[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, just to bring the colleagues up to date, 
we have been here the morning now and have yet to have a vote on 
anything and very little debate otherwise. What is occurring at this 
particular moment is that I think we could work out something with 
respect to the Cochran amendment relative to pesticides. We have 
promised the Senator here at least that we would indulge the 
negotiations, I guess you might call it, for another 20 minutes. 
Otherwise, we will be prepared, if they cannot get together, to just go 
ahead and try to get movement on this bill.
  The only way the Senator from South Carolina knows how to move this 
group is to just make a motion to table, without trying to be abrupt or 
arrogant or untimely, or whatever else. But I keep hearing stories 
about other peoples' problems: They have to be in a committee, and 
somebody else is here, and somebody else is there.
  The prime responsibility of the U.S. Senate is to conduct its work 
here on the floor. We have indulged them right along. We have been 
told, for example, that one particular amendment was coming over 
yesterday at 2 o'clock. It is now past 12 today, and we do not have 
that amendment. The colleagues will pile in here after suppertime and 
want to know why we are going late. With that in mind, I let them know 
that we have to get these amendments up, or we will move to third 
reading, or move to table whatever amendment is pending, unless we can 
get better cooperation on the bill itself. We are not trying to cut off 
debate. We are not getting any debate. We are getting delays, 
procrastination, and put off. We are not going to go along with that.
  Using the time here while they are negotiating in the next few 
minutes, it is clear to some of the colleagues that they are unfamiliar 
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and its 
contributions to the Nation's economy. For example, I want to summarize 
a few recent success stories which show the bottom-line value of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology activity.
  NIST measurement specialists just developed a new method for 
improving the accuracy and safety of mammograms. We have the news 
article, and I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  [From the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Nov. 22, 
                                 1993]

New Nist-Invented Device To Help Radiologists Improve Image Quality in 
                              Mammography

       A new device invented at the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology will help radiologists improve image 
     quality in mammography, one of medicine's most important 
     breast cancer screening tools.
       The device, an X-ray crystal diffraction spectrometer, 
     measures the distribution of X-ray energies that a patient 
     would receive from a mammography unit more accurately than 
     existing field calibration methods, NIST scientists say.
       ``Accurate measurement of kilovoltage is a key step toward 
     improving the image quality for the millions of mammograms 
     performed annually in the United States,'' said NIST 
     physicist Bert Coursey.
       The American Cancer Society estimates that 180,000 women 
     were diagnosed with breast cancer and that the disease 
     claimed 46,000 lives in 1992.
       ``The clinical community needs to be able to put tighter 
     limits on the voltage applied to X-ray sources,'' said Dr. 
     Richard Deslattes, inventor of the diffraction spectrometer 
     device. Deslattes and colleagues will describe the new device 
     in the January issue of Medical Physics.
       The quality of a mammogram, an X-ray image of breast 
     tissue, is determined, in part, by the electrical voltage 
     that generates X-rays in a mammography unit. Lower voltages 
     produce lower energy X-rays, and higher voltages produce 
     higher energy X-rays. The exact voltage required for optimum 
     image quality varies from woman to woman.
       A radiologic technologist sets the voltage on the unit 
     based on the thickness and tissue density of the breast. The 
     existing non-invasive voltage measurement systems that are 
     practical for mammography are accurate to within one or two 
     kilovolts. Image quality, on the other hand, is influenced by 
     sub-kilovoltage changes.
       More accurate voltage measurement is available by use of 
     calibrated potential dividers, but this kind of ``invasive'' 
     measurement is complex, labor intensive and disturbing to the 
     clinical environment.
       In response to this measurement need, NIST scientists have 
     developed a new approach based on two very old ideas. They 
     first noted that the highest energy X-rays emitted by a 
     radiological source correspond exactly in energy to the 
     voltage applied to the X-ray tube. They then took advantage 
     of a spectrometer design originally described by Sir Ernest 
     Rutherford and E.N. da C. Andrade in 1914 to produce a 
     convenient instrument requiring neither precise alignment nor 
     external calibration to determine the high energy limit of 
     the X-ray spectrum.
       The NIST X-ray crystal diffraction spectrometer will be 
     used as a calibration device. When placed in the X-ray beam, 
     the device tells whether the actual voltage agrees with the 
     indicated voltage. The NIST device, a metal box about 46 
     centimeters (18 inches) in length, measures the electrical 
     voltage over the range used in mammography more accurately 
     than an existing methods.
       A patent for this approach to high voltage measurement has 
     now been issued, and a license for commercial manufacture is 
     pending.
       More recent developments have extended the applicable range 
     to 150 kV and demonstrated a new spectrometer design in which 
     use of a slightly curved crystal permits high-resolution 
     spectra to be obtained independent of the size and placement 
     of the X-ray source.
       ``Tube voltage is an important parameter relating to 
     mammography image quality and is one of the most difficult to 
     measure accurately in the field. This new crystal 
     spectrometer from NIST promises much more accurate 
     measurements of tube kilovoltages made on the 12,000 
     mammography units in the United States,'' said R. Edward 
     Hendrick, associate professor at the University of Colorado 
     Health Sciences Center and chairman of the American College 
     of Radiology Committee on Mammography Quality Assurance.
       As a non-regulatory agency of the Commerce Department's 
     Technology Administration, NIST promotes U.S. economic growth 
     by working with industry to develop and apply technology, 
     measurements and standards.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, NIST scientists and a company have just 
developed a new mercury-free material for dental fillings. NIST-
supported manufacturing technology centers are helping many firms. For 
example, Thomson Berry Farms in Duluth, MN, received advice on 
inexpensive equipment that subsequently increased its productivity by 
50 percent, helped increase sales by 100 percent, and kept the company 
from having to lay off workers. Prime Tube, Inc. of Livonia, MI, 
received advice that enabled it to remain as the Chrysler Corp. 
supplier. In my own State, Spartanburg Steel Products received 
significant help in designing and making new stamped automobile parts. 
And we have the details for that if any colleagues are interested. I 
will never forget going over, not too long ago, to Lexington County to 
a small entity making parts for airplane manufacture, and they went to 
the manufacturing center right there in Columbia, and they got 
computerized, the entire system. It was mechanized and outlined their 
time on delivery of the equipment and materials necessary for those 
parts. As a result of that kind of what we now call streamlining here 
in the Congress, they were able to double their employment and win some 
more of these competitive contracts.
  One of the real things that came under the leadership of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology over in Europe at the time was 
the rapid acquisition of manufactured parts. That was down in the 
innards of the old Bureau of Standards. We brought that out and 
developed it as the Advance Technology Program called for its kind of 
development. Now we have had the Navy and Air Force come, whereby if a 
ship would break down in the Persian Gulf, ordinarily what would happen 
is the ship would be 30 years old. It would be sent back, and after 
fabricating the part, it would take a year to a year-and-a-half to get 
the part and get things moving again.
  What we are doing now in the Department of Defense is beginning to 
computerize the actual manufacture of all of these particular parts. So 
you do not always have to keep them in storage for 30 years or anything 
else, and keep the papers on file. If a part like that breaks, they put 
it into the computer, and it puts it into the machine, the robot spits 
it out, and you have that particular part back out there in a matter of 
a couple of weeks. That was one of the great things that impressed me 
in the very early days that could be done.
  While the Advanced Technology Program is new, we already have some 
real successes. One firm, SDL Inc., of San Jose, CA, used its Advanced 
Technology Program award to develop new laser technologies. Then using 
its own money, it applied those technologies in several new products, 
including lasers for surgery in the treatment of tumors.
  I have many other examples, but let me mention this particular one. 
In the 1970's, NIST worked with industry to develop one of the most 
important technologies in America--the residential smoke detector. This 
established a $100 million annual U.S. market, and U.S. manufacturers 
now hold 50 percent of the world market. But more importantly, those 
detectors have been a major factor in a 30 percent reduction in U.S. 
residential fire deaths since 1975.
  Some of the colleagues may like to suggest that only a privileged few 
companies are ``subsidized'' by NIST programs, but the truth is 
otherwise. NIST is a national treasure, and its programs help countless 
companies and lives across our Nation.
  By way of emphasis once again, this is for all of industry. This is 
industry-initiated, not politicians picking winners and losers. Nothing 
occurs within this particular function and this particular department 
of Government that is not asked for, in the original instance, by the 
industry itself, who promises at the time to provide the majority of 
the money.
  So they come not just on a will-o-the-wisp but more particularly 
something that they really know from hard experience is economically 
feasible as well as technologically sound. Then they have to go through 
with the peer review process at the National Academy of Engineering 
before we actually make any awards.
  I do not know of any better way to do it. It is working that way and 
thereby has the confidence and support of all segments of industry that 
we read out yesterday, if some forgot the long list of business, 
industry, technology, scientific companies, manufacturers and 
societies, and otherwise, that have worked on this bill and support it.
  Now, Mr. President, let me list the States that will benefit from 
NIST.
  First, companies in all States benefit from the measurement methods 
and safety technologies developed in NIST laboratories.
  But many States also have benefited already from NIST's new Advanced 
Technology Program and extension programs. As I said, these are 
competitive, peer-reviewed programs. Nothing is earmarked, but in fact 
many States are benefiting.
  With only over $200 million in Federal funding so far, the Advanced 
Technology Program has funded industry-led projects in 22 States. These 
include: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 
Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New 
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. I could go on and on.
  NIST's own extension programs, and those it manages--that is, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology managing for the 
Department of Defense under the Technology Reinvestment Project--now 
support manufacturing outreach and assistance projects in 31 States. 
These include: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New 
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington State.
  NIST's Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program has helped 
companies everywhere learn how to improve quality and win new 
customers.
  I have quite a bit of other additional information. I wanted to use 
this down time, you might say, to get this in the Record here because 
we have a program that is off and running at very, very minimal cost. 
The Government spends $70 billion on research. This is less than 2 
percent of the $70 billion, if this were approved. It is less than 1 
percent right now, less than 1 percent, and we intend and I am 
confident the leadership on both sides of the aisle and Senators 
concerned on both sides and in both Houses of Congress are determined 
to keep this going.
  I do not know of any amendments to this bill. I know some nongermane 
political exercises that are on course that Senators feel, since we 
have a popular measure and we are ready to go, that they would like to 
just free ride, like one described earlier, and have a Christmas tree, 
really, to place ornaments thereon. But I hope they will withhold that 
and let us really bring up whatever contribution they would like to 
make, any amendment to the actual bill they would like to make that has 
to do with technology, and we will move from there. I think we have had 
almost enough time now to work out an agreement.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, later, I want to have printed in the 
Record a letter from the distinguished chairman and chief executive 
officer of the Xerox Corp., who also serves as the chairman of the 
Council on Competitiveness. This is a very august group.
  We had this really organized in the early days under President 
Reagan, if I remember correctly. They put in a report as a publicly 
appointed Commission on Competitiveness. It was widely read and has 
been referred to over the years. Very little was done.
  So the leadership there organized on the private side their own 
Council on Competitiveness, encompassing not only the distinguished 
chairman of Xerox, Mr. Paul Allaire, but Thomas E. Everhart, California 
Institute of Technology; Henry Schacht, Cummins Engine Co., Inc.; Jack 
Sheinkman, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO; 
Donald Beall, Rockwell International; John Clendenin, BellSouth Corp.; 
George Fisher, Eastman Kodak Co.; Katharine Graham, Washington Post 
Co.; William Hambrecht, Hambrecht & Quist Inc.; Jerry Jasinowski, 
National Association of Manufacturers; Thomas G. Labrecque, The Chase 
Manhattan Corp.; Peter Likins, Lehigh University; Robert Mehrabian, 
Carnegie Mellon University; Thomas Murrin, Duquesne University; Michael 
Porter, Harvard University; James Renier, Honeywell, Inc.; Albert 
Shanker, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; Ray Stata, Analog 
Devices, Inc.; Jerre Stead, NCR Corp.; William Steere, Pfizer, Inc; 
Gary Tooker, Motorola Inc.; Charles M. Vest, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology; Arnold Weber, Northwestern University; William Weiss, 
Ameritech Corp.; A. D. Welliver, The Boeing Co.; Lynn Williams, United 
Steel Workers of America; John A. Young, Hewlett-Packard Co.; President 
Daniel F. Burton, Jr.; Vice President Suzanne Tichenor; and 
Distinguished Fellow Erich Bloch, former head of the National Academy 
of Sciences; and there are senior Fellows and others listed here.
  They state:
       On behalf of the Council on Competitiveness--a coalition of 
     chief executives from U.S. industry, higher education and 
     labor--I would like to express my support for S. 4, the 
     National Competitiveness Act.
       As a leading bi-partisan private-sector voice on U.S. 
     competitiveness, the Council is dedicated to helping make 
     America more competitive in the global marketplace and more 
     prosperous at home. We believe that S. 4, through its support 
     for civilian technology and manufacturing, is an important 
     step towards these ends. The Council is on record as 
     supporting several programs, in particular:
       Significantly expand the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). 
     S. 4 increases funding for a ATP to $567 million in FY 1996 
     and requires that the Department of Commerce develop a long-
     term plan for the program. These provisions will promote 
     increased private-sector investment in critical enabling 
     technologies and allow ATP to have a more strategic impact on 
     U.S. industrial competitiveness.
       Support development and diffusion of technology, especially 
     to small and medium-sized manufacturers. S. 4 directs the 
     Department of Commerce to work with industry to develop new 
     generic advanced manufacturing technologies and consolidates 
     existing NIST quality programs into a NIST National Quality 
     Laboratory. It also combines existing federal and state 
     extension programs into an integrated Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership (MEP) to help small and medium-sized 
     manufacturers in all geographic regions adopt modern 
     manufacturing technologies and create high performance 
     workplaces. These initiatives will enhance U.S. industry's 
     ability to develop and manufacture competitive products and 
     promote long-term economic growth.
       Stimulate investment in high performance computing and 
     communications applications. S. 4 authorizes over $350 
     million in FY 1995 and FY 1996 for a coordinated interagency 
     program to support research, technology development and pilot 
     projects for computing applications in health care, education 
     and manufacturing. These applications will help translate the 
     potential of a 21st century information infrastructure into 
     tangible economic and social benefits for the American 
     people.
       We commend your continued support for these initiatives and 
     urge you to play a leadership role in their implementation 
     through timely passage of S. 4.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Council on Competitiveness,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 1994.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: On behalf of the Council on 
     Competitiveness--a coalition of chief executives from U.S. 
     industry, higher education and labor--I would like to express 
     my support for S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act.
       As a leading bi-partisan private-sector voice on U.S. 
     competitiveness, the Council is dedicated to helping make 
     America more competitive in the global marketplace and more 
     prosperous at home. We believe that S. 4 through its support 
     for civilian technology and manufacturing, is an important 
     step towards these ends. The Council is on record as 
     supporting several programs, in particular:
       Significantly expand the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). 
     S. 4 increases funding for ATP to $567 million in FY 1996 and 
     requires that the Department of Commerce develop a long-term 
     plan for the program. These provisions will promote increased 
     private-sector investment in critical enabling technologies 
     and allow ATP to have a more strategic impact on U.S. 
     industrial competitiveness.
       Support development and diffusion of technology, especially 
     to small and medium-sized manufacturers. S. 4 directs the 
     Department of Commerce to work with industry to develop new 
     generic advanced manufacturing technologies and consolidates 
     existing NIST quality programs into a NIST National Quality 
     Laboratory. It also combines existing federal and state 
     extension programs into an integrated Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership (MEP) to help small and medium-sized 
     manufacturers in all geographic regions adopt modern 
     manufacturing technologies and create high performance 
     workplaces. These initiatives will enhance U.S. industry's 
     ability to develop and manufacture competitive products and 
     promote long-term economic growth.
       Stimulate investment in high performance computing and 
     communications applications. S. 4 authorizes over $350 
     million in FY 1995 and FY 1996 for a coordinated interagency 
     program to support research, technology development and pilot 
     projects for computing applications in health care, education 
     and manufacturing. These applications will help translate the 
     potential of a 21st century information infrastructure into 
     tangible economic and social benefits for the American 
     people.
       We commend your continued support for these initiatives and 
     urge you to play a leadership role in their implementation 
     through timely passage of S. 4.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Paul Allaire,

                                                 Council Chairman,
                               Chairman and CEO Xerox Corporation.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am informed the distinguished Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Coverdell], is momentarily coming to the floor with an amendment.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that 
letters of support be printed in the Record: A letter from the Advanced 
Technology Coalition, dated February 9, to myself and endorsed by the 
American Electronics Association; the National Association of 
Manufacturers; the Modernization Forum; Microelectronics and Computer 
Technology Corp.; Honeywell, Inc.; National Society of Professional 
Engineers; Business Executives for National Security; IEEE-USA; 
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International; Institute for 
Interconnecting and Packaging Electronics Circuits; Wilson and Wilson; 
American Society for Training and Development; Catapult Communications 
Corporation; Dover Technologies; Texas Instruments, Inc.; Columbia 
University; Motorola; Intel Corp.; Cray Research; Electron Transfer 
Technologies; Electronic Data Systems; American Society for Engineering 
Education; US West, Inc.; Electronic Industries Association; Tera 
Computer Co.; Southeast Manufacturing Technology Center; Convex 
Computer Corp.; Association for Manufacturing Technology; Semiconductor 
Research Corp.; American Society of Engineering Societies; AT&T and 
Hoya Micro Mask, Inc.
  That is one letter, Mr. President.
  The other letter here, dated February, 8, to myself is from the 
National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing. A third letter here from 
the Computer Systems Policy Project, February 23, 1994, signed by Lewis 
E. Platt, chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co. and also, the 
chairman of the CSPP Working Group on Information Infrastructure; a 
letter from the American Industrial Extension Alliance, dated February 
14, signed by David Swanson, president; a letter from the American 
Society for Training and Development, dated February 4, and signed by 
Curtis E. Plott, the president and chief executive officer; and a 
letter from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, dated 
February 7, 1994, signed by John Parker, the vice president of 
government relations.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Advanced Technology Coalition,

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

                                            The National Coalition


                                   for Advanced Manufacturing,

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



                              Computer Systems Policy Project,

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


                                                     Alliance,

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

                                     American Society for Training


                                              and Development,

                                                 February 4, 1994.
     Re S. 4, The ``National Competitiveness Act of 1993''.

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

                                           The American Society of


                                         Mechanical Engineers,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 1994.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: On behalf of the Technology Policy Group 
     of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), I 
     urge you to support S. 4, the ``National Competitiveness Act 
     of 1993,'' which is scheduled to be brought to the Senate 
     floor this week.
       This important legislation will provide the underpinning 
     for a realistic national technology policy. It includes 
     provisions that support the development and use of 
     manufacturing technologies which are essential for continued 
     U.S. gains in productivity and industrial competitiveness. 
     The bill also calls for industry participation in the 
     development of advanced manufacturing program strategies 
     through the use of an advisory committee to assure that the 
     infrastructure and new knowledge gained from the program will 
     be effectively utilized by U.S. manufacturers.
       ASME has accorded competitiveness a high priority in our 
     1994 public policy agenda. This letter is written on behalf 
     of the Technology Policy Group, a group of ASME members with 
     expertise in the field of competitiveness, and reflects it 
     views, rather than an official position of ASME.
       Again, I urge your support of this legislation to further 
     the nation's industrial competitiveness.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Parker,
                             Vice President, Government Relations.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________