this kind of research
NASA wants to do.
New approaches are being developed to determine the residual strength
in airframes using advanced nondestructive technologies. It might be
worth thinking about this program the next time you are sitting in a
727 that's 20 years old waiting to take off on a cross-country flight.
Third, noise reduction: This program is developing technologies to
reduce aircraft noise by 10 decibels or more by the year 2000.
Fourth, terminal area productivity: Technologies, chiefly involving
air traffic control, that can improve the efficiency of operations on
the ground at busy airports.
Fifth, integrated wing design: New concepts, design methodologies,
model fabrication and test techniques are being developed to provide
industry an integrated capability to achieve increased aircraft
performance at lower cost.
Sixth, propulsion: Technologies to improve fuel efficiency of future
commercial engines by at least 8 percent and reduce nitrogen oxides by
70 percent over current technology.
These are only some of the technologies being developed under the
program which the amendment's propents would completely gut.
It is a truly shortsighted amendment that would eliminate these
important applied technology programs.
Mr. President, it is no secret that aerospace business is a
government-private sector partnership. Historically our government has
funded aeronautics R, and industry has taken this basic technology
and developed aircraft that have dominated the world market. Over the
last decade or so, other governments have gotten into the act.
Currently, the U.S. market share is about 65 percent, down from about
91 percent in the 1960's.
We had 91 percent of the world's commercial aircraft market in the
1960's. We are now being competed with more vigorously than we have
ever been in the past.
Cutting these two important programs will not help us regain this
market share--quite the opposite. We will be sending a signal that the
U.S. aircraft industry will be less competitive. I do not want to see
that happen.
In summary, the advanced subsonic technology: meets future technology
needs for next generation aircraft; enables NASA to develo high-risk,
high-payoff, precompetitive technology to prove feasibility so that
industry may complete development and apply technology to specific
products; will result in accomplishments in noise prediction codes for
quieter engines, non-destructive evaluation techniques for detecting
corrosion, cracks and disbonds; analytical tools to understand aircraft
wake vortices for safe landings; and assists in preserving 1 million
U.S. high quality jobs and $25 to $30 billion in annual positive
balance of trade for U.S. aviation.
How can we possibly take a chance on knocking something like that
down?
The High-Speed Research Program will: enable NASA to develop early,
high-risk technology for future environmentally compatible,
economically competitive high-speed civil transport aircraft
(technologies needed are beyond state of the art); industry will take
NASA technology and invest $20 billion to actually develop aircraft;
and if the United States is first to market, the U.S. market share
could grow to 80 percent, achieve $200 billion in sales, and create
140,000 new U.S. jobs.
Thank you Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to vote against the
Snowe-Abraham amendment.
I think, while I support the goal of getting more money for
education, I certainly do not support taking it out of these forward-
looking research programs that have served us so well in the past, and
will in the future.
impact on nasa lewis
NASA's zero-based review announced last week will have a significant
impact on Lewis Research Center outside of Cleveland, OH. Lewis will be
given primary responsibility for aeronautics research, especially
aeropropulsion research. Other programs would be shifted away from
Lewis, including work on expendable launch vehicles.
Mr. President, if the proposal by the Senator from Maine is accepted,
I think it could be the death knell for Lewis Research Center. I use
these words carefully. But when an agency like NASA is downsizing, and
the chief mission of a given facility is eliminated--and this amendment
would eliminate high-speed research and advanced subsonic technology
research, which will be Lewis' bread and butter--then I think my words
are accurate.
If Lewis closes, the impact on my State will be significant.
According to NASA, Ohio has the second largest number of aeronautics
jobs in the country, behind California. This is due primarily to NASA
Lewis, Wright Patterson, the Ohio Aerospace Institute, and Ohio's
university system. Anchoring these jobs is Lewis. It attracts world
class scientists and engineers to world class facilities.
Did the Senator from Maine and her cosponsors consider this impact
when they put together their amendment? I do not think so.
[[Page S7285]]
Mr. President, Lewis employs directly about 4,500 people. About one-
third of these are in some way connected to aeronautics research. But
the multiplier effect is significant. The people employed at Lewis
attract other businesses, or help form new ventures and stimulating the
economy. Gutting these two programs would have a serious impact on this
dynamic system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several relevant
documents be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of
the Administrator,
Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I am writing to express NASA's
strong objection to the recommendation by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) in its February 1995 Report to the House
and Senate Committees on the Budget, ``Reducing the Deficit:
Spending and Revenue Options,'' to eliminate NASA's Advanced
Subsonic Technology and High Speed Research programs. I
request that this recommendation not be included in
assumptions supporting the Committee's forthcoming FY 1996
Budget Resolution.
In making its recommendation, CBO contends that these
programs develop technologies which should be developed by
the private sector, namely large aircraft companies. The
aeronautics program conducted by NASA and its predecessor,
the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, has, since
1917, developed a wide range of precompetitive technologies
to address safety, environmental, and aviation system
capacity issues, as well as aircraft performance. The
research and technology results, used by other U.S.
Government or commercial entities, directly benefit air
travellers and the general public while contributing to U.S.
economic strength and national security. NASA's role is to
develop high-risk, high-payoff technologies to a point where
feasibility is proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD and U.S.
industry. It is up to U.S. companies to make the substantial
investments to validate the technologies and incorporate them
into specific products and systems. Individual companies
simply cannot undertake the high-risk research and technology
development NASA does; investments are unrecoverable and
often beyond the capability of a single company.
Estimates for global aircraft market demand over the next
15 to 20 years range from $800 billion to $1 trillion.
However, this market could be much smaller if it is
constrained by safety and system capacity and/or an inability
to meet more stringent environmental standards. Part of
NASA's aeronautics research addresses these issues, i.e., to
ensure the largest possible market for which U.S. companies
will compete. U.S. companies currently hold about two-thirds
of the global market; their primary competitor, Airbus
Industries, is aiming to capture a full half of the market in
the next 10 years. A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill
estimates that a 1 percent gain in U.S. market share
generates 9,000 jobs (40 percent in aerospace and 60 percent
in supporting industries), $360 million in sales, and $120
million in
Federal tax revenue each year. Aviation contributes between
$25 and $30 billion annually to the U.S. balance of trade,
the largest of any U.S. manufacturing industry.
I believe CBO is inaccurate in stating ``the benefits from
the R supported by the NASA programs in question fall
almost exclusively to aircraft manufacturers, their
suppliers, and airlines.'' These enabling advances provide
the basic tools for U.S. industrial innovation. While NASA
R contributes to a stronger U.S. aviation industry, the
benefits are broader. Terminating these important technology
programs would have repercussions far beyond the short-term
profitability of U.S. aircraft manufacturers and airline
operators. Joint NASA-FAA efforts to safely increase the
capacity of the airspace system, eliminating costly and
unproductive delays, would end. Technologies to ensure that
the aging aircraft fleet remains safe and cost-effective
would not be developed. U.S. efforts to develop rational
positions on proposed international environmental regulations
governing airline operations would be severely hampered, and
new technologies to meet increasingly stringent environmental
requirements would not be developed. The Nation's only
precompetitive technology development for general aviation,
commuter, and civil tiltrotor aircraft would end.
NASA understands the continued budget pressures facing the
Nation. In fact, NASA has led the Federal Government by
reducing its outyear budget by 30 percent since 1993 and is
engaged in a major effort to identify an additional $5
billion in reductions between FY 1997 and FY 2000. We shall
continue to seek efficiencies and streamline our processes to
ensure that the Nation has the best possible civil
aeronautics and space program, conducting cutting-edge
research and technology which will lead the United States
into the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Daniel S. Goldin,
Administrator.
____
Response to CBO Recommendation To Eliminate NASA's Support for
Producers of Commercial Airliners
CBO criticizes NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST)
Program's goal of maintaining current U.S. market share in
subsonic aircraft.
Aviation generates almost one million high quality jobs in
the U.S. and contributes between $25 and $30 billion annually
to the U.S. balance of trade--the largest of any U.S.
manufacturing industry.
U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers must compete
effectively on both cost and technical capability with
government-subsidized foreign competition. Airbus already
claims more than one-third of the commercial aircraft market;
their goal is 50% by 2005.
The AST program addresses future technology needs not only
in next-generation subsonic aircraft, including small general
aviation aircraft and civil tiltrotor as well as large
transports, but also for safety and capacity of the evolving
airspace system and environmental concerns.
NASA's role is to develop high-risk, high-payoff
precompetitive technologies to a point where feasibility is
proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD and U.S. industry.
Industry picks up the technologies, and with its own
resources continues development, performs systems-oriented
research and applies them to specific products.
CBO criticizes NASA's role in High Speed Research (HSR).
The technologies required for an environmentally
compatible, economically viable High Speed Civil Transport
(HSCT) aircraft are beyond today's state-of-the-art. Before
industry can decide whether to invest the roughly $20 billion
required to develop an HSCT, some level of confidence must be
established that it could meet noise and emissions standards
and that airlines could operate it profitably. The HSR
program was designed to develop precompetitive technologies
to eliminate the highest technology risks for a future HSCT,
ensuring U.S. leadership.
The first to market a successful HSCT stands to gain $200
billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs.
CBO criticizes NASA's work in technologies that will allow
the continued operation of aging jet aircraft.
25% of planes flying today are more than 20 years old,
beginning to exceed their design life. The trend is to fly
aircraft 30 years or more; as airlines continue to operate on
the edge of profitability they cannot afford new aircraft. It
is essential that these aging aircraft remain safe.
CBO contends that ``the benefits from the R supported by
the NASA programs in question fall almost exclusively to
aircraft manufacturers, their suppliers, and airlines.''
A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that a 1% gain
in U.S. market share will generate 9,000 jobs (40% in
aerospace and 60% in supporting industries), $360 million in
sales and $120 million in Federal tax revenue each year.
NASA's programs address critical issues of safety, airspace
system capacity, and environmental aspects of flight which
benefit air travellers and the general public.
CBO contends that noise and atmospheric pollutants
generated by air travel are unpaid ``costs'' that travellers
impose on the public at large and therefore air travellers
should pay the full cost, including R for aircraft.
Air travel is global, not national, just as the aircraft
market is global. Airline operators will buy the best
aircraft at the best price. If U.S. manufacturers were to
incorporate the price of meeting international, government-
established environmental regulations into their products
they would quickly go out of business competing against
government-subsidized competition.
advanced subsonic technology
National investment in high-risk, high-payoff technologies
will help ensure continued U.S. leadership in aviation, which
brings significant economic and national security benefits to
the Nation. Aviation generates almost one million high
quality jobs in the U.S. and contributes between $25 and $30
billion annually to the U.S. balance of trade--the largest of
any U.S. manufacturing industry.
NASA addresses a broad range of advanced technology needs
for both civil and military aviation. The Advanced Subsonic
Technology (AST) program specifically addresses future
technology needs in next-generation subsonic aircraft (from
large commercial jets to small general aviation aircraft) and
the evolving airspace system. NASA's role is to develop high-
risk, high-payoff precompetitive technologies to a point
where feasibility is proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD
and U.S. industry. Industry picks up the technologies, and
with its own resources continues development, performs
systems-oriented research and applies them to specific
products.
Recent accomplishments in the AST program include:
The first integrated engine noise prediction code was
delivered to industry for use in designing quieter engines to
meet future noise standards.
Nondestructive evaluation techniques for detecting
corrosion, cracks and disbonds in aircraft have been licensed
to industry to help keep the aging aircraft fleet
safe. [[Page S7286]]
Tropospheric climatology data has been collected, to assist
in understanding long-term changes in nitrogen oxides in the
lower atmosphere caused by aircraft.
Analytical tools to understand aircraft wake vortices are
being developed, which will contribute to revised safe
aircraft landing separation standards.
An experimental database is improving understanding the
relative acoustic and aerodynamic benefits of different rotor
configurations for future civil tiltrotors.
FY 1995 Budget: $125.8 million.
FY 1996 Budget: $188.4 million.
Possible impact of significant reduction/termination:
Efforts to develop technologies to increase the capacity of
the airspace system, increasing safety and expanding the
aircraft market, would be severely curtailed. Weather and
capacity delays cost airline operators $3.5 billion a year,
and cause untold hours of unproductive time for the
travelling public.
Technologies to ensure that the aging aircraft fleet (25%
of planes flying today are more than 20 years old) remains
safe and cost-effective would not be developed.
U.S. efforts to develop rational positions on proposed
international environmental regulations would be hampered by
not developing better understanding of aircraft noise and
pollution effects and technologies to minimize those effects.
The only technology development efforts in the U.S. for
general aviation, commuter and civil tiltrotor aircraft would
be terminated.
The ability of U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers to
compete effectively on both cost and technical capability
with government-subsidized foreign competition would be
seriously hampered. Airbus already claims more than one-third
of the commercial aircraft market, and their goal is one-half
by 2005.
high speed research
NASA's High Speed Research (HSR) Program is performing the
early, high-risk technology development for an
environmentally compatible, economically competitive high
speed civil transport (HSCT) aircraft. Such a plane would fly
at more than twice the speed of sound and carry 300
passengers over 5000 nautical miles at fares close to today's
subsonic aircraft (747, DC-10, etc.). Before industry can
decide whether to make the roughly $20 billion investment to
develop an HSCT, some level of confidence must be established
that it could meet international noise and emissions
standards, and that airline operators would be able to
operate it profitably. The technologies to achieve this are
beyond today's state-of-the-art. The HSR program was designed
to eliminate the highest risks and ensure U.S. leadership in
this important arena.
Recent accomplishments:
Completed research campaign in the South Pacific to
characterize the stratosphere for incorporation in
atmospheric simulation models which will be used to determine
the potential impact of future HSCT aircraft.
Achieved test goal for low-emission engine combustors
(NO
X level of 5g/kg fuel burned--the Concorde emissions
index is 20g/kg)
Demonstrated a process to fabricate up to 10 feet per
minute of fiber/resin composite material suitable for high
temperature use, making the essential use of these materials
for an HSCT affordable.
FY 1995 Budget: $221.3 million.
FY 1996 Budget: $245.5 million.
Possible impact of significant reduction/termination:
Interim assessment of atmospheric effects of a supersonic
aircraft fleet would not be completed. This assessment is to
support work by the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) on setting an HSCT emissions standard.
Engine noise reduction tests and analysis to determine
whether an HSCT could comply with strict international noise
standards (Annex 16, Chapter 3 set by ICAO) would be stopped.
The U.S. share of the global long-range aircraft market
could drop to under 50%, if technology development is stopped
and Europe is first to market with a successful HSCT. This
would result in larger trade deficits and the loss of
hundreds of thousands of high-skill, high-wage jobs. If the
U.S. is first to market, the U.S. market share could grow to
nearly 80%, and crate $200 billion sales and 140,000 new
jobs.
____
FISCAL YEAR 1996 ESTIMATED TOTAL AERONAUTICS EMPLOYMENT BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Funding
OA rank State employment (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......... California........................ 4,783 $382.6
2.......... Ohio.............................. 2,564 205.5
3.......... Virginia.......................... 1,466 117.3
4.......... Washington........................ 519 41.5
5.......... Maryland.......................... 356 28.5
6.......... Texas............................. 263 21.0
7.......... Connecticut....................... 193 15.4
8.......... Wisconsin......................... 171 13.7
9.......... District of Columbia.............. 165 13.2
10.......... Georgia........................... 113 9.0
11.......... Massachusetts..................... 106 8.5
12.......... New York.......................... 84 6.7
13.......... Pennsylvania...................... 73 5.8
14.......... Florida........................... 70 5.6
15.......... Indiana........................... 60 4.8
16.......... Missouri.......................... 56 4.5
17.......... Colorado.......................... 39 3.1
18.......... Illinois.......................... 38 3.0
19.......... Tennessee......................... 28 2.2
20.......... North Carolina.................... 26 2.1
Other............................. 226 18.2
-----------------------
Total........................... 11,399 911.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New Mexico has
13 minutes, and the Senator from Maine has 17 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, does
she need all 17 minutes? We are trying to expedite things.
Ms. SNOWE. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we might reach this agreement. I understand
there is one second-degree amendment contemplated. I assume that we
could enter into a unanimous-consent agreement about that.
Let me ask Senator Snowe, could she get by with 10 minutes?
Ms. SNOWE. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I could use 10 minutes. Then we could move to a second-
degree amendment by Senator Dodd for 5 minutes on a side.
Mr. EXON. First, the second-degree amendment by Mr. Dodd, as I
understand it, is the same second-degree amendment being considered by
the Senator from Minnesota, and also the Senator from Massachusetts. Is
that correct? We are talking about one second-degree amendment?
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. EXON. Certainly, we would agree. We will need about 2 minutes for
the negotiations that are going on. I think we are pretty close to
making an arrangement along the lines that you outlined.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to get somebody to come to the floor, but I
leave this suggestion. I must attend a meeting on the final wrap-up on
this bill now, but we would be willing to have 5 minutes on a side on
the Dodd amendment, which I have seen, which essentially is a change on
the tax side of the equation, and spend the tax money in two ways, part
of it on entitlement programs for education and part on discretionary,
and we would take 5 minutes on our side on that, 10 minutes each here.
Then I would authorize somebody to enter into that agreement in my
behalf in my absence.
Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I wonder if I might get a
couple of minutes on the Snowe amendment itself. Is that a possibility?
Of the time you have?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I cannot hold the Senator to this, but
if the Senator will talk about the Snowe amendment and not about
education in general, that would be fine. The Senator wants to speak
against that amendment?
Mr. DODD. I do.
Mr. DOMENICI. If I am going to give the Senator time against it, I
want him to be against it.
Mr. DODD. I intend to be against the Snowe amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. And the Senator will speak against it?
Mr. DODD. Absolutely.
Mr. DOMENICI. All right, I yield Senator Dodd 2 minutes of my time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if my colleague from New Mexico, upon
condition that I speak against the Snowe amendment, would grant me
time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will give the Senator 2 minutes of my time.
How much did I give the Senator?
Mr. DODD. The Senator did not.
Mr. DOMENICI. I give the Senator 2 minutes of my time. Each Senator
gets 2 minutes in opposition and that will keep 6 for me, and then
Senator Snowe has the full 10 minutes to speak to the Senator's
amendment.
Mr. EXON. Is that in the form of a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator said he needed some time. Is he willing to
do that?
Mr. EXON. That is agreeable to those on this side.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let us give it a try.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to
object, will the result of that proposal ensure that we will have an
opportunity to vote on the Dodd amendment in a timely way?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. We will not amend it. We do not guarantee that
somebody will not table it, but we will have a vote on it and we will
agree to stack it in the normal way that we are doing the others.
Mr. KENNEDY. So it would be treated as a second-degree amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Exactly.
Mr. KENNEDY. In that particular order.
[[Page S7287]]
Mr. DOMENICI. Correct.
Let us try this, Mr. President. First of all, I am going to yield 2
minutes in opposition to the Snowe amendment to Senator Dodd, 2 minutes
to Senator Wellstone, and I reserve the remainder for myself.
The total amount of time that is going to be used on the Snowe
amendment--and we yield back whatever other time we have--is 10 minutes
by Senator Snowe and a total of 10 minutes in opposition, of which 4
have just been allocated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me move on then to a unanimous-consent request.
There will only be one second-degree amendment. It shall be an
amendment offered by Senator Dodd which has been described here and
presented to the Senator from New Mexico. There will be 5 minutes on a
side, 5 minutes by Senator Dodd, 5 minutes in opposition, either by
myself or Senator Snowe. We will then proceed to an amendment by
Senator Hatfield immediately after that. And when the time has expired
on the second-degree amendment--there shall be no other second-degree
amendments--we will then stack the second-degree amendment pursuant to
the previous understanding, that the leader will arrange the order and
there will be a vote on or about the Dodd amendment in the stacked
order.
Mr. EXON. I certainly do not object. I would just simply wish to
expand this in order to move things along. We are prepared to consider
time agreements now on both the Hatfield amendment and the amendment
following that to be offered by Senator Boxer.
Is the Senator from New Mexico in a position to talk about time
agreements on the Hatfield amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to a meeting right now at which I think the
Senator will be in attendance, and I will seek some relief on time.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express my objection
to the Snowe-Abraham amendment. This amendment proposes to restore some
$6.3 billion in education, specifically to reduce the Labor Committee's
instruction by this amount in an effort to stave off severe cuts in
student loans.
Let me at the outset say I appreciate the fact that there is at least
some recognition of the fact we ought to be trying to restore some of
these critical funds in education.
Education has always been an issue that has transcended politics in
many ways. There has been a deep commitment historically to it on both
sides of the aisle, and yet the Budget Committee proposal that is
before us, even with the Snowe-Abraham amendment, offers education too
little too late, I would say, Mr. President.
It is too little in that it offers students an umbrella in the midst
of the hurricane they face with this budget proposal, even if this
amendment were to be adopted. It will provide some protection but it is
the thinnest of fig leaves in that the committee will still have to
eliminate $7.5 billion from student loan programs.
I have been through a number of reconciliations on the Labor
Committee and make no mistake about it--there is only one place you can
find $7.5 billion, and that is in student loans. There is no other
place within our committee's jurisdiction. And so we will be faced with
looking ways to cut loans for working-class families, middle-class
families many who do not qualify for Pell grants, do not have the
personal affluence, and yet long for the better life that higher
education can offer their children. And these will be the Americans who
bear the brunt of these cuts.
Now, these cuts may take many forms. It could come from the
elimination of the in-school interest subsidy which can amount to
additional costs of as much as $4,000 for a working family in this
country; it could come through increased fees, through the elimination
of the 6-month grace period, or an increase in the interest on student
loans or any combination of those, again all money out of students'
pockets. The bottom line is students and families are going to pay
dearly as a result of what is in this budget, even if we adopt the
Snowe-Abraham amendment.
This amendment is also too late, Mr. President, because the amendment
only addresses the end of the education pipeline, higher education. Our
world class higher education sector is in no way secure if our efforts
in college preparation, elementary and secondary schools, Head Start
and other areas are going to be severely undercut.
This amendment is sort of the double whammy for these critical
discretionary programs. Not only does it not address the cuts proposed
in these programs, it also further cuts into discretionary programs to
offset the reduction it makes on the mandatory side.
Mr. President, we will offer a second degree amendment as an
alternative which offsets $28 billion in cuts in education with very
specific plugging of corporate loopholes which we can identify
specifically, which Mr. Kasich on the House side identified as areas
that should be looked at in the effort to balance our Federal budget.
So I would urge rejection of this amendment, with all due respect. We
will have a substitute that will allow for this body to vote on truly
whether or not they want to see these working-class families in this
country get a break when it comes to education.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last year in Minnesota over 14,000
students received assistance from the Federal Stafford Loan Program--
14,000 students.
I just rise to speak in opposition to the Snowe amendment and say
that I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Dodd amendment.
Mr. President, this is, indeed, too little too late. What we are
faced with right now are some really draconian cuts that will do
irreparable harm to higher education in America. In the second-degree
amendment we are going to introduce, we focus on corporate welfare or
tax expenditures.
Mr. President, I would far prefer for some of the oil companies, some
of the large pharmaceutical or insurance companies or large financial
institutions to be tightening their belts and to be a part of the
sacrifice than I would go forward with deep cuts in financial
assistance for higher education.
I cannot think of a more important middle-class issue as a former
college professor than this issue.
I do not have time, but if I had time I could recite story after
story after story after story of students who have written letters to
me and made phone calls saying for God sake, please do not deny us the
opportunity to have an affordable higher education. No matter how you
cut it, that is what these cuts are all about. I do not even have a
chance in the 2 minutes to talk about earlier education which is, of
course, equally important.
These cuts in higher education are myopic. These cuts are profoundly
mistaken for our country. These cuts will have an accrual effect on
students all across the across the nation from Ohio to Minnesota, and
the Snowe amendment in that respect is really just a little bit more
than symbolic--too little, too late. We can do much, much better in how
we sort out our priorities.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 10 minutes. The
opposition now has 6.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I would yield such time as the
Senator from Maine may need on the available time.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. I found quite interesting the debate that has been offered
here today on my amendment.
First of all, just to recap my amendment, it is to restore $6.3
billion in the education account. And, yes, we do provide specific
offsets. That should be no [[Page S7288]] surprise if you are
attempting to provide a credible alternative.
And that is why I am somewhat confused by the debate here this
morning, because I heard from the Senator from Ohio that my offsets are
binding but then we heard from the Senator from Massachusetts that they
are not binding.
Well, I think we all understand the true nature of the budget process
in the Congress. No, the instructions in the budget resolution are not
binding. But if you are attempting to provide real numbers to
demonstrate that they are credible, then it is responsible to recommend
some specific offsets.
It is also true the committees do not have to follow those
instructions. I understand that and the cosponsors of this amendment
understand that. But we want to make sure that everybody understands
that there is a way to reach those numbers. That is what is important.
The second issue is whether or not you live in a fiscal fantasy land.
The difference between the amendment that I am offering here today with
the cosponsors of this amendment and those who oppose it is we support
a balanced budget. If you support a balanced budget, you have to make
some choices. If you do not support a balanced budget, you do not have
to make any choices. You can spend in an unlimited fashion.
The amendment that they will be offering will recommend reducing
corporate welfare and tax loopholes. You cannot object to that. But
exactly how are we going to reach that goal? They do not specify. No,
they do not want to specify, because they do not want to receive any
opposition to those specific offsets, just as they do not support a
balanced budget because they do not want to make any real choices as to
how we get there. So that is the difference.
My amendment is a credible amendment. It restores specific funding
for specific issues with respect to student loan assistance. Yes, I
would like to do more. But there are those on my side saying, ``You are
doing too much,'' and then I hear from the other side of the aisle who
say, ``No, you are not doing enough.'' Well, I think my amendment is
somewhere in the middle. Hopefully, we will do more in the final
analysis.
The amendments that have been offered to restore funding for
education have used the illusory dividend. Well, that is just gimmickry
at this point. That dividend may come down at the end of this process
when reconciliation is in place. That does not give adequate
instructions to the committee. It is not money that they can use right
now and everybody knows it.
So if we really want to restore funding to education, if we really
want to address the home and farm equity issue so that it is not used
to determine one's income eligibility for student loans, if we want to
keep the origination fee at 3 percent, if we want to have an adequate
grace period, then you support the Snowe amendment.
And, I should add who the cosponsors are of my amendment: Senator
Kassebaum, Senator Lott, Senator Cohen, Senator Abraham, Senator Brown,
Senator Grassley, Senator Chafee, and Senator Kempthorne.
In fact, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kempthorne from Idaho
as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 6 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, last night, when we were watching the discussion take
place, a comment was made by the Sena
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 24, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages S7281-S7343]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume consideration of
Senate Concurrent Resolution 13.
The clerk will report the pending business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for the
fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.
Pending:
(1) Harkin-Bumpers amendment No. 1126, to reduce
unnecessary military spending, holding military spending to a
freeze in overall spending over 7 years protecting readiness
and modernization activities and shifting the savings to
education and job training, restoring a portion of the
reductions proposed for those programs in the resolution.
(2) Feingold-Hollings amendment No. 1127, to strike the
budget surplus allowance provision (Section 204) from the
resolution to eliminate the use of the fiscal dividend for
further tax cuts.
(3) Snowe amendment No. 1128, to increase funding for
mandatory spending in function 500 (Education).
(4) Bumpers amendment No. 1130, to strike the proposed
change in the budget process rules which would permit the
scoring of revenue derived from the sale of federal assets.
Amendment No. 1128
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would ask my chairman of the committee if
it would be in order for me at this time to yield 10 minutes off the
bill in opposition to the Snowe amendment to the Senator from
Massachusetts?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
How much time remains on the Snowe amendment?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Snowe has 67 minutes; the
opposition has 35 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would prefer to yield 10 minutes off the opposition
to the amendment. Is that what the Senator wanted?
Mr. EXON. The Senator from Ohio wants 10 minutes.
I would start out today by saying to all the Senators that we are
extremely strapped for time. Five minutes here, ten minutes there,
under ordinary circumstances would be in order. I think we have about
what--4 hours maximum left? How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three hours and 45 minutes.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, 3 hours and 45 minutes, with about 70
amendments. We will have to extremely limit our time. I think that the
requests--may I suggest that we yield 8 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts and 8 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DOMENICI. And 8 minutes to the senior Senator from Ohio.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I might ask if I could have 4 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me see how the opposition goes. I have none for
myself at this point. Then I will see.
I yield 8 minutes to Senator Kennedy, 8 minutes to the junior Senator
from Ohio, and 8 minutes to the senior Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. President, one of the most important aspects of the whole budget
resolution is what it does in the areas of higher education, as well as
education generally.
I took a few moments of the Senate's time just 3 days ago to outline
where I thought we were on the whole issue of education in this
country. We take pride in our higher education system. Of the top 149
universities worldwide, 127 of them are here in the United States. Our
system works well. We provide superb higher education in this country.
If there is a basic problem, it is the cost of higher education. We
have tried to address this problem at the Federal level.
Our Federal education policies have been worked out in a bipartisan
way over the period of years since the early 1960's when a judgment was
made that it was in the national interest to support higher education.
Individual contributions, private sector contributions, and Federal
assistance have created the world's best education system. Together, we
support educational opportunities for our Nation's citizens, and at the
same time, [[Page S7282]] we support the outstanding research that is
going on in places like the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and
other research agencies. Our system is working, and it is working well.
The charts we reviewed a few days ago in this Chamber show that
providing higher education to our citizens contributes to this country
immeasurably. The clearest example of this was the cold war GI bill
which returned $8 for every $1 that was invested in education.
Investments in education continue to be an investment in our country.
Now, the Budget Act that is before the Senate today effectively cuts
$65 billion from education, $30 billion of it out of higher education,
and the remainder out of other education support programs over the
period of the next 7 years.
That is a one-third cut in higher education. The suggestion by
members of the Budget Committee that these cuts are not going to touch
the Pell grants, that we are going to hold them harmless, is basically
hogwash. Even when we hold the Pell grants harmless, we see a 40-
percent reduction in what has been a lifeline for young people to go on
to higher education.
Mr. President, 70 percent of all the young people in my State need
some kind of assistance to go to the fine schools and colleges, the 4-
year colleges and the 2-year colleges in my State. And 75 percent of
that assistance comes from Federal support to higher education.
What is amazing to me is that after we have had this dramatic cut,
and the Senate has rejected the efforts by Senator Harkin, Senator
Hollings, and others, to restore education funding, we now have this
amendment that restores a meager 10 percent of the proposed reduction
in Federal support to higher education.
The explanation about how we are going to avoid instructions to the
Labor and Human Resources Committee that will be charged with going
ahead with these cuts is enormously interesting to me.
We had a debate here on the floor of the U.S. Senate about how we
ought to eliminate home equity--farm home equity and home equity of
young people--in our calculations of student assistance eligibility.
Why? Because the value of the farms have gone up over the period of
recent years. That has been true in the heartland of this Nation, just
as it has been true in the increased value of homes as a result of
inflation that students have nothing to do with. Including home equity
in calculations for student aid eliminated the sons and daughters of
working families whose principal problem is the value of their farm
went up or their home went up.
A second debate we had here on the floor of the U.S. Senate,
supported by Republicans as well, was to give young people a few months
after they get out of college to find a job.
We wanted to make sure that they were not going to have to repay
their loans for a short period of months--and we are talking a few
months--after they graduate, when they are trying to find a job. That
decision had the support of Republicans and Democrats alike. Now we are
finding out that this grace period will be gone as well. Students are
going to be penalized again.
I do not know how it is in other parts of the country, but I can tell
you the job market in my State is not flourishing for young people who
are graduating from college. They are able to get jobs, but it takes
them a little while and their salaries to begin are low. Now the
Republicans want to penalize them for that.
If you want to talk about a figleaf over a problem, the Snowe
amendment is just that. This is a 10-percent restoration from the
budget cut. Some will say, given the fact we have been voted down and
voted down and voted down, we ought to grab this, because it is the
only thing we are going to get. The fact of the matter is, this
amendment proposes to find offsets from travel, bonuses, and other
agencies, but these are not binding instructions. The appropriators
decide on those instructions. There is nothing to guarantee that
education will be off limits.
So on the one hand, the Snowe amendment may restore some benefit to
those who need Stafford loans, but you are taking money away from the
sons and daughters of working families who need the help and assistance
provided in a title I program or a school-to-work program. There are no
guarantees here that you are not going to just put it back in one part
of education and sacrifice another part.
So we should be thankful for any kind of restoration of funds to
education. But I must say to the parents who are watching this debate
that what they ought to understand is that we are going to see a one-
third cut in the area of education, a $65 billion loss over the period
of the next 7 years. The effect of this amendment, if it is successful,
will be a restoration of $6 billion of those funds.
The Senator from Connecticut, myself, the Senator from Minnesota, and
others will be offering, at an appropriate time, a very modest
amendment to restore $28 billion, not the full amount, but just $28
billion, with offsets from corporate welfare and tax provisions.
It is extraordinary to me that once again we talk about educating
children in this country, but the Budget Committee could only find $20
billion out of $4 trillion reductions in tax expenditures to turn to
this important venture. We could have gotten the $60 billion. You would
have thought they could find the billionaires' tax cuts where you find
billionaires turning into Benedict Arnolds, where they make fortunes,
hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, and then give up their
citizenship and go overseas and avoid any kind of taxes. You would have
thought they could find----
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself another minute.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has no more time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yielded myself 8 minutes and I was given 10, I
believe.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is incorrect. The time of the Senator
has expired.
Senator DeWine.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in very strong opposition to
the amendment of my friend, the Senator from Maine. This amendment,
frankly, will hurt the very people it purports to help, our young
children.
The Snowe amendment would support programs that are, in fact,
meritorious. But it would do so with an offset that would cause serious
harm to the future of U.S. competitiveness in a very important high-
technology industry. It would do so with an offset that would cause
serious harm to U.S. competitiveness in an increasingly tough and
competitive world. The offset assumes a reduction of $1.124 billion in
aeronautic research and development.
Let me explain the real world consequences this cut would have, and
especially what it would do to some very important programs at NASA.
One of the programs has to do with the advanced subsonic technology.
This program addresses future technology needs covering the whole
spectrum of subsonic aviation, from commercial jets to small aircraft.
First of all, this program has already perfected techniques for
detecting and evaluating corrosion and cracks in aircraft. These
techniques have now become a part of the industry. If we make this cut,
the cut proposed in the Snowe amendment, our future ability to increase
air safety will be seriously impaired.
Second, our ability to decrease the harmful environmental effects of
aircraft will also be seriously impaired. To remain globally
competitive, U.S. aviation has to stay ahead of international
environmental standards. Thanks in part to the advanced subsonic
technology program, we are doing that today. It would be wrong to lose
our competitive edge in this area.
Third, our ability to improve satellite air traffic control would
also be seriously hurt by a cut in this program.
All of these areas--aircraft safety, the environment, air traffic
control--are legitimate concerns of the Federal Government and have
been an area where the Federal Government has been involved for
decades. In these areas, NASA is engaging in high-risk research that
individual companies simply cannot and will not undertake.
Furthermore, Federal investment in this technology has important
roots in the history of our country, as I will explain in a few
moments. NASA's role, really, is to develop high-risk, high-
[[Page S7283]] payoff, precompetitive technologies so they can then be
passed along to private industry. This is something that only NASA can
do. And this investment is essential to the future of the U.S. aircraft
industry. The continuing growth of U.S. market share depends on our
ability to ensure that aircraft are safe, cost effective, and able to
comply with ever more stringent environmental regulations.
There is a long history of Government involvement in basic,
precompetitive research. Back in 1917, the United States established
the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics to engage in basic
precompetitive research. The NACA was a precursor of NASA and did the
same kind of forward-looking work that would be cut under this
amendment.
Earlier this month we, of course, celebrated the 50th anniversary of
the end of World War II. Every single airplane that helped win that war
was made possible by NACA's testing facilities. No single corporation
had enough money to be able to invest in the kind of wind tunnels that
were used to test these planes. NACA's Ames facility did have those
resources. No single corporation had the resources to do the basic
research on how wings should be shaped. NACA did have the resources.
For almost eight decades, NACA, and its successor agency, today's
NASA, have been making the kind of investment in America's aviation
knowledge base that no corporation could possibly match. Every single
plane in America today has NASA's technology somewhere in it. The
little piece of wing that juts out perpendicular from the wing tip--
known as a winglet--was designed by NASA. The winglet increases the
fuel efficiency of an airplane by 5 percent, and that 5 percent can
make a big difference in making U.S. planes competitive.
Just this week the Boeing 777 was unveiled. Major components in that
plane were designed some 15 years ago in NASA's laboratories, not with
a view toward the product line of any particular corporation, but
because, over the long run, the long term, America needs that
technology know-how.
Another research project threatened by this amendment is NASA's high-
speed research program. Before investing the roughly $20 billion that
might be necessary to develop a high-speed civil transport aircraft,
private companies need to know whether such a plane could be built in
compliance with environmental and safety standards.
If we allow the United States to fall behind in the quest for this
technological breakthrough, the U.S. share of the long-range global
aircraft market could drop below 50 percent. It would be a horrible
blow to the trade deficit, to high-technology jobs, and to something in
many respects even more important, our national sense that America is
leading the world in the future of high technology.
America's ascent to the role of global superpower was made possible
in large part by the ability of America's aviation pioneers to invest
in the future.
Education--so ably advocated by my good friend from Maine--has to do
with preparing our children for the challenges of the future. This
program--the program that would be cut by this amendment--is building
that future. I think cutting this program would be a very shortsighted
measure--and the losers would be our children.
Tens of thousands of American children can grow up to work in high-
technology aviation jobs--if we do not foreclose that option by making
shortsighted decisions today.
In aviation, there is a truly global market. Over the next 15 to 20
years, the global demand is expected to be between $800 billion and $1
trillion.
A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that a 1-percent gain in
U.S. market share creates 9,000 new jobs--and $120 million in Federal
revenues--each year.
Aviation already contributes over $25 billion a year to the U.S.
balance of trade. That's more than any other U.S. manufacturing
industry.
And aviation already generates almost a million high-quality jobs in
this country.
If we allow this cut to go forward, we will fall behind in our effort
to develop technologies that will keep America on top of this global
market.
I think we should continue to invest in a high-technology future for
this country.
I think NASDA's research on aviation plays a fundamental and
irreplaceable role in that process.
That is why I will be voting ``no'' on the amendment proposed by the
Senator from Maine. To vote ``no'' on this amendment is to say ``yes''
to a high-technology future for Amercia's children.
I will conclude by summarizing as follows: We hear a lot of talk on
this floor about making sure our children have good jobs, high-paying
jobs, high-technology jobs, and they should not be confined, as some
people on both sides of the aisle have said, to flipping hamburgers.
This type of research gives these good high-paying jobs to our
children.
I urge, therefore, a ``no'' vote on the Snowe amendment. I urge a
vote for our future.
I see my time is almost expired. I see my friend and colleague from
Ohio, who has a tremendous amount of experience in this area, has risen
to speak and will be speaking in just a moment. I look forward to
listening to his comments.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I regret we have such a short time here
this morning to deal with this.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by
Senators Snowe, Abraham, Grassley, Brown, Kassebaum, Cohen, Lott, and
Chafee.
I support the goal of the amendment--to provide increased funds for
higher education. My record is clear and unequivocal on education
funding. These funds must be increased, but not in the way proposed by
the proponents of this amendment.
I do not know that there has been an education bill which I voted
against since I have been in the Senate for over 20 years. My record is
very clear in that regard.
I want to speak about the offsets that are required here that would
provide the money for this particular amendment. I would like to speak
about two of the offsets that the amendment identifies and discuss the
impact which these cuts would have on our economy and our Federal
workers.
First, the amendment would zero out two important NASA programs. This
Nation has gotten to be what it is because we put more into research,
and the inquiry into the unknown, into pushing back the frontiers of
science, and then we develop the industry and the business once that
has occurred. That has been the hallmark of America. We have been the
envy of the world in doing that; the envy of the world.
So these programs in our R are seed-corn type programs that whole
industries benefit from. We have seen in the past money spent at NASA
in aeronautical research which in particular had led to the development
of an aircraft industry in this country that has been leading in
exports second only to farming, to agricultural products, in years
past.
Dan Goldin, the Administrator of NASA, was given aid by the
administration, and was tasked to downsize some, and he went ahead and
did it. He did it, and he has a program in NASA, a 5-year budget, which
was about $122 billion in fiscal 1993. The 1996 request is now $82
billion for the next 5 years. So they have been cut by one-third in
just 2 years.
NASA has stepped up to the plate to reduce bureaucracy and improve
the way it does business. These programs are the R or seed-corn type
programs which many of my colleagues have heard me speak about in the
past. This amendment would zero out NASA's High-Speed Research Program,
and NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology Program.
Before I talk about these specific programs, I would like to observe
that NASA has already absorbed more than its share of budget cuts. A
couple of figures will illustrate what I am talking about. In fiscal
year 1993, NASA's 5-year budget request was about $122 billion. The
fiscal year 1996 request is now $82 billion for the next 5 years. NASA
has been cut by one-third in just over 2 years.
Dan Goldin's leadership of the agency is currently going through a
painful process of reducing its budget by $5 billion over the next 5
years. Mr. Goldin [[Page S7284]] believes that this can be achieved
without eliminating programs. He has a tough row to hoe to achieve this
and he just cannot do it if we impose another cut like this on his
budget over there.
These programs are valuable. They are not something that we just pick
up and lay down as a whim. Further cuts in NASA's budget will simply
result in the elimination of current programs.
And Mr. President, I suggest that, if this amendment is approved, the
future of NASA's three aeronautic research centers--Lewis Research
Center, Ames Research Center, and Langley Research Center will be in
jeopardy.
Now, let me talk about the High-Speed Research Program first. The
goal of this program is to help develop the technologies industry needs
to design and build an environmentally compatible and economically
competitive high-speed civil jet transport for the 21st century. The
technology developments are to reach an appropriate stage of maturity
to enable an industry decision on aircraft production by 2001.
Mr. President, the technologies currently needed to develop such a
transport are beyond the state of the art. NASA estimates that industry
will need to invest more than $20 billion to bring such a transport to
market. A $20 billion industry just with this one development alone;
$20 billion we are talking about, and we are talking about cutting back
the research that will make that possible.
Studies have identified a substantial market for a future supersonic
airliner to meet rapidly growing demand for long-haul travel,
particularly across the Pacific.
Those that have been to the Southeast Asian area recently know how
that area is really expanding economically. Over the period from 2005
to 2015, this market could support 500 to 1,000 aircraft, creating a
multibillion sales opportunity for its producers. Such an aircraft will
be essential for capturing the valuable long-haul Pacific rim market.
As currently envisioned an HSCT aircraft should be designed to carry
300 passengers at Mach 2.4 on transoceanic routes over distances up to
6,000 nautical miles at fares comparable to subsonic transports.
Now let me talk about the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program.
The goal of NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology program is to
develop, in cooperation with the FAA and the U.S. aeronautics industry,
high-payoff technologies to enable a safe, highly productive global air
transportation system that includes a new generation of environmentally
compatible, economical U.S. subsonic aircraft. Some of the technologies
and issues being studied and developed in this program include:
First, fly-by-light/power-by-wire: a fully digital aircraft control
system which would be substantially lighter, more reliable and
efficient than current control systems.
Here is one that ought to get the attention of every single person
who is hearing my voice, and every single person in this Chamber: Aging
aircraft. My colleague from Ohio mentioned that a moment ago.
Second, aging aircraft: To develop new ways of inspecting aircraft to
determine their airworthiness.
When you see a black storm cloud on the horizon the next time you are
taking off out of Washington National or Dulles in a 727 aircraft over
20 years old, I think you would be interested in this kind of research
NASA wants to do.
New approaches are being developed to determine the residual strength
in airframes using advanced nondestructive technologies. It might be
worth thinking about this program the next time you are sitting in a
727 that's 20 years old waiting to take off on a cross-country flight.
Third, noise reduction: This program is developing technologies to
reduce aircraft noise by 10 decibels or more by the year 2000.
Fourth, terminal area productivity: Technologies, chiefly involving
air traffic control, that can improve the efficiency of operations on
the ground at busy airports.
Fifth, integrated wing design: New concepts, design methodologies,
model fabrication and test techniques are being developed to provide
industry an integrated capability to achieve increased aircraft
performance at lower cost.
Sixth, propulsion: Technologies to improve fuel efficiency of future
commercial engines by at least 8 percent and reduce nitrogen oxides by
70 percent over current technology.
These are only some of the technologies being developed under the
program which the amendment's propents would completely gut.
It is a truly shortsighted amendment that would eliminate these
important applied technology programs.
Mr. President, it is no secret that aerospace business is a
government-private sector partnership. Historically our government has
funded aeronautics R, and industry has taken this basic technology
and developed aircraft that have dominated the world market. Over the
last decade or so, other governments have gotten into the act.
Currently, the U.S. market share is about 65 percent, down from about
91 percent in the 1960's.
We had 91 percent of the world's commercial aircraft market in the
1960's. We are now being competed with more vigorously than we have
ever been in the past.
Cutting these two important programs will not help us regain this
market share--quite the opposite. We will be sending a signal that the
U.S. aircraft industry will be less competitive. I do not want to see
that happen.
In summary, the advanced subsonic technology: meets future technology
needs for next generation aircraft; enables NASA to develo high-risk,
high-payoff, precompetitive technology to prove feasibility so that
industry may complete development and apply technology to specific
products; will result in accomplishments in noise prediction codes for
quieter engines, non-destructive evaluation techniques for detecting
corrosion, cracks and disbonds; analytical tools to understand aircraft
wake vortices for safe landings; and assists in preserving 1 million
U.S. high quality jobs and $25 to $30 billion in annual positive
balance of trade for U.S. aviation.
How can we possibly take a chance on knocking something like that
down?
The High-Speed Research Program will: enable NASA to develop early,
high-risk technology for future environmentally compatible,
economically competitive high-speed civil transport aircraft
(technologies needed are beyond state of the art); industry will take
NASA technology and invest $20 billion to actually develop aircraft;
and if the United States is first to market, the U.S. market share
could grow to 80 percent, achieve $200 billion in sales, and create
140,000 new U.S. jobs.
Thank you Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to vote against the
Snowe-Abraham amendment.
I think, while I support the goal of getting more money for
education, I certainly do not support taking it out of these forward-
looking research programs that have served us so well in the past, and
will in the future.
impact on nasa lewis
NASA's zero-based review announced last week will have a significant
impact on Lewis Research Center outside of Cleveland, OH. Lewis will be
given primary responsibility for aeronautics research, especially
aeropropulsion research. Other programs would be shifted away from
Lewis, including work on expendable launch vehicles.
Mr. President, if the proposal by the Senator from Maine is accepted,
I think it could be the death knell for Lewis Research Center. I use
these words carefully. But when an agency like NASA is downsizing, and
the chief mission of a given facility is eliminated--and this amendment
would eliminate high-speed research and advanced subsonic technology
research, which will be Lewis' bread and butter--then I think my words
are accurate.
If Lewis closes, the impact on my State will be significant.
According to NASA, Ohio has the second largest number of aeronautics
jobs in the country, behind California. This is due primarily to NASA
Lewis, Wright Patterson, the Ohio Aerospace Institute, and Ohio's
university system. Anchoring these jobs is Lewis. It attracts world
class scientists and engineers to world class facilities.
Did the Senator from Maine and her cosponsors consider this impact
when they put together their amendment? I do not think so.
[[Page S7285]]
Mr. President, Lewis employs directly about 4,500 people. About one-
third of these are in some way connected to aeronautics research. But
the multiplier effect is significant. The people employed at Lewis
attract other businesses, or help form new ventures and stimulating the
economy. Gutting these two programs would have a serious impact on this
dynamic system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several relevant
documents be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of
the Administrator,
Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I am writing to express NASA's
strong objection to the recommendation by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) in its February 1995 Report to the House
and Senate Committees on the Budget, ``Reducing the Deficit:
Spending and Revenue Options,'' to eliminate NASA's Advanced
Subsonic Technology and High Speed Research programs. I
request that this recommendation not be included in
assumptions supporting the Committee's forthcoming FY 1996
Budget Resolution.
In making its recommendation, CBO contends that these
programs develop technologies which should be developed by
the private sector, namely large aircraft companies. The
aeronautics program conducted by NASA and its predecessor,
the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, has, since
1917, developed a wide range of precompetitive technologies
to address safety, environmental, and aviation system
capacity issues, as well as aircraft performance. The
research and technology results, used by other U.S.
Government or commercial entities, directly benefit air
travellers and the general public while contributing to U.S.
economic strength and national security. NASA's role is to
develop high-risk, high-payoff technologies to a point where
feasibility is proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD and U.S.
industry. It is up to U.S. companies to make the substantial
investments to validate the technologies and incorporate them
into specific products and systems. Individual companies
simply cannot undertake the high-risk research and technology
development NASA does; investments are unrecoverable and
often beyond the capability of a single company.
Estimates for global aircraft market demand over the next
15 to 20 years range from $800 billion to $1 trillion.
However, this market could be much smaller if it is
constrained by safety and system capacity and/or an inability
to meet more stringent environmental standards. Part of
NASA's aeronautics research addresses these issues, i.e., to
ensure the largest possible market for which U.S. companies
will compete. U.S. companies currently hold about two-thirds
of the global market; their primary competitor, Airbus
Industries, is aiming to capture a full half of the market in
the next 10 years. A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill
estimates that a 1 percent gain in U.S. market share
generates 9,000 jobs (40 percent in aerospace and 60 percent
in supporting industries), $360 million in sales, and $120
million in
Federal tax revenue each year. Aviation contributes between
$25 and $30 billion annually to the U.S. balance of trade,
the largest of any U.S. manufacturing industry.
I believe CBO is inaccurate in stating ``the benefits from
the R supported by the NASA programs in question fall
almost exclusively to aircraft manufacturers, their
suppliers, and airlines.'' These enabling advances provide
the basic tools for U.S. industrial innovation. While NASA
R contributes to a stronger U.S. aviation industry, the
benefits are broader. Terminating these important technology
programs would have repercussions far beyond the short-term
profitability of U.S. aircraft manufacturers and airline
operators. Joint NASA-FAA efforts to safely increase the
capacity of the airspace system, eliminating costly and
unproductive delays, would end. Technologies to ensure that
the aging aircraft fleet remains safe and cost-effective
would not be developed. U.S. efforts to develop rational
positions on proposed international environmental regulations
governing airline operations would be severely hampered, and
new technologies to meet increasingly stringent environmental
requirements would not be developed. The Nation's only
precompetitive technology development for general aviation,
commuter, and civil tiltrotor aircraft would end.
NASA understands the continued budget pressures facing the
Nation. In fact, NASA has led the Federal Government by
reducing its outyear budget by 30 percent since 1993 and is
engaged in a major effort to identify an additional $5
billion in reductions between FY 1997 and FY 2000. We shall
continue to seek efficiencies and streamline our processes to
ensure that the Nation has the best possible civil
aeronautics and space program, conducting cutting-edge
research and technology which will lead the United States
into the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Daniel S. Goldin,
Administrator.
____
Response to CBO Recommendation To Eliminate NASA's Support for
Producers of Commercial Airliners
CBO criticizes NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST)
Program's goal of maintaining current U.S. market share in
subsonic aircraft.
Aviation generates almost one million high quality jobs in
the U.S. and contributes between $25 and $30 billion annually
to the U.S. balance of trade--the largest of any U.S.
manufacturing industry.
U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers must compete
effectively on both cost and technical capability with
government-subsidized foreign competition. Airbus already
claims more than one-third of the commercial aircraft market;
their goal is 50% by 2005.
The AST program addresses future technology needs not only
in next-generation subsonic aircraft, including small general
aviation aircraft and civil tiltrotor as well as large
transports, but also for safety and capacity of the evolving
airspace system and environmental concerns.
NASA's role is to develop high-risk, high-payoff
precompetitive technologies to a point where feasibility is
proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD and U.S. industry.
Industry picks up the technologies, and with its own
resources continues development, performs systems-oriented
research and applies them to specific products.
CBO criticizes NASA's role in High Speed Research (HSR).
The technologies required for an environmentally
compatible, economically viable High Speed Civil Transport
(HSCT) aircraft are beyond today's state-of-the-art. Before
industry can decide whether to invest the roughly $20 billion
required to develop an HSCT, some level of confidence must be
established that it could meet noise and emissions standards
and that airlines could operate it profitably. The HSR
program was designed to develop precompetitive technologies
to eliminate the highest technology risks for a future HSCT,
ensuring U.S. leadership.
The first to market a successful HSCT stands to gain $200
billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs.
CBO criticizes NASA's work in technologies that will allow
the continued operation of aging jet aircraft.
25% of planes flying today are more than 20 years old,
beginning to exceed their design life. The trend is to fly
aircraft 30 years or more; as airlines continue to operate on
the edge of profitability they cannot afford new aircraft. It
is essential that these aging aircraft remain safe.
CBO contends that ``the benefits from the R supported by
the NASA programs in question fall almost exclusively to
aircraft manufacturers, their suppliers, and airlines.''
A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that a 1% gain
in U.S. market share will generate 9,000 jobs (40% in
aerospace and 60% in supporting industries), $360 million in
sales and $120 million in Federal tax revenue each year.
NASA's programs address critical issues of safety, airspace
system capacity, and environmental aspects of flight which
benefit air travellers and the general public.
CBO contends that noise and atmospheric pollutants
generated by air travel are unpaid ``costs'' that travellers
impose on the public at large and therefore air travellers
should pay the full cost, including R for aircraft.
Air travel is global, not national, just as the aircraft
market is global. Airline operators will buy the best
aircraft at the best price. If U.S. manufacturers were to
incorporate the price of meeting international, government-
established environmental regulations into their products
they would quickly go out of business competing against
government-subsidized competition.
advanced subsonic technology
National investment in high-risk, high-payoff technologies
will help ensure continued U.S. leadership in aviation, which
brings significant economic and national security benefits to
the Nation. Aviation generates almost one million high
quality jobs in the U.S. and contributes between $25 and $30
billion annually to the U.S. balance of trade--the largest of
any U.S. manufacturing industry.
NASA addresses a broad range of advanced technology needs
for both civil and military aviation. The Advanced Subsonic
Technology (AST) program specifically addresses future
technology needs in next-generation subsonic aircraft (from
large commercial jets to small general aviation aircraft) and
the evolving airspace system. NASA's role is to develop high-
risk, high-payoff precompetitive technologies to a point
where feasibility is proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD
and U.S. industry. Industry picks up the technologies, and
with its own resources continues development, performs
systems-oriented research and applies them to specific
products.
Recent accomplishments in the AST program include:
The first integrated engine noise prediction code was
delivered to industry for use in designing quieter engines to
meet future noise standards.
Nondestructive evaluation techniques for detecting
corrosion, cracks and disbonds in aircraft have been licensed
to industry to help keep the aging aircraft fleet
safe. [[Page S7286]]
Tropospheric climatology data has been collected, to assist
in understanding long-term changes in nitrogen oxides in the
lower atmosphere caused by aircraft.
Analytical tools to understand aircraft wake vortices are
being developed, which will contribute to revised safe
aircraft landing separation standards.
An experimental database is improving understanding the
relative acoustic and aerodynamic benefits of different rotor
configurations for future civil tiltrotors.
FY 1995 Budget: $125.8 million.
FY 1996 Budget: $188.4 million.
Possible impact of significant reduction/termination:
Efforts to develop technologies to increase the capacity of
the airspace system, increasing safety and expanding the
aircraft market, would be severely curtailed. Weather and
capacity delays cost airline operators $3.5 billion a year,
and cause untold hours of unproductive time for the
travelling public.
Technologies to ensure that the aging aircraft fleet (25%
of planes flying today are more than 20 years old) remains
safe and cost-effective would not be developed.
U.S. efforts to develop rational positions on proposed
international environmental regulations would be hampered by
not developing better understanding of aircraft noise and
pollution effects and technologies to minimize those effects.
The only technology development efforts in the U.S. for
general aviation, commuter and civil tiltrotor aircraft would
be terminated.
The ability of U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers to
compete effectively on both cost and technical capability
with government-subsidized foreign competition would be
seriously hampered. Airbus already claims more than one-third
of the commercial aircraft market, and their goal is one-half
by 2005.
high speed research
NASA's High Speed Research (HSR) Program is performing the
early, high-risk technology development for an
environmentally compatible, economically competitive high
speed civil transport (HSCT) aircraft. Such a plane would fly
at more than twice the speed of sound and carry 300
passengers over 5000 nautical miles at fares close to today's
subsonic aircraft (747, DC-10, etc.). Before industry can
decide whether to make the roughly $20 billion investment to
develop an HSCT, some level of confidence must be established
that it could meet international noise and emissions
standards, and that airline operators would be able to
operate it profitably. The technologies to achieve this are
beyond today's state-of-the-art. The HSR program was designed
to eliminate the highest risks and ensure U.S. leadership in
this important arena.
Recent accomplishments:
Completed research campaign in the South Pacific to
characterize the stratosphere for incorporation in
atmospheric simulation models which will be used to determine
the potential impact of future HSCT aircraft.
Achieved test goal for low-emission engine combustors
(NO
X level of 5g/kg fuel burned--the Concorde emissions
index is 20g/kg)
Demonstrated a process to fabricate up to 10 feet per
minute of fiber/resin composite material suitable for high
temperature use, making the essential use of these materials
for an HSCT affordable.
FY 1995 Budget: $221.3 million.
FY 1996 Budget: $245.5 million.
Possible impact of significant reduction/termination:
Interim assessment of atmospheric effects of a supersonic
aircraft fleet would not be completed. This assessment is to
support work by the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) on setting an HSCT emissions standard.
Engine noise reduction tests and analysis to determine
whether an HSCT could comply with strict international noise
standards (Annex 16, Chapter 3 set by ICAO) would be stopped.
The U.S. share of the global long-range aircraft market
could drop to under 50%, if technology development is stopped
and Europe is first to market with a successful HSCT. This
would result in larger trade deficits and the loss of
hundreds of thousands of high-skill, high-wage jobs. If the
U.S. is first to market, the U.S. market share could grow to
nearly 80%, and crate $200 billion sales and 140,000 new
jobs.
____
FISCAL YEAR 1996 ESTIMATED TOTAL AERONAUTICS EMPLOYMENT BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Funding
OA rank State employment (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......... California........................ 4,783 $382.6
2.......... Ohio.............................. 2,564 205.5
3.......... Virginia.......................... 1,466 117.3
4.......... Washington........................ 519 41.5
5.......... Maryland.......................... 356 28.5
6.......... Texas............................. 263 21.0
7.......... Connecticut....................... 193 15.4
8.......... Wisconsin......................... 171 13.7
9.......... District of Columbia.............. 165 13.2
10.......... Georgia........................... 113 9.0
11.......... Massachusetts..................... 106 8.5
12.......... New York.......................... 84 6.7
13.......... Pennsylvania...................... 73 5.8
14.......... Florida........................... 70 5.6
15.......... Indiana........................... 60 4.8
16.......... Missouri.......................... 56 4.5
17.......... Colorado.......................... 39 3.1
18.......... Illinois.......................... 38 3.0
19.......... Tennessee......................... 28 2.2
20.......... North Carolina.................... 26 2.1
Other............................. 226 18.2
-----------------------
Total........................... 11,399 911.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New Mexico has
13 minutes, and the Senator from Maine has 17 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, does
she need all 17 minutes? We are trying to expedite things.
Ms. SNOWE. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we might reach this agreement. I understand
there is one second-degree amendment contemplated. I assume that we
could enter into a unanimous-consent agreement about that.
Let me ask Senator Snowe, could she get by with 10 minutes?
Ms. SNOWE. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I could use 10 minutes. Then we could move to a second-
degree amendment by Senator Dodd for 5 minutes on a side.
Mr. EXON. First, the second-degree amendment by Mr. Dodd, as I
understand it, is the same second-degree amendment being considered by
the Senator from Minnesota, and also the Senator from Massachusetts. Is
that correct? We are talking about one second-degree amendment?
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. EXON. Certainly, we would agree. We will need about 2 minutes for
the negotiations that are going on. I think we are pretty close to
making an arrangement along the lines that you outlined.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to get somebody to come to the floor, but I
leave this suggestion. I must attend a meeting on the final wrap-up on
this bill now, but we would be willing to have 5 minutes on a side on
the Dodd amendment, which I have seen, which essentially is a change on
the tax side of the equation, and spend the tax money in two ways, part
of it on entitlement programs for education and part on discretionary,
and we would take 5 minutes on our side on that, 10 minutes each here.
Then I would authorize somebody to enter into that agreement in my
behalf in my absence.
Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I wonder if I might get a
couple of minutes on the Snowe amendment itself. Is that a possibility?
Of the time you have?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I cannot hold the Senator to this, but
if the Senator will talk about the Snowe amendment and not about
education in general, that would be fine. The Senator wants to speak
against that amendment?
Mr. DODD. I do.
Mr. DOMENICI. If I am going to give the Senator time against it, I
want him to be against it.
Mr. DODD. I intend to be against the Snowe amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. And the Senator will speak against it?
Mr. DODD. Absolutely.
Mr. DOMENICI. All right, I yield Senator Dodd 2 minutes of my time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if my colleague from New Mexico, upon
condition that I speak against the Snowe amendment, would grant me
time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will give the Senator 2 minutes of my time.
How much did I give the Senator?
Mr. DODD. The Senator did not.
Mr. DOMENICI. I give the Senator 2 minutes of my time. Each Senator
gets 2 minutes in opposition and that will keep 6 for me, and then
Senator Snowe has the full 10 minutes to speak to the Senator's
amendment.
Mr. EXON. Is that in the form of a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator said he needed some time. Is he willing to
do that?
Mr. EXON. That is agreeable to those on this side.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let us give it a try.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to
object, will the result of that proposal ensure that we will have an
opportunity to vote on the Dodd amendment in a timely way?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. We will not amend it. We do not guarantee that
somebody will not table it, but we will have a vote on it and we will
agree to stack it in the normal way that we are doing the others.
Mr. KENNEDY. So it would be treated as a second-degree amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Exactly.
Mr. KENNEDY. In that particular order.
[[Page S7287]]
Mr. DOMENICI. Correct.
Let us try this, Mr. President. First of all, I am going to yield 2
minutes in opposition to the Snowe amendment to Senator Dodd, 2 minutes
to Senator Wellstone, and I reserve the remainder for myself.
The total amount of time that is going to be used on the Snowe
amendment--and we yield back whatever other time we have--is 10 minutes
by Senator Snowe and a total of 10 minutes in opposition, of which 4
have just been allocated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me move on then to a unanimous-consent request.
There will only be one second-degree amendment. It shall be an
amendment offered by Senator Dodd which has been described here and
presented to the Senator from New Mexico. There will be 5 minutes on a
side, 5 minutes by Senator Dodd, 5 minutes in opposition, either by
myself or Senator Snowe. We will then proceed to an amendment by
Senator Hatfield immediately after that. And when the time has expired
on the second-degree amendment--there shall be no other second-degree
amendments--we will then stack the second-degree amendment pursuant to
the previous understanding, that the leader will arrange the order and
there will be a vote on or about the Dodd amendment in the stacked
order.
Mr. EXON. I certainly do not object. I would just simply wish to
expand this in order to move things along. We are prepared to consider
time agreements now on both the Hatfield amendment and the amendment
following that to be offered by Senator Boxer.
Is the Senator from New Mexico in a position to talk about time
agreements on the Hatfield amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to a meeting right now at which I think the
Senator will be in attendance, and I will seek some relief on time.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express my objection
to the Snowe-Abraham amendment. This amendment proposes to restore some
$6.3 billion in education, specifically to reduce the Labor Committee's
instruction by this amount in an effort to stave off severe cuts in
student loans.
Let me at the outset say I appreciate the fact that there is at least
some recognition of the fact we ought to be trying to restore some of
these critical funds in education.
Education has always been an issue that has transcended politics in
many ways. There has been a deep commitment historically to it on both
sides of the aisle, and yet the Budget Committee proposal that is
before us, even with the Snowe-Abraham amendment, offers education too
little too late, I would say, Mr. President.
It is too little in that it offers students an umbrella in the midst
of the hurricane they face with this budget proposal, even if this
amendment were to be adopted. It will provide some protection but it is
the thinnest of fig leaves in that the committee will still have to
eliminate $7.5 billion from student loan programs.
I have been through a number of reconciliations on the Labor
Committee and make no mistake about it--there is only one place you can
find $7.5 billion, and that is in student loans. There is no other
place within our committee's jurisdiction. And so we will be faced with
looking ways to cut loans for working-class families, middle-class
families many who do not qualify for Pell grants, do not have the
personal affluence, and yet long for the better life that higher
education can offer their children. And these will be the Americans who
bear the brunt of these cuts.
Now, these cuts may take many forms. It could come from the
elimination of the in-school interest subsidy which can amount to
additional costs of as much as $4,000 for a working family in this
country; it could come through increased fees, through the elimination
of the 6-month grace period, or an increase in the interest on student
loans or any combination of those, again all money out of students'
pockets. The bottom line is students and families are going to pay
dearly as a result of what is in this budget, even if we adopt the
Snowe-Abraham amendment.
This amendment is also too late, Mr. President, because the amendment
only addresses the end of the education pipeline, higher education. Our
world class higher education sector is in no way secure if our efforts
in college preparation, elementary and secondary schools, Head Start
and other areas are going to be severely undercut.
This amendment is sort of the double whammy for these critical
discretionary programs. Not only does it not address the cuts proposed
in these programs, it also further cuts into discretionary programs to
offset the reduction it makes on the mandatory side.
Mr. President, we will offer a second degree amendment as an
alternative which offsets $28 billion in cuts in education with very
specific plugging of corporate loopholes which we can identify
specifically, which Mr. Kasich on the House side identified as areas
that should be looked at in the effort to balance our Federal budget.
So I would urge rejection of this amendment, with all due respect. We
will have a substitute that will allow for this body to vote on truly
whether or not they want to see these working-class families in this
country get a break when it comes to education.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last year in Minnesota over 14,000
students received assistance from the Federal Stafford Loan Program--
14,000 students.
I just rise to speak in opposition to the Snowe amendment and say
that I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Dodd amendment.
Mr. President, this is, indeed, too little too late. What we are
faced with right now are some really draconian cuts that will do
irreparable harm to higher education in America. In the second-degree
amendment we are going to introduce, we focus on corporate welfare or
tax expenditures.
Mr. President, I would far prefer for some of the oil companies, some
of the large pharmaceutical or insurance companies or large financial
institutions to be tightening their belts and to be a part of the
sacrifice than I would go forward with deep cuts in financial
assistance for higher education.
I cannot think of a more important middle-class issue as a former
college professor than this issue.
I do not have time, but if I had time I could recite story after
story after story after story of students who have written letters to
me and made phone calls saying for God sake, please do not deny us the
opportunity to have an affordable higher education. No matter how you
cut it, that is what these cuts are all about. I do not even have a
chance in the 2 minutes to talk about earlier education which is, of
course, equally important.
These cuts in higher education are myopic. These cuts are profoundly
mistaken for our country. These cuts will have an accrual effect on
students all across the across the nation from Ohio to Minnesota, and
the Snowe amendment in that respect is really just a little bit more
than symbolic--too little, too late. We can do much, much better in how
we sort out our priorities.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 10 minutes. The
opposition now has 6.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I would yield such time as the
Senator from Maine may need on the available time.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. I found quite interesting the debate that has been offered
here today on my amendment.
First of all, just to recap my amendment, it is to restore $6.3
billion in the education account. And, yes, we do provide specific
offsets. That should be no [[Page S7288]] surprise if you are
attempting to provide a credible alternative.
And that is why I am somewhat confused by the debate here this
morning, because I heard from the Senator from Ohio that my offsets are
binding but then we heard from the Senator from Massachusetts that they
are not binding.
Well, I think we all understand the true nature of the budget process
in the Congress. No, the instructions in the budget resolution are not
binding. But if you are attempting to provide real numbers to
demonstrate that they are credible, then it is responsible to recommend
some specific offsets.
It is also true the committees do not have to follow those
instructions. I understand that and the cosponsors of this amendment
understand that. But we want to make sure that everybody understands
that there is a way to reach those numbers. That is what is important.
The second issue is whether or not you live in a fiscal fantasy land.
The difference between the amendment that I am offering here today with
the cosponsors of this amendment and those who oppose it is we support
a balanced budget. If you support a balanced budget, you have to make
some choices. If you do not support a balanced budget, you do not have
to make any choices. You can spend in an unlimited fashion.
The amendment that they will be offering will recommend reducing
corporate welfare and tax loopholes. You cannot object to that. But
exactly how are we going to reach that goal? They do not specify. No,
they do not want to specify, because they do not want to receive any
opposition to those specific offsets, just as they do not support a
balanced budget because they do not want to make any real choices as to
how we get there. So that is the difference.
My amendment is a credible amendment. It restores specific funding
for specific issues with respect to student loan assistance. Yes, I
would like to do more. But there are those on my side saying, ``You are
doing too much,'' and then I hear from the other side of the aisle who
say, ``No, you are not doing enough.'' Well, I think my amendment is
somewhere in the middle. Hopefully, we will do more in the final
analysis.
The amendments that have been offered to restore funding for
education have used the illusory dividend. Well, that is just gimmickry
at this point. That dividend may come down at the end of this process
when reconciliation is in place. That does not give adequate
instructions to the committee. It is not money that they can use right
now and everybody knows it.
So if we really want to restore funding to education, if we really
want to address the home and farm equity issue so that it is not used
to determine one's income eligibility for student loans, if we want to
keep the origination fee at 3 percent, if we want to have an adequate
grace period, then you support the Snowe amendment.
And, I should add who the cosponsors are of my amendment: Senator
Kassebaum, Senator Lott, Senator Cohen, Senator Abraham, Senator Brown,
Senator Grassley, Senator Chafee, and Senator Kempthorne.
In fact, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kempthorne from Idaho
as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 6 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, last night, when we were watching the discussion take
place, a comment was made b
