[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, therefore, Senators should be aware that 
a vote will occur in approximately 17 minutes, or at 10:07 p.m. this 
evening. I hope that during the period between now and the time that 
vote occurs, the Republican leader and I and the managers will be able 
to work out further agreements regarding the further handling of the 
pending bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I listened, as usual, with great 
respect to the argument of the Senator from Missouri about this matter. 
I respect the Senator from Missouri very much on trade issues and I 
usually agree with him.
  I serve on the Finance Committee with the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri I listened to him at great length as he very clearly expressed 
concerns about the GATT subsidies agreement. I do not necessarily share 
his views on that, and in fact the very Airbus program that he referred 
to in his argument would be actionable under the new GATT agreement.
  The point is that we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. We 
are not debating the GATT bill. The place to do that is in the Senate 
Finance Committee. If we are to resolve that issue, then let it be in 
the implementation legislation.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and those who 
might be listening, the Senate Finance Committee is preparing the 
proper implementing legislation so that the GATT round can pass. It 
cannot be law unless it passes the Senate Finance Committee. So the 
Senator will have ample chance to do something at that time.
  But the punishment that he inflicts on S. 4, which is about creating 
jobs for Americans, is not fair. It is not fair to the rest of us. It 
is not fair to his own colleagues who have participated over the last 
few years going back to President Bush and developed this whole 
concept. We are not talking about an explosion of money, and we are 
also not, I might say, not talking about anything bad budgetarily. Any 
money that is increased for the purposes of S. 4 are handled by 
reductions in other programs in other parts of the budget.
  This is a disciplined increase which just happens to reflect one of 
the five major priorities that the President of the United States wants 
to see happen to this country--namely job creation. It is called 
technology and where appropriate the Government and industry 
cooperating on technology.
  Time after time, I have tried to point out, and more importantly the 
chairman of our full committee has tried to point out, these decisions 
are not made by Government. The decisions are made by industry. In the 
venture capital fund, which we debated last night, the decisions are 
not made by Government. The decisions are made by private industry.
  I do not think the Senator could argue that McDonnell Douglas or the 
aerospace industry could have advanced without some help from 
Government. I do not think the Senator could argue that agriculture or 
the semiconductor industry could have advanced or be competitive 
without some help from Government.
  We are not talking about a Government takeover. In fact, we are not 
talking about industrial policy. We really are not. And I know those 
words are very controversial. But I beg Members from the other side of 
the aisle to understand that the Senator from Missouri does have a very 
clear and definite problem with the GATT subsidies aspects and that he 
has made this clearly known in the Finance Committee. We will clearly 
have to deal with the Senator's concerns in that Committee. But this 
bill is about American jobs, American jobs created by technology, and 
it is a very, very good bill.
  I accept the Senator's explanation that he did not choose to call for 
a rollcall vote in the Commerce Committee, but, on the other hand, 
there was not a single Republican who was seated while we had this vote 
who said ``no.'' Therefore, I feel that there are Republicans who are 
sympathetic to this, and I would plead for our colleagues to understand 
this is the Senator's problem. Do not punish S. 4 just to satisfy the 
GATT subsidies concerns of the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has 
expired.
  Who yields time? Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. It 
deals with the cost of the bill. The comparable bill in the House, I am 
told, is H.R. 820. The authorization in that bill is $1.5 billion. This 
amendment changes the authorization to $1.5 billion. In other words, it 
is $1.350 billion in new spending that this changes it to and it is 
comparable to the figure in the House. It is a realistic amendment, I 
believe. It not only matches the House but it represents still a 
significant increase in spending here.
  In advanced technology, the bill that is before us is 139 percent 
above the current '94 funding level. In manufacturers' extension 
partnerships, the fiscal year 1995 authorization is 133 percent above 
the fiscal year 1994 level. In NIST laboratories, this measure 
authorizes 42 percent above the fiscal year 1994 level.
  Mr. President, there are areas we can save. This is an overall limit. 
It does not go into the individual categories. It would leave to the 
conference committee their ability to adjust the numbers or the 
appropriations committee to adjust the numbers.
  Mr. President, if we are going to do this, let us do it right. Let us 
do it with a reasonable number. This is a modest amendment. I believe 
it gives this body an opportunity to go on record for the purpose of 
this bill but without getting carried away with regard to its cost.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The amendment of the Senator from Colorado is not 
modest. The House bill came over in May of last year so it was for '94-
'95. Our bill is for '95-'96 and includes, as I said, these things with 
respect to construction, with respect to information superhighway of 
$244 million, and I could go right on down the list of the amounts.
  Bottom line, it is still, Mr. President, less than what we voted out 
June of last year, $1.513 billion in June of last year, which is less 
now where we have got $1.370 billion. And when he talks about 1.5, he 
is coupling the entire bill then of 2 years, which would be 2.8. At the 
1.5 level, it would have been 3, if we followed out what we reported 
out in June of last year.
  So we would have to move to table that. But before making that motion 
to table, let me clarify the record. I think the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia has remarked properly with respect--I do have the 
transcript of both the 1992 vote and the 1993 vote before the Committee 
of Commerce. I just resent right quickly the characterization that 
somehow, wait a minute, this was just a bill for the chairman and it 
had something in there about Hollings centers and we wanted to go 
along.
  Not so. Absolutely. There is no Hollings centers named. I understand 
they have been calling them that. But this is not anything of pride to 
help the poor old fellow along, whatever.
  I worked with Senator Bingaman on this bill at length, the various 
measures in there. At one time, Senator Johnston of Louisiana had a 
misgiving about it with respect to the Energy Committee. We cleared 
that.
  We had Senator Bumpers with the Small Business Committee, and we 
cleared it with him, and again with Senator Pressler on our committee. 
Senator Pressler is one of the top ranking members on our committee and 
would be it next year apparently. We worked with him on the bill. We 
worked with Senator Burns. Senator Burns had an intern program. That 
was included in here.
  Of course, the leadership was given by Senator Rockefeller, the 
chairman of the subcommittee. Senator Kerry, Senator Dorgan. This thing 
was really worked over and it was not any courtesy amendment because of 
the chairman. On the contrary, it was worked over in a bipartisan 
fashion and you do not find any chairman in all that. In fact, all the 
letters--and many of them I have read--have been to Senator Dole and 
other Members on the other side of the aisle. But to come with that 
oozing along now that I just sort of misunderstood is absolutely false.
  The distinguished Senator from Missouri came to me earlier this year, 
and he said, ``I have been with you on this bill but I am going to have 
to do something about this subsidy thing. I am going to change on the 
subsidy and oppose it to try to highlight the matter on the subsidy to 
see if I can do that with respect to having amended GATT.''
  Here was a Senator who led the fight for fast track to ban amendments 
to GATT, and he was coming for an amendment on a bill that we had 
unanimously passed out of the committee one year and unanimously out of 
the committee the next year. I said, ``Well, I hope you will not do 
that.'' The indication was, ``Well, I am going to try to highlight it 
so we can get the administration's attention.''
  But there is no question over a year ago with respect to this bill 
that it represented a new venture or a new policy. February 24, of last 
year, the Senator's own bill, S. 419, said Federal financial assistance 
to the semiconductor industry consortium known as SEMATECH has been 
successful in improving the competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor 
industry.
  He was one of the leaders for that. The $10 billion was in there, and 
here is his statement at that time. I quote the Senator from Missouri:

       And then the second piece of legislation which you pointed 
     out, Mr. Chairman, is the aerotech bill. It has a number of 
     cosponsors, both Democrats and Republicans, and the idea of 
     that legislation is to provide for private sector input into 
     the spending of about $10 billion which the Federal 
     Government now does each year in the research and development 
     area in aerospace, and also to use as a model for aerospace 
     what Sematech was for the semiconductor industry to make it 
     possible for a consortium of U.S. aerospace industries with 
     the support of the Government to join together in the 
     development of new technologies for that industry.

  So we know that he was taking the actual technology and marrying it 
in on the Sematech model to the tune of $10 billion. You can see 
exactly as he says in this bill:

       Such Government industry consortium should focus its 
     efforts on research, development, and commercialization of 
     new aeronautical technologies and related manufacturing 
     technologies as well as the transfer and conversion of 
     aeronautical technologies developed for national security 
     purposes to commercial applications of large civil aircraft.

  That was his proposal. There has been no objection by the Senator 
from Missouri with respect to these subsidies moving to this one single 
industry so important to his State: $6 billion in sales to Saudi 
Arabia, financed by $6.2 billion in export financing. Yet now he comes 
along and says, ``Wait a minute.'' This is a new departure in his bill. 
Likewise, in his bill, he says, ``such sums as necessary.'' Where does 
the money come from? It is not in his bill. It is not in ours. It is 
not in most authorization bills where the money comes from. It is an 
authorized amount to be appropriated at a later time. That is why I 
call these objections monkeyshine. They know differently. They know of 
the unanimous vote for S. 4, and to come now and say, ``Well, it sort 
of slipped by, and I did not look at the figure, and it really was not 
unanimous.'' It was.
  What they are doing now is trying to gut the bill one other time with 
this particular amendment where the Senator from Missouri, and he 
looked at it and he knows the figures, not only the year before last 
but last year the figure in excess of what we have now before S. 4 
before the U.S. Senate-- $1.513 billion. We never asked about the 
amounts. He talks about burning holes in the pockets, and grabbing the 
money, and they are going to make a big, big assault here, pork barrel 
and everything else. But he now comes in a very sly way of saying, 
``Wait a minute. I did not really pay attention to it. I knew it was 
the chairman's bill, and I sort of went along.'' That is not the case 
whatsoever.
  It is highly questionable to watch this particular procedure, and 
after 4 days and nights to come up here and try to say no, it was not 
unanimous. They could have raised objection to the amounts. There were 
eight Republicans there at one time. There were nine Republicans at 
another time. They know how to raise objections to the bill. They know 
how to vote no. And we have had divided reports in the past.
  For example, on the product liability bill, I worked on that much 
longer than this. But they voted me down 16 to 4. So we live in the 
real world. If we oppose a bill, we vote no, even if it means 
disagreeing with the chairman. Do not distort the amount and come now 
with this kind of description, ``Well, it was just you know Hollings, 
and the centers, and I did not pay attention, and I think I ought to 
confess.'' The confession was to me last month when he came, and said, 
``I don't like what happened in December with GATT and it brings out a 
new issue regarding subsidies. And I am going to have to oppose it,'' 
when actually he has been leading the way for subsidies in the aircraft 
industry. This is a subsidy bill. Yes; let us call it subsidies. It is 
for all America's technologies, not just one single industry in the 
distinguished Senator's backyard.
  I think it ought to be brought into focus as to really what is going 
on, and not mislead the colleagues, ``Well, I do not know. It just 
passed by, and we just wanted to honor the gentleman and let it by 
because he was the chairman.'' That is not the case whatsoever.
  I yield the remainder of my time, and I move to table the amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Simon). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for 
the majority leader at his request.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, could I make a couple of comments before 
we go to the rollcall vote?
  I want to say, Mr. President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is for a quorum call.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I continue to suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only first degree floor amendments 
remaining in order to S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, and that 
they be subject to second-degree amendments which are relative to the 
first-degree amendment to which it is offered, and that no motion to 
recommit be in order during the pendency of this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader yield for that 
purpose? The majority leader has the floor. Does the majority leader 
yield for the purpose of questioning the presence of a quorum?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; I do. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that, in connection with that 
request, I might have a minute to speak before we vote on that tabling 
motion.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I make the same request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader yield for that 
purpose?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I could ask my colleagues, then, if 
they would let me get the agreement, and I will propound a separate 
request that Senator Chafee be recognized for 1 minute and then Senator 
Hollings be recognized for 1 minute, and then we vote on the tabling 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the list of amendments to which I 
referred in the agreement is contained in a document that has been sent 
to the desk. So the list of amendments will be printed. Each one of the 
two sides prepared their list, and we combined them.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chafee be recognized for 1 
minute and, upon the completion of his remarks, Senator Hollings be 
recognized for 1 minute, and upon the completion of Senator Hollings' 
remarks, the Senate vote on Senator Hollings' motion to table the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I listened to the presentation of the 
Senator from South Carolina just a few minutes ago, which was in effect 
a total attack on the Senator from Missouri. He did not address the 
amendment or the concerns of the Senator from Missouri. He indulged in 
a group of character labeling, referring to the ``sly way'' in which 
the Senator from Missouri proceeded.
  We all know the Senator from Missouri very well in this body, and I 
think it is inappropriate that the Senator from South Carolina used the 
language he did. I think that it is not fitting. It is certainly not 
fitting in a description of the Senator from Missouri we know. I just 
wanted the body to know how strongly I felt about the approach of the 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Record will be printed there, and I 
constrained myself, I can tell you that right now. I referred to the 
facts, and he does not like being corrected by way of facts. The reason 
one uses the word ``monkeyshines,'' it is a polite expression maybe for 
hypocrisy, for the simple reason that you cannot come moving in 
Sematech for the semiconductor industry, moving if you please for the 
private aircraft industry, going along with the sales and everything 
else, and come on this bill and say, with technology, now that this is 
a whole new venture. We know it is not a new venture.
  The langauge of the Senator from Missouri used in presenting his own 
bill--I did not see any descriptive way other than to say exactly what 
happened. I know how it is presented, but I stand by everything I said. 
I know the rules of the Senate, and I am sorry you resent it. I resent 
your resentment.
  Look to the language the Senator from Missouri used in presenting his 
own bill--I did not see any descriptive way other than to say exactly 
what happened. I know how it is presented, but I stand by everything I 
said. I know the rules of the Senate, and I am sorry you resent it. I 
resent your resentment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 
Dodd], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from Arkansas 
[Mr. Pryor], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], the 
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], and the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Helms], are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--43

     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Campbell
     Craig
     Dodd
     Durenberger
     Helms
     Inouye
     Pryor
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1494) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for S. 
4, the National Competitiveness Act.
  S. 4 is a ``jobs bill' for the future. It is the first building block 
of the information superhighway. To remain competitive as a nation, we 
must recognize that the jobs of the future are going to be in 
technology. We have the opportunity to lay that groundwork with this 
bill. We will be cheating ourselves and the future of our children if 
we allow this opportunity to pass us by.
  S. 4 emphasizes research and development and encourages public/
private partnerships. This effort to revitalize our economic base will 
ensure American competitiveness in the global economy. Strengthening 
Federal support for civilian technology and manufacturing will promote 
economic growth, U.S. competitiveness, and create jobs.
  The programs in S. 4 are specifically targeted to small- and mid-
sized manufacturers who create the new, high-wage jobs our country 
needs.
  This bill is sound policy. It is a wise investment in America's 
economic future. It should be noted, Mr. President that S. 4 will not 
add one penny to the Federal deficit because all spending will be 
funded within the hard freeze on discretionary spending. Most of the 
funding comes from the reallocation of our post-cold-war R&D budget.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues that the 
National Competitiveness Act presents us with the opportunity to do 
something very exciting for the future of this country. We have the 
chance to plant the seeds of a technological policy today that will 
grow and develop into a strong and competitive economy tomorrow.


                    the national competitiveness act

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to S. 
4, the National Competitiveness Act. Every Member of this body 
unquestionably supports the goals of S. 4--to make the United States a 
more competitive nation worldwide. Many of us differ, however, on how 
to achieve this goal.
  S. 4 promises bigger, more intrusive Government at a time when we 
should be reducing Government and removing the handcuffs that restrict 
small business. This bill doubles the size of the Commerce Department. 
It triples the size of one of its agencies, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology. S. 4 creates or expands at least six programs 
within the Commerce Department and establishes three new advisory 
boards.
  The underlying assumption of S. 4 is that the Federal Government, 
rather than the free market, is better suited to determine winners and 
losers in high-technology industries. This logic is fundamentally 
flawed and will do little to enhance U.S. competitiveness. In fact, the 
only increased competition we will see, if S. 4 is enacted, will be 
between Members of Congress and special interest groups fighting for 
pork-barrel projects. And mark my words, precious taxpayers dollars 
will flow to projects, not based on merit but on the skill of the 
special interests and politicians. If anyone doubts me, I've got a 
courthouse in Brooklyn to show them.
  The Government can play an important role in promoting U.S. 
competitiveness. But that role is not to handpick new industries to 
subsidize. The key to improving the ability to U.S. businesses to 
compete globally is to unshackle them: reduce taxes which punish 
businesses for being successful, cut Federal spending to reduce the 
deficit, eliminate regulatory burdens, and provide legal reform.
  First, we must categorically reject higher taxes, and call for 
specific tax reductions. The old arguments against tax increases are as 
valid as they've always been. High taxes bleed an economy of its 
productive power. They strip individuals of incentive and devalue their 
work.
  We should not only reject tax hikes, but we should also move to 
reduce tax rates on labor income and capital formation. Payroll, income 
tax, and other tax cuts would reduce the cost of hiring workers and 
introducing new equipment. Cutting these taxes would also stimulate 
savings, investment, and productivity. And unlike targeted subsidies, 
tax relief would allow private funds to flow to their most productive 
uses.
  Second, we must balance the Federal budget. The Congress must be 
prevented from buying special interest support with cash funded from 
debt. Our Nation is faced with what Thomas Jefferson called ``the stark 
choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.''
  Last week, the Senate let an historic opportunity pass by in failing 
to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We do not 
have to raise taxes or gut spending programs to balance the Federal 
budget, as the naysayers would have us believe.
  I have a plan called ``Families First'' which would balance the books 
in 8 years by capping the growth of Federal spending at 2 percent 
annually. At the same time, it provides and pays for several incentives 
for families to save and businesses to invest. Our debt is an unfair 
burden placed on our future. It is a failure of political will. It is a 
betrayal of moral commitments. We must end this legacy of excess.
  Third, we must enact regulatory reform. Unnecessary regulations 
impede the ability of our Nation's businesses to compete with foreign 
producers, create jobs, and invest in ways that will increase 
productivity.
  The President and Congress should establish a Federal regulatory 
budget and estimate the employment impact of regulations before they 
take effect. A regulatory budget means that the Government would place 
a limit on the total estimated cost imposed on the economy each year by 
all Federal regulations.
  Vice President Gore's report on reinventing Government cites a 1993 
study which concluded that the cost to the private sector of complying 
with regulations is ``at least $430 billion annually--9 percent of our 
gross domestic product.'' It is essential that the Government take 
steps to unleash the competitive potential of business by removing the 
reams of Federal redtape that binds it.

  Fourth, we must enact strong liability reform. Each year, Americans 
spend more on lawyers than our top 200 corporations earn in profits. 
This propensity to litigate takes it toll on U.S. businesses, as the 
costs associated with exposure to lawsuits drive some firms out of 
business or into bankruptcy.
  One survey comparing liability costs of U.S. businesses with those of 
our foreign competitors found that America spends five times as much as 
its major industrial competitors on personal injury wrangling as a 
share of its economy, and that the gap is widening rather than 
narrowing. American liability costs are 15 times greater than in Japan 
and 20 times greater than in Europe. This added cost makes U.S. 
products more expensive and diverts funds from jobs and research and 
development.
  By driving up prices and hindering product innovation, our current 
tort system impedes American competitiveness. Congress should pass 
product liability reform and other tort reform legislation to limit 
punitive damages and streamline court procedures to encourage 
settlement. We must ease the burden of liability that closes factory 
doors.
  With the cold war at a close, we face a new international reality. 
Success will not be measured primarily by a military balance or control 
of strategic geography. It will be counted and accumulated in the 
currency of commercial competitiveness. In this new international 
situation, high taxes and unreasonable regulation are forms of 
unilateral disarmament. They handicap our efforts to compete in open 
markets. They slow our ability to respond to change. They surrender our 
advantages even before we start.
  I am committed to working with my colleagues to create an environment 
in which high-technology industries can thrive. New businesses will not 
grow when they are overtaxed or burdened by excess litigation and 
regulation. Correcting these problems will do more to enhance U.S. 
competitiveness than any Big Government outreach program.


         murkowski amendment of risk- and cost-benefit analysis

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
Murkowski amendment on risk- and cost-benefit analysis of regulatory 
actions.
  While many of us believe that the protection of human health and the 
environment is important, we also recognize that the cost of this 
protection must be considered in the development of environmental 
policy.
  However, risk is a complex and relatively new tool and we must 
proceed cautiously. As we set priorities, we must be more mindful of 
the costs and burdens to States, municipalities, industry, and private 
citizens. We also must have a commitment to the American people to 
maintain the environmental progress we have achieved during the last 20 
years.
  Also, let me remind all of my colleagues that Executive Order 12286, 
written under the Clinton administration, already requires a full cost 
and benefit assessment of every major Federal regulation.
  Let me quote from the order:

       Each agency shall assess the costs and the benefits of the 
     intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and 
     benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a 
     regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the 
     benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.

  Let's remember, risk analysis has a simple purpose. That is to 
protect our environment. It must never become--as I suspect some hope 
it will become--a way to gut environmental laws and regulations. Just 
the opposite--it is a way to set priorities and protect the environment 
more effectively.
  In my committee, we are currently addressing the use of risk analysis 
in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and I would ask the Members consider 
our approach to risk analysis and hold off on consideration of this 
issue until the Safe Drinking Water Act is up for consideration.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.


                           amendment no. 1485

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the Economic and 
Employment Impact Act amendment, so I am pleased to be a cosponsor.
  I think Members of Congress should be fully informed of the impact of 
proposed bills. Whether the impact is good or bad in employment terms, 
it should be reliable information that is readily available.
  Often, Congress acts without gauging the negative impact of 
legislation on businesses and on State and local governments. Coming 
from county government as I do, I know how frustrating it is to deal 
with the expensive requirements thrust on local government.
  Requiring Federal agencies to provide an impact statement for 
regulatory actions is also an important step.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the National Competitiveness Act is a road 
map for continued U.S. leadership in the international economy. As an 
original cosponsor of this legislation, I want to commend Chairman 
Hollings for his unrelenting efforts to provide a blueprint for 
government-industry cooperation. He has set objectives that will ensure 
the United States maintains healthy manufacturing and technology 
sectors in the face of stiffer international competition.
  Actually, Mr. President, these two sectors are rapidly becoming 
seamless. The long-term health of the U.S. economy depends not only on 
how our country promotes technology but how we apply and disseminate 
that technology.
  American manufacturing has recently gone through a painful 
restructuring as firms cut to the bone during a recession which seemed 
endless. These cuts were on top of the steady decline in U.S. 
manufacturing that has taken place over the past two decades as 
international competition improved.
  Thankfully, the economy is now on the road to recovery. But the long-
term cost of the restructuring that took place is still not yet clear.
  The National Competitiveness Act could not have come at a more 
opportune time. Jobs in research and development were frequently the 
first cut by manufacturing companies. While these workers do not 
contribute to the monthly bottom line, their work directly benefits how 
firms will maintain their competitiveness in the future.
  Mr. President, the United States has been woefully behind the curve 
on providing assistance to small- and medium-size manufacturers. One 
reason German and Japanese companies have narrowed our technology edge 
is outright government support for their own manufacturing sectors. 
Both countries invest approximately $500 million annually on 
manufacturing assistance--much in the form of networks for small firms 
that disseminate information on new technologies and manufacturing 
processes.
  As our economy rebounds from the recession, the Federal Government 
now more than ever should be a partner with industry in developing new 
technologies. The National Competitiveness Act creates this 
partnership.
  This bill implements the President's technology initiatives by 
creating comprehensive technology development and outreach programs to 
achieve U.S. preeminence in advanced manufacturing technology within 10 
years. These programs include:

  The 21st Century Manufacturing Infrastructure program, made up of two 
core components: a new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Development 
Program and a Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
  The new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Development Program would 
support industry-led efforts to develop, refine and test advanced 
computer-controlled manufacturing systems. This program will greatly 
expand the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] 
Advanced Technology Program, which awards matching funds to companies 
and joint ventures for research in developing technologies. These 
matching funds are critical for many small firms that cannot afford all 
the research costs needed to develop these technologies.
  The Manufacturing Extension Partnership would create a nationwide 
manufacturing extension system linking the successful NIST 
Manufacturing Technology Centers with new NIST Manufacturing Outreach 
Centers and a greatly expanded NIST State Technology Extension Program 
[STEP]. This partnership will provide funds and technology expertise to 
assist states and the private sector in planning and coordinating 
technology extension activities. These technology extension activities 
will be of particular benefit to small, rural States like Vermont that 
have limited State resources.
  The Office of Technology Monitoring and Competitive Assessment, which 
will provide better information on the technological capabilities of 
our major trading partners. This office will help us learn from our 
foreign competitors so we can improve our own technological 
capabilities. To help us compete, we should learn about what our 
competitors do best.
  The Critical Technologies Financing Pilot Program, which will license 
and regulate private venture capital companies called Civilian 
Technology Investment Companies. These companies will stimulate the 
flow of investment capital to technology firms by providing equity 
financing and loans. This program will help high-tech firms clear their 
highest hurdle on the way to growth--getting capital to expand.
  The Information Technology Applications Research Program, which will 
ensure that Federal agencies work together with industry and consumers 
to develop advanced computing and networking applications. This new 
program will coordinate the activities of various Government agencies 
with the private sector to identify and promote these computer 
applications in such areas as education, manufacturing and health care.
  This legislation creates these new technology initiatives without 
adding a cent to the Federal budget deficit. The funds needed to create 
these various programs are offset by spending cuts and are well within 
the strict discretionary spending caps that Congress imposed under the 
1993 Budget Reconciliation Act.
  The National Competitiveness Act is a wise investment in America's 
future. The bill strengthens the Federal Government and the private 
sector's ability to form partnerships to improve our technological 
capabilities, manufacturing performance, and information 
Infrastructure. These technology transfer initiatives will translate 
into more high-paying jobs for Americans--an investment that will keep 
paying dividends to all of us for the rest of this decade and into the 
next century.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 4, the National 
Competitiveness Act of 1994. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this 
vitally important bill, which will renew our manufacturing base, 
promote American competitiveness in the global marketplace, and create 
jobs.
  I also want to commend the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, 
Commerce Committee Chairman Hollings, as well as his staff, who have 
worked tirelessly in bringing this critical bill to the floor.
  Mr. President, in 1991 I was a cosponsor of the High Performance 
Computing Act, which authorized the National High-Performance Computing 
Program, an innovative, Federal interagency R&D initiative.
  Title VI of S. 4 expands the scope of the HPCCI, by creating the 
Information Technology Applications Research Program. This initiative 
will furnish large economic and social benefits to Americans. 
Precommerical research conducted under title VI will complement private 
sector efforts to generate new information technology applications in 
education, health care, access to Government information, and 
electronic libraries. This type of collaboration will translate into a 
better quality of life for Americans, who will benefit from new job 
opportunities, as well as access to a wide range of new products and 
services.
  Mr. President, section 611 of title VI would authorize the 
establishment of State-based electronic libraries. This provision is 
based on a bill which I authored in the first session of the 103d 
Congress, S. 626, the Electronic Library Act of 1993.
  Section 611 authorizes the National Science Foundation, in 
consultation with other Federal agencies, to initiate a competitive, 
merit-based program to support State-based electronic--or digital--
libraries.
  Mr. President, the State-based electronic libraries which this 
legislation envisions would provide Americans access to a vast array of 
interactive, multimedia educational programs, research and 
informational data sources, and networking opportunities. They would 
deliver and provide access to a variety of data bases, statistics and 
reports developed by Federal, State, and local governments, as well as 
other information and informational services.
  These State-based electronic libraries would be available to 
Americans--in their homes, schools and communities--through public 
libraries, electronic data bases, and telecommunications systems such 
as the Internet or other publicly available networks. They also would 
provide computer program support services--including education and 
training to assist people in comprehending and utilizing computer 
technology and locating electronic information sources.
  Mr. President, properly designed, State-based electronic libraries 
can promote job creation by helping businesses find new customers and 
assisting in the development of a new class of information 
entrepreneurs.
  Properly designed, they can help people become better informed 
citizens. The information held by governments at all levels should 
become more accessible and usable.
  Properly designed, they can be a resource for parents and teachers 
who want to use technology to improve their instruction skills.
  Properly designed, they will be a place where young people want to go 
to learn to read, write, and explore.
  This last point deserves special emphasis and attention.
  Telecommunications and advanced computing technologies are viewed by 
many of us as a mixed educational blessing. We regard it as a curse 
when entertainment is the only use. It has shortened attention spans, 
dulled the capacity of our senses to imagine and create, pulled our 
communities off the street into the vortex of 100 million cathode ray 
tubes, and pushed down our verbal and writing ability.
  Public libraries--which made a relatively new technology, the book, 
available to all regardless of income--are a uniquely American 
institution. No other country has demonstrated such a commitment to 
universal education and learning.
  America's experiment with the public library was a decision by 
private and public philanthropy to endow every American with the 
opportunity to read and study. Libraries are responsible for producing 
millions of informed and prepared citizens.
  The late 21st century public library, however, has been eclipsed by 
video stores, cable television, and the ever-expanding world of 
entertainment. This year more Americans will check out video tapes at 
video stores than will check out books at public libraries.
  While we have been busy entertaining ourselves, the world has become 
more complicated and difficult. Today's American citizen--if he or she 
expects to make informed decisions--must know more, not less, than was 
needed only a generation ago.
  While we have been entertaining ourselves, the American workplace has 
changed. Never before has the correlation between the ability to learn 
and income been so strong. Never before has the need for more than just 
a strong back been such a prerequisite for economic success.
  To earn your way into the middle class today, a worker must be able 
to do far more than a generation ago. As workers become thinkers as 
well as doers, verbal skills become much more important.
  Mr. President, for the sake of our culture, our democracy, and our 
economy, we urgently need to turn this around. I believe that 
communication and computing technology--properly applied by adults who 
care about reading and writing--can help. I believe that State-based 
electronic libraries could be the resource needed by communities 
grappling with this challenge.
  Unique collaborative partnerships are possible, and the only limit is 
our imagination. Imagine, for example, a team of geography, language, 
history, or science teachers at a State-based electronic library 
forming a partnership with NASA in order to use full motion digitized 
graphics of the surface of the earth in the classroom. Imagine a 
similar partnership with the National Center for Atmosphere Research or 
one of the Department of Energy laboratories to teach science in the 
home for the school.
  Even where there is such imagination in our community, problems still 
exist. Most schools do not have adequate computers and other hardware. 
Educational software development is moving ahead, but it currently is 
difficult to keep up with changes in the market in order to make 
decisions about the utility of the growing variety of programs.
  Networking is hindered both by lack of connectivity and by 
prohibitive costs of line usage. Few schools have dedicated telephone 
lines or cable television connections into their individual 
classrooms--although recently several regional Bell operating companies 
[RBOC's] and cable multisystem operators [MSO's] have announced that 
they will provide free school links to computer networks like the 
Internet.

  In recognition of this latter problem, the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina also has introduced S. 1822, the Communications Act of 
1994, legislation which I also am proud to cosponsor. I hope to 
continue work with Chairman Hollings and Federal Communications 
Commission [FCC] Chairman Reed Hundt toward furnishing classrooms 
dedicated access--wired or wireless--to the national information 
infrastructure [NII] as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, the State-based electronic library provision in S. 4 
will provide a valuable resource for schools, businesses, and 
households.
  It would allow for prototype projects which would pull together the 
hardware, software, and networking capabilities which do exist, 
publicize and demonstrate the possibilities, and also demonstrate 
current production capabilities.
  State electronic libraries will give communities the catalyst they 
need to get and keep things moving. Acting as a storer of information, 
producer of useful software, as well as a trainer of people. State 
electronic libraries will permit the community to accomplish a critical 
goal: making certain the technology serves people and not the other way 
around.
  Mr. President, I cannot urge too strongly that the most important 
element of this entire program is to make certain that human values 
determine use. Human beings were meant to be more than efficient 
shoppers and informed selectors of the latest game or entertainment 
choice.
  In sum, Mr. President, S. 4 and title VI in particular recognize that 
high-performance computing and high-speed networking can revolutionize 
many areas of American life--especially in education--ultimately 
creating jobs, improving industrial productivity and promoting American 
competitiveness as we move toward the 21st century.
  I commend Chairman Hollings for his leadership in championing S. 4, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                 s. 4: the national competitiveness act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this 
opportunity to express my strong support for this legislation. The 
National Competitiveness Act will encourage growth in one of the 
Nation's most important economic sectors, our manufacturing base. Our 
goal is to increase productivity and promote better jobs and better 
wages for American workers.
  The need is obvious, and we have an administration that is working 
with Congress to meet it. Real wages have stagnated since the mid-
1970s, and so have family incomes. As a result, families can no longer 
count on steady improvements in their standard of living. It used to be 
part of the American dream that each generation did better than the 
preceding one, and that children could expect to do better than their 
parents; now they can barely hope to do as well, and often even that 
standard is difficult or impossible to achieve. S. 4 is designed to 
help reverse this distressing trend by encouraging investment in new 
technologies and ensuring that industry and workers have access to the 
latest advances in manufacturing.
  By expanding the successful Advanced Technology Program of the 
Commerce Department, which offers competitive grants for industry-led 
proposals, this measure will help achieve increased investment in the 
development of new technology.
  In Massachusetts, ATP is already helping to fund a range of 
innovative projects. One company is developing technology to produce 
affordable night-vision devices for law enforcement officials and those 
who suffer from night blindness. Another firm is developing improved 
techniques for speech recognition by computers. Without ATP funding, 
these companies could not afford to undertake these projects, and our 
economy would lose the benefit of these new technologies.
  To ensure that such technologies actually succeed, we must help more 
manufacturers take advantage of the latest advances. Small and medium-
sized businesses have difficulty in finding enough resources to stay 
abreast of new developments. The Department of Commerce has begun to 
address this problem by developing manufacturing extension services, 
similar to those historically provided by the Department of Agriculture 
to enable farmers to take advantage of new agricultural technology. 
These services disseminate information about new manufacturing 
techniques and practices, and help businesses implement them in the 
workplace.
  S. 4 will strengthen these services by establishing a Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership that includes regional Manufacturing Technology 
Centers, the State Technology Extension Program, and new Manufacturing 
Outreach Centers.
  S. 4 also includes important provisions for improving the National 
Information Infrastructure and developing new applications of 
technology for education, health care, and other areas, in addition to 
manufacturing. I particularly commend Senator Hollings and the Commerce 
Committee and its staff for their willingness to work with the Labor 
Committee to ensure that the Department of Education is included among 
the Federal agencies involved in this important effort, so that the 
information superhighway does not bypass the nation's schools.
  In addition to these technology programs that will be run through the 
Commerce Department, the Defense Department has established an 
extremely successful program with a comparable goal. It's called the 
Technology Reinvestment Project, and it's designed to help small and 
medium-sized defense firms make the transition to commercial markets. 
Companies in Massachusetts have taken advantage of the project, and 
many have benefited as grant winners. In addition, other firms have 
gained through the partnerships they have formed to compete in the TRP, 
even if they did not ultimately win grants.
  The Commerce Department and Defense Department programs are major 
steps in the right direction, but additional steps are also needed. To 
achieve our economic goals, we also must ensure that workers are well-
trained to use new technology in the workplace. Otherwise, there is a 
danger that the very real benefits of modernizing the economy will not 
be shared by America's workers.
  Many economists, for example, have expressed concern that the sharp 
recent increases in productivity--at annual rates of 4 percent in the 
third quarter of 1993 and 6 percent in the fourth quarter--resulted in 
gratifying gains in profits, but not in wages. If we build better 
machines, but neglect worker skills, then we will have missed one of 
the most important goals of our overall technology policy--the 
development of a high-skilled workforce.
  This legislation puts us on the right track. I commend Senator 
Hollings and his colleagues on the Commerce Committee for their 
leadership in developing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to 
support its passage.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 2 years ago, I cosponsored with Senator 
Bob Kerrey an important amendment to the intelligence authorization 
bill for fiscal year 1993, directing the administration to update its 
policy for the domestic and overseas sales of satellite imagery and 
systems. The policy at that time allowed only for the sale of very low 
resolution imagery by the commercial sector. Due to reductions in our 
industrial base, the emergence of a global commercial imagery market, 
and the growth of foreign satellite imagery competition, this policy 
was sadly out-of-date.
  Today I am pleased to announce that the administration has announced 
a new policy. It will now allow U.S. aerospace companies to sell medium 
resolution imagery in the commercial marketplace. It will also allow 
firms to sell high resolution imagery in the future. This approach 
insures that U.S. companies are able to compete on an equal footing 
with foreign competitors in the international marketplace.
  At the same time, the policy allows the Secretary of Commerce, at the 
request of the Secretary of State or Defense, to limit the sale of 
imagery when National security interests may be seriously compromised. 
Disagreements between cabinet secretaries may be appealed to the 
President for final resolution. This approach seems to strike the 
proper balance between economic and national security. It guarantees a 
stable supplier relationship between U.S. Satellite companies and its 
customers, so necessary to win the market--and it protects U.S. 
National security interests.
  Mr. President, according to experts in the Department of Commerce, 
the market for satellite imagery is expected to grow within the next 10 
years to nearly $15 billion annually. This new policy positions U.S. 
companies, the best satellite and imagery makers in the world, to not 
just compete, but to dominate this vast market.
  I am pleased that Senators Kerrey, DeConcini, and I were at the 
forefront in leading the fight to update this policy--and not just with 
the amendment 2 years ago, but with hearings, letters, and constant 
meetings under the auspices of the select committee on intelligence. We 
followed up, keep the pressure on when the bureaucracy was grinding to 
a halt, and made this policy change happen.
  Let me say a few things about the impact of this new policy. First, I 
have been watching the drawdown in defense for some years. It affects 
the industrial base, and, at some point, you can not maintain the 
critical skills necessary to build high quality systems as budget cuts 
continue. If we want to fly high quality imaging systems that work and 
are reasonable in cost to meet our National security needs, we had 
better not let the base shrink to the point where we lose the skilled 
labor force. One way to do that is to allow our satellite companies to 
compete in the global marketplace for new business. This new policy 
helps our defense and intelligence communities maintain quality 
systems.

  Let me also stress that other countries are moving into the imagery 
business. The Russians are offering imagery at 2 meter resolution, and 
several reports suggest the French may be able to offer imagery at 1-3 
meter resolution in the near future. Nevertheless, the satellite 
imagery business is a business in which we retain a competitive 
advantage. But if we do not move to dominate the market, we will lose 
it. This means we will lose high quality, high paying jobs, the type we 
want our citizens to have. This new policy will make it more likely 
that this will not happen.
  Finally, let me note that if we dominate the market, we can set the 
agenda. Better that we build, operate, and, if necessary, export under 
close supervision, these systems than that others do so. To not follow 
such a policy is to create the conditions for the uncontrolled 
proliferation and use of these systems by others--and that is not in 
our national interest.
  Mr. President, this new policy is a positive step forward. It allows 
us to compete in a potential $15 billion annual market, while at the 
same time protecting the critical flow of technology or information. 
Everyone wins, and I'm proud to have been part of this win-win effort.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S. 
4, the National Competitiveness Act of 1994.
  We won the cold war because there was a national commitment to win 
it. We dedicated the resources to the research and development and to 
the manufacturing that were required to win. That dedication produced 
the best military in the world, and much of it was produced by 
Californians.
  Now, in the post-cold-war period, we are engaged in another great 
competition, for economic prosperity. In order to successfully compete 
with out rivals around the world, we must once again have a national 
commitment to dedicate the resources we need to fight and win. And once 
again, California is ready to accept the challenge to do the research 
and development of the new technologies that will lead to the new 
industries that produce the best products in the world.
  The bill before the Senate today contains a number of provisions 
which I believe will spark our Nation's manufacturing sector and 
improve our national competitiveness.
  This legislation officially establishes the manufacturing extension 
partnership to link and strengthen existing manufacturing extension 
centers. The partnership aims to help small- and medium-size business 
learn about modern manufacturing programs. The partnership will also 
operate an information network and clearinghouse designed to provide 
information support. I believe that this kind of information 
dissemination is vital to future economic growth.
  This is not Soviet-style centrally planned economics, as opponents 
have charged. On the contrary, it is exactly the kind of economic 
policy in which we should be engaged. The private sector develops the 
technology and the public sectors assist in spreading the word.
  This is similar to an initiative I sponsored last year to create an 
economic conversion information clearinghouse within the Department of 
Commerce. Now, by dialing one telephone number, individuals and 
communities can learn all about defense conversion programs. Why not 
allow small businesses to learn about advanced manufacturing procedures 
by the same process?
  This legislation addresses the link between high-performance 
computing, high-speed networking, and American industrial 
competitiveness though the Information Technology Applications Program. 
This critical technology--a lane on the much-talked about information 
superhighway--has the potential: To improve education--by providing 
students nationwide with access to educational resources anywhere in 
the country; to improve the health care system--by furnishing better 
and more timely information to health care providers; and to increase 
workers productivity--especially in the manufacturing sector.
  Mr. President, my home State of California is a leader in high-
technology and high-technology manufacturing. And I hope that my 
colleagues know that California has fallen on hard times lately. This 
is precisely the kind of legislation that can help California out of 
this recession and help put it back on top.
  We won the cold war and we can win again, if we have the courage to 
dedicate the resources required. S. 4 is a significant step in that 
direction and for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support its 
passage.

                          ____________________