[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, under the 
previous order, S. 1458 is temporarily laid aside, and the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4) to promote the industrial competitiveness and 
     economic growth of the United States by strengthening and 
     expanding the civilian technology programs of the Department 
     of Commerce, amending the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 to enhanced the development and 
     nationwide deployment of manufacturing technologies, and 
     authorizing appropriations for the Technology Administration 
     of the Department of Commerce, including the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Danforth amendment No. 1522, to strike section 306, 
     technology financing pilot program.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original 
cosponsor of the National Competitiveness Act, legislation designed to 
create jobs, revitalize our manufacturing base, and ensure American 
competitiveness in the global economy.
  I support this legislation because it makes necessary changes in the 
Federal Government's research and development priorities to meet the 
new challenges facing the United States in the post-cold war era.
  The U.S. Federal Government devoted other two-thirds of its R&D 
budget to military endeavors throughout the cold war.
  However, the cold war is over and our future national security does 
not rest solely on our military strength.
  Instead, it is increasingly dependent on our ability to compete in 
the emerging global economy.
  The Federal Government must, therefore, begin to redirect some of its 
limited resources to civilian research and development.
  Currently, however, both the U.S. Federal Government and the U.S. 
manufacturing industry are failing to invest enough in civilian 
research and development--particularly in advanced manufacturing 
technology.
  Although the U.S. manufacturing industry has consistently generated 
about one-fifth of our Nation's gross national product, a study 
conducted by the Industrial Research Institute found that it invests 
only 3.1 percent of its total sales on research and development, and 
only one quarter of that amount on new or improved manufacturing 
processes or equipment.
  In short, this study concluded that the U.S. manufacturing industry 
has not done as well as it should in manufacturing new products based 
on technological innovations.
  Mr. President, the Clinton administration has developed a technology 
policy that would begin to redirect part of the Federal R&D budget to 
civilian research and technology, by making small yet important 
investments in areas where returns on private investments are too 
distant or uncertain for private firms to bear.
  In its report, ``Technology for America's Economic Growth, a New 
Direction To Build Economic Strength,'' the Clinton administration 
states that, while the private sector must take the lead in the 
development, application, and manufacture of new technologies, the 
Federal Government must:
  Increase its commitment to fundamental science, the foundation upon 
which all technical progress is built; forge closer working 
partnerships among industry, Federal and State governments, workers, 
and universities; and coordinate federally supported science and 
technology investments across the Federal Government.
  The National Competitiveness Act, which is the cornerstone of 
President Clinton's technology policy takes a modest and much needed 
step in reallocating our post-cold war Federal R&D budget to help small 
and medium-sized manufacturing companies with technical advice and 
product development.
  Under this legislation, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology at the Department of Commerce would pay 50 percent of each 
joint Government project selected by industry representatives and 
conducted by small and medium-sized manufacturing companies--which 
represent approximately 98 percent of our Nation's manufacturing firms.
  These important investments would help American manufacturing 
companies improve product quality, modernize manufacturing processes, 
and facilitate the rapid commericalization of products based on new 
scientific discoveries.
  More specifically, these investments would help the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology establish additional active 
cooperative R&D agreements like the one it has nurtured with the 
American Dental Association in Chicago, IL, since 1928.
  Under this agreement, the Institute and the American Dental 
Association have joined together to study the performance of dental 
equipment and supplies which represented $1.4 billion of U.S. exports 
in 1990.
  This very successful cooperative agreement has led to the development 
of composite resins for aesthetic tooth restorations, 50 dental 
material and equipment specifications, and the water-turbine handpiece 
that was later refined to today's air-driven handpiece.
  Mr. President, the National Competitiveness Act would also establish 
a new manufacturing infrastructure program. This program would include:
  An advanced technology development program to support industry-led 
efforts to develop and improve advanced computer-controlled 
manufacturing systems; and
  A manufacturing extension partnership to offer outreach and technical 
assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies.
  Finally, this legislation would create a coordinated, interagency 
program to help meet President Clinton's important goal of linking 
every school, library, hospital, and office in the United States to the 
National information infrastructure, also known as the information 
superhighway.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my 
colleagues to support the National Competitiveness Act which will help 
our Nation compete in the emerging global economy.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise on passage of S. 4, the National 
Competitiveness Act.
  The National Competitiveness Act is legislation I have cosponsored 
since it was introduced on the first day of this Congress, January 21, 
1993. This bill is one of the top five priorities for Senate Democrats 
and I am the only Republican cosponsor. My support for this measure has 
not been overlooked by my colleagues on this side of the aisle.
  I worked closely with the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senator Hollings, to 
improve this bill as it moved through the committee. Senator Hollings 
indicated a willingness to work with all the members of the Commerce 
Committee--both Democrats and Republicans on this bill.
  I also worked with Republicans on this side of the aisle to cut the 
authorization level in this bill by over $900 million over 2 years from 
the $2.8 billion in the committee passed version. In order to get 
enough Republican support for Senate passage the concerns about the 
spending levels had to be addressed.
  Because Democrats and Republicans came together in a bipartisan 
fashion we have saved this important legislation that moves Montana and 
our Nation forward in the high-technology world in which we live and 
compete with other nations.
  I think it is vital for our Nation to be the world's leader in 
advanced technologies such as information, computers, electronics, and 
new materials. This bill helps us accomplish that goal. It contains 
provisions for research and development companies, universities and 
tribal colleges in my State. It has a provision for needed research on 
so-called green buildings for environmental sensitive construction 
technologies to be developed.
  For these reasons and many more I am pleased the National 
Competitiveness Act passed the Senate. But I want to expand on an area 
I have been working on since joining the Senate just 5 years ago.
  With S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, we are taking two 
critically important steps in creating an advanced, state-of-the-art 
national information infrastructure which will substantially improve 
our economic and social welfare over the remainder of this decade and 
on into the next century.
  If, after reading or watching stories about the so-called information 
superhighway over the last few months, the public is confused about the 
Government's role in promoting a ubiquitous, state-of-the-art, feature-
rich, high-speed national telecommunications network, one should not be 
surprised. I included in this bill a number of answers to the 
Government's role in the national information infrastructure.
  With the assistance of Chairman Hollings, I was able to substantially 
modify title VI of S. 4 when it passed the Commerce Committee. This 
bill limits the role of the Government to three areas in building the 
national information infrastructure:
  First, funding basic research and development for high speed 
networks;
  Second, funding leading-edge applications in education, digital 
libraries, health care, manufacturing, and government information; and
  Third, implementing interconnection standards and interoperability 
protocols to ensure a seamless, ubiquitous network of networks.
  I also included the addition of a NASA kindergarten through 12th 
grade education program, funding for training and access to network 
capabilities, digital libraries, and government information 
applications, and other changes.
  But most importantly and significantly, the new title VI contains 
language I requested which states unequivocally a new policy that the 
Government cannot expend funds to build, own, or operate networks in 
competition with those networks available in the commercial, private 
sector. This has been a serious concern to all segments of the 
telecommunications and information industries. This bill directly and 
specifically addresses those concerns with a clear delineation and 
demarcation of the respective roles of the Government and private 
sectors in the building of America's national information 
infrastructure.
  I think we must now move forward with the next critical step in 
developing a national information infrastructure--the creation of a 
rational, procompetitive, proinvestment national telecommunications and 
information policy.
  I believe that there is a consensus developing that Government has 
become a problem and obstacle in completing a national information 
infrastructure due to the morass of regulatory and legal restrictions 
and barriers that segment and balkanize the information and 
telecommunications industries into protective enclaves created for the 
old world order in which we had one monopoly telephone company and 
three broadcast networks. That system is under tremendous pressure and 
it is time to change our national telecommunications policy in a 
comprehensive, wholistic way.

  I want to say to this body and our Nation passage of this bill is 
vital to Montana and our Nation's schools, hospitals, libraries, and 
small companies to hook up to a national information infrastructure. It 
is also vital to my small businesses in Montana and small business 
throughout the United States ability to do research and development in 
the high-technology area.
  I want to salute my good friend Senator Danforth, the ranking member 
of the Commerce Committee, for his excellent debate and good faith 
effort to resolve his differences on this bill with his colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. Thanks to his tenacity this bill has been 
improved a great deal on the Senate floor and is at an authorization 
level more in line with our need to carefully watch how the Federal 
Government spends taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.
  Passage of this high-technology competitiveness legislation makes my 
State, our Nation, and this body all winners.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, since the beginning of the 103rd 
Congress last year, S. 4 has been portrayed as a major effort that 
would improve the competitiveness of U.S. industries. A PR campaign was 
designed to make it difficult to oppose allegedly noncontroversial 
legislation to help our industries compete.
  It is evident to me that S. 4 as amended falls short of the mark. It 
is not a bill that would give the private sector the tools it needs to 
improve its competitiveness. Instead, it promotes greater Government 
involvement in the marketplace at a time when we are attempting to 
lower regulatory burdens on the private sector and to achieve 
improvements in our economy that would foster a better climate for 
business expansion.
  S. 4 gets right to the heart of the issue of Government involvement 
in the private sector. While I support more cooperation between the 
Government and the private sector, I question this kind of direct 
intervention in the private sector. In my judgment, individual 
companies can best decide how and when to dedicate resources to 
research and development needs to respond to increasing competitive 
pressures in the global marketplace. The Government just does not have 
the same ability to know where research subsidies should be channeled 
and the result is usually a serious distortion in the marketplace.
  The Republican substitute of regulatory reforms is a far better way 
to improve the competitive position of U.S. industries. The Republican 
substitute would substantially reduce Government regulation which 
seriously impacts the competitiveness of U.S. industries. These reforms 
can greatly curb administrative costs of companies which must comply 
with these regulations, thereby creating savings which can be used far 
more effectively on research and development needs.
  Mr. President, one title of the Republican substitute incorporates 
bill language I will shortly introduce that would permit the export of 
medical devices to any country which can certify the safety of the 
product. This would eliminate the current need to obtain the costly and 
lengthy FDA approval process for a product that may never be used in 
the United States. The U.S. medical device industry is the most 
competitive in the world. We should not allow the FDA to block exports 
of products that can save lives abroad and are deemed safe by other 
countries.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the Republican substitute.
  Mr. President, I reluctantly oppose S. 4 because there are companies 
and interests in my State which support these new subsidies. However, I 
cannot support the direction this bill takes us toward increased 
Government involvement.
  The relationship of this bill and the subsidies agreement we just 
agreed to at the GATT is also a central issue to this debate. I would 
like to salute the effective work of Senator Danforth on this issue. He 
correctly points out how this legislation is a product of a failed 
strategy to curb Government subsidies at the GATT. At some point a 
strategy to eliminate Government subsidies turned into one which 
permits (or greenlights) far more subsidies than appear to be 
warranted. Senator Danforth rightly questions an agreement that would 
appear to justify a subsidy war.
  S. 4 seems to be the first shot in the subsidy war. It will certainly 
spur our trading partners to increase their own subsidies. Are we then 
prepared to up the ante? Senator Danforth had intended to offer an 
amendment, which I have cosponsored, that would have placed this whole 
issue in perspective. While the amendment was not offered, Senator 
Danforth did discuss the issue during the debate. He made the point 
that we can either ignore the expected new subsidies of our trading 
partners and lose important markets for U.S. products as a result--or 
we can engage in a war of subsidies--which we have started with this 
bill--and which we can hardly afford--or win.
  The Danforth amendment would have sought the renegotiation of the 
subsidy agreement at the GATT in an attempt to restrict the use of 
Government subsidies. The other option called for the administration to 
submit a proposal that would ensure that foreign subsidies will be 
matched.
  In my judgment, S. 4 is contrary to the GATT subsidies agreement. 
While the administration will say that it sought to protect current 
U.S. research subsidies in the negotiations, and that our trading 
partners agreed, I'm not sure our trading partners were prepared for 
this kind of early significant expansion of our subsidies. Obviously 
they are hard at work crafting their own new subsidies, thus containing 
the battle we will have started by passing S. 4--the battle Senator 
Danforth so wisely warns us to oppose.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Republican 
substitute and to oppose S. 4 as reported by the Commerce Committee.


           small manufacturers' renewal and training program

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss the Small 
Manufacturers' Renewal and Training [SMaRT] Program, which is 
incorporated in section 221(f) of the floor manager's substitute 
amendment. This program is based on legislation that I introduced 
earlier this year. I want to thank the distinguished chairman, Senator 
Hollings, for working with me on this proposal.
  Senator Hollings has long been a leader in the area of technology 
transfer. Moreover, we now have a President who advocates the 
development of a coherent technology policy to enhance America's 
economic competitiveness. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
legislation that is now before the Senate. Senator Hollings' National 
Competitiveness Act will strengthen American manufacturing.
  A key element of the competitiveness strategy is the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership at the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. This partnership will bring information and technical 
assistance on the best manufacturing processes and technologies 
directly to small manufacturers.


                             smart program

  The SMaRT Program will be an experimental pilot program of 
internships for senior and graduate engineering students to work with 
small manufacturing companies. The goal of the SMaRT program is to 
expose small manufacturers to modern manufacturing technologies through 
personal contact with young scientists and engineers. Undergraduate and 
graduate science students cannot be experts in all aspects of modern 
manufacturing technology, but they will have access to the technical 
resources of their colleges and universities and the manufacturing 
outreach center.
  The SMaRT program will give young engineers and scientists experience 
in working in small companies where they will develop many of the 
skills necessary to become successful entrepreneurs. Many of these 
young people will then seek careers with small entrepreneurial 
companies. Over the long-term, this legislation will produce a larger 
community of entrepreneurs with technological expertise.
  The SMaRT program will also build stronger ties between the 
scientists and engineers in our colleges and universities and the small 
manufacturing sector. Companies will benefit by increased exposure to 
new technological ideas.
  The SMaRT Program has a number of purposes, but the primary purpose 
is to encourage and assist small manufacturing companies to adopt 
modern engineering practices. Engineering internships provide a cost-
effective way to promote the person-to-person interactions that make 
the process of technology adoption work.
  The SMaRT Program will also provide interns with unique educational 
opportunities and ease their transition to the work place. The long-
term goal of this program is to promote the development of a community 
of technological entrepreneurs in a revitalized small manufacturing 
sector.
  The SMaRT Program will be administered by the National Science 
Foundation in cooperation with the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. The NSF and NIST will have great flexibility in carrying 
out this program. The Senate expects that NSF and NIST will build on 
the cooperative relationship established through the Technology 
Reinvestment Project of the Advanced Research Projects Agency.
  Using funds appropriated to NSF for the SMaRT Program, NSF and NIST 
will make grants to local partnerships between engineering colleges and 
manufacturing extension centers, called SMaRT partnerships, which will 
use those grant funds to sponsor engineering students to work with 
small manufacturers. NSF and NIST are directed to establish eligibility 
requirements for such partnerships.
  NSF and NIST are also directed to develop requirements for grant 
proposals and for activities undertaken by SMaRT partnerships with 
those funds. Among those activities, each SMaRT partnership should 
undertake outreach activities to recruit and identify eligible small 
manufacturers and engineering students; should facilitate the placement 
of engineering students as interns with host companies; should provide 
technical orientation, training, and technical support to interns 
before and during their internships; and should report on these 
activities to NSF and NIST. Proposals should clearly specify how these 
and other required activities will be carried out.
  In sponsoring an engineering student to work as an intern, a SMaRT 
partnership may use funds provided under the SMaRT Program to subsidize 
the wages of the intern. This subsidy, the Federal share of wages, may 
not exceed the Federal minimum wage. The host company must match this 
by providing its share of the intern's wage, which may not be less than 
the Federal minimum wage. At most, the Federal Government will provide 
50 percent of the intern's wages, in which case the intern will earn no 
less than twice the Federal minimum wage, which is a competitive wage 
for such employment. This provides an incentive for companies to host 
interns and gives them a stake in those interns. The Senate expects 
that after hosting several interns, a company will see the benefits of 
having interns and be willing to pay their full wages without subsidy. 
For this reason, this section imposes a limit that the total Federal 
subsidy for all interns at any one company may not exceed 2 years wages 
at the Federal minimum wage.
  The Senate believes that engineering students working as interns 
under the SMaRT Program should receive basic benefits including health 
insurance. The simplest approach is for colleges to maintain the 
student status and health coverage of interns, perhaps by designating 
the internship as an independent study course.

  The SMaRT Program has much in common with the cooperative education 
tradition. Students enrolled in cooperative education programs 
alternate periods of study with periods of work for private companies. 
This serves to enhance the education of those students and to smooth 
the transition from college to work. The SMaRT Program is not meant to 
compete with cooperative education but to serve a complementary 
purpose. Its primary emphasis is on meeting the immediate technological 
needs of the small manufacturers.
  The SMaRT Program has the flexibility to be compatible with 
cooperative education programs. Internships under the SMaRT Program 
could form a part of the work experience of cooperative education 
students. The Senate encourages those submitting proposals under this 
program to develop programs that integrate internships under the SMaRT 
Program into their cooperative education programs, recognizing that 
these proposals must not compromise the purposes of the SMaRT Program.
  The SMaRT Program meets the needs for technological renewal in the 
small manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy, and will serve regions 
of greatest economic need. Those include regions of slow or negative 
economic growth, regions where the manufacturing sector is weak or 
constitutes a disproportionately small portion of the overall economy, 
and regions of outmigration that reflect limited economic 
opportunities.
  Companies are eligible to host interns under the SMaRT Program only 
for manufacturing operations in the United States. Only small 
manufacturers--those with 500 or fewer employees--may host interns 
under the SMaRT Program. Especially in rural regions, many 
manufacturers are very small, having 100 or fewer employees. SMaRT 
partnerships are directed to give special attention to recruiting and 
assisting these very small manufacturers.
  The SMaRT Program will complement the activities of the manufacturing 
extension partnership at NIST that provide technological assistance to 
small manufacturing companies. Because these companies often have great 
technological needs, the Senate believes that only the most experienced 
students, normally seniors and graduate students, should be eligible. 
This experience is especially important to very small companies.
  As an experimental pilot program, the SMaRT Program requires a well 
thought-out reporting system to provide the information necessary to 
evaluate and learn from its experiences. But reporting requirements 
should not impose major burdens on those participating in the SMaRT 
Program. NIST and NSF should take care to develop reporting 
requirements that produce useful information on whether the activities 
undertaken by SMaRT partnerships meet the purposes of the SMaRT 
Program. To collect this information, SMaRT partnerships should require 
brief reports from the intern and the host company for each internship. 
NSF and NIST should examine the reports they receive to evaluate what 
factors lead to greatest success in meeting the objectives of the SMaRT 
Program.

  Many groups of individuals are under-represented in the engineering 
professions, including women, blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans. 
The Senate urges NSF and NIST to develop criteria for encouraging the 
participation of students from under-represented groups as interns in 
the SMaRT Program.


                     Technology and Competitiveness

  Our international competitors have had technology policies in place 
for years, and it shows. In technology after technology, commanding 
U.S. leads have evaporated and, in too many cases, we are now playing 
catch-up.
  With a basic research engine that is the envy of the world, there is 
no excuse for the United States to fall behind in critical commercial 
technologies. We have been very effective at expanding frontiers of 
human knowledge and understanding, but have often failed to move 
technological innovations to the market.
  We need to take steps to build on our strong foundation of basic 
research by developing low-cost mechanisms to transfer modern and 
advanced technology to the private sector. This is the key to 
President's Clinton's technology program and the key to increasing 
economic growth in America.


                           American industry

  Large companies like IBM and General Motors have been shrinking and 
splitting apart. Once the mainstay of the American economy, they are 
losing jobs and investing less in research and development. Small 
companies must take up the slack.
  However, small companies face particularly difficult obstacles in 
adopting modern technology. Many small firms simply cannot afford to 
have full time engineers and scientists on staff. As a consequence, 
many small firms have a difficult time selecting and adopting modern 
technology to stay competitive. Even high technology companies often 
lack the expertise in efficient manufacturing processes that is 
essential to commercial success.
  That need not be the case. In Fargo, ND, Gary Zespy runs a small 
manufacturing company. Last year, he wanted to improve his quality 
control systems. Fortunately, Gary could turn to the Institute for 
Business and Industrial Development at North Dakota State University, 
which helped him develop a quality control system.

  Gary Zespy is lucky because his factory is near a manufacturing 
outreach center at North Dakota State University. Manufacturing 
outreach programs including the SMaRT internship program can bring that 
luck to other firms--breaking the barriers of time and information.
  By placing interns directly with small companies, the SMaRT Program 
helps overcome this knowledge barrier and multiplies the ability of 
manufacturing outreach centers to do their job.


                              rural areas

  The SMaRT Program provides a way to help keep young scientists and 
engineers in rural areas by creating opportunities for them to 
demonstrate their value to local, small manufacturers. It will 
contribute to the long-term economic revitalization of these areas by 
combatting head-on the problem of rural outmigration.
  The SMaRT Program is based on successful experiences in a pilot 
program at Iowa State University. Cooperative education requires a 
major commitment from an employer to hire a student--or, more often, 
two students who alternate in and out of a single position--for 2 or 3 
years. This requirement poses a significant cost obstacle for many 
small companies.
  A pilot program at the Iowa State University Extension Service's 
Center for Industrial Research and Service is helping to eliminate that 
obstacle. This program has placed a handful of engineering students 
each summer with small manufacturing companies across the State of 
Iowa. One student helped a small manufacturer design a new, more 
efficient popcorn machine. The president of another company described 
working with another student as ``a win-win situation for both of us.'' 
Demand for interns has far outstripped the budget of this small 
program.
  I am pleased that my legislation has been incorporated into the 
National Competitiveness Act, and that it will help bring small 
manufacturers together with engineering students to improve the 
technological performance of the manufacturing sector of the U.S. 
economy.


                                title ii

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to draw 
his attention to one aspect of S. 4 in order to emphasize its 
importance to the purposes of this bill and to clarify its 
interpretation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be happy to discuss the provision with the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. One of the functions of the manufacturing extension 
centers is to increase the efficiency of our manufacturing industries 
through the use of environmentally sound manufacturing. It would 
accomplish this by informing manufacturers about the techniques and 
technologies that would reduce their waste and increase their energy 
efficiency, and it would help them adopt these techniques and 
technologies.
  Both the Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing 
Technology and Manufacturing Outreach Centers will provide source 
reduction and energy conservation assessments to interested 
manufacturers. The clearinghouse will have information on manufacturing 
processes that minimize waste and negative environmental impact.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with the Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. These functions will increase competitiveness because 
environmentally friendly manufacturing techniques are, in many cases, 
also more efficient. Our companies will increase their international 
competitiveness by adopting these techniques.
  In addition, this legislation will increase the market for 
environmental technology which is a high growth, $200 billion a year 
industry.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator makes a good point.
  Mr. KERRY. Extension agents from the Regional Centers for the 
Transfer of Manufacturing Technology and the Manufacturing Outreach 
Centers will be trained in disseminating information on modern 
manufacturing technologies, including those for source reduction. In 
order to train extension workers about environmentally sound techniques 
and technologies, the Commerce Department will cooperate with other 
appropriate agencies. Furthermore, the Regional Centers for the 
Transfer of Manufacturing Technology and the appropriate Manufacturing 
Outreach Centers should include at least one person from each center 
who specializes in collecting and disseminating information concerning 
environmentally sound techniques and technologies.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with the Senator's interpretation.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished chairman for that clarification.


                      fastener industry amendments

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. Chairman, Senator Burns has proposed three fastener 
industry-related amendments to S. 4. The first amendment addresses 
``minor nonconformance''; the second addresses steel testing 
requirements; and the third deals with the issue of ``comingling.'' 
These two amendments were included in the House-passed version of this 
bill. These two amendments are fairly noncontroversial, and I strongly 
support their inclusion in S. 4.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. My colleague from Illinois is correct on this point. 
Those two amendments are included in both the House and the Senate 
versions of the bill, and I would not expect that they would be 
controversial in conference.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank the chairman. These amendments are very important 
to the fastener industry in my State and across the Nation.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, for the purpose of establishing the intent 
of Congress with respect to S. 4, I would like to direct two questions 
to the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, Mr. Hollings.
  First, am I not correct that the provisions of section 207(a) of the 
High Performance Computing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-194--which is 
redesignated section 209(a) by title VI of S. 4--will continue to apply 
to the entire High Performance Computing Act as amended by title VI of 
S. 4?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. WALLOP. Second, am I not correct that the reference to law 
enforcement in section 203(f)(1)(F) of the High Performance Computing 
Act of 1991, as amended by title VI of S. 4, does not create any new 
mission authority, and it only directs the Department to engage in 
activities pursuant to its existing mission authority.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. WALLOP. I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Hollings.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, section 306 of the National Competitiveness 
Act establishes at the Commerce Department's Technology Administration 
a new Office of Technology Monitoring and Competitiveness Assessment. 
The purpose of this new office is to collect, evaluate, assess, and 
disseminate information on a range of activities designed to help the 
United States improve its competitive position with respect to our 
foreign trading partners.
  May I ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation a question about the mission of this new 
office?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be glad to respond to the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished chairman. Would the chairman 
agree that the responsibilities of the new office would include 
analysis of the degree to which foreign programs and policies may 
provide a climate which is more attractive to technology innovation 
than those in the United States? In addition, would the chairman not 
agree that it would be useful for the office to obtain data on how 
foreign countries may attract U.S. industries to relocate overseas?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Utah for his remarks. One 
mission of the new Office of Technology Monitoring and Competitiveness 
Assessment is to assess the extent to which there are barriers to 
global competitiveness, and certainly actions by foreign governments to 
attract companies to relocate overseas are a tremendous barrier which 
the new office should examine.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the chairman for his assurances. Increasingly, 
American industry is seeking to move overseas to find a climate which 
may be more favorable to producing the goods and services which 
traditionally have been America's hallmark.
  One example which readily comes to mind is the medical device 
industry, a strong, viable industry which is one of the United States 
most competitive in the international marketplace. It is comprised of a 
range of manufacturers, small to large, many of whom are located in 
Utah and all of whom are contributing to a positive trade balance in 
devices. This is something of which the United States can be proud. I 
hope the new office can look at this.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator, 
and do agree that this is something they should look at.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to express my concern over the deletion 
of certain provisions from S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act of 
1993. The stricken sections of the House-passed version of this bill 
would have provided for the establishment at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology [NIST] of prototypes for advanced computer-
integrated manufacturing systems and electronic networks linking 
manufacturing systems. In addition to these programs, I would like to 
have seen the inclusion of prototypes for clean manufacturing systems. 
The United States and New Jersey in particular, is at the forefront of 
promoting green technology that could someday be exported throughout 
the world.
  Federal support for clean manufacturing, as was included in S. 4's 
counterpart in the House, will significantly advance research 
initiatives at our universities, who are working in partnership with 
industry and Government. I hope that when this bill goes to conference, 
the relevant sections of H.R. 840 addressing advanced manufacturing 
technology programs will be retained.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for his interest in the development 
of technology that would contribute significantly to our long-term 
economic growth and employment. I will be discussing this matter with 
my colleagues in the conference.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from South Carolina and I have discussed the 
FBI's digital telephone proposal when it surfaced in 1992. We both 
recognize that the digital telephony proposal is controversial. Am I 
correct that nothing in this bill promotes or has anything to do with 
that digital telephony proposal?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. The administration recently announced that it is moving 
forward with its Clipper Chip or Key Escrow Encryption Program. Am I 
correct that nothing in this bill promotes or has anything to do with 
that Key Escrow Encryption Program?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will be voting for the Danforth amendment 
to eliminate funding for the Civilian Technology Investment Program. I 
fully agree that we need to see more investment in small high-
technology firms. In the past, many of these firms have been denied 
access to risk capital for critical technology development projects, 
especially during their early stages of development.
  However, I am concerned about proceeding too rapidly in creating 
programs which involve Government financing for these high-risk 
ventures. The Civilian Technology Investment Program may well be a 
useful idea, and I certainly support SBA's Small Business Investment 
Company Program upon which this new venture capital program is based. 
However, I believe we should give the market and existing initiatives a 
chance before we embark on this expensive and risky partnership, or in 
some cases competition, with the private sector.
  This program was crafted in response to a problem that emerged 
because of the recession of the last few years. When the economy is 
sour, venture capital for the most risky of ventures dries up. But as 
we move out of what has been a difficult economic time, there is and 
there will be more venture capital available across the private sector.
  In addition, Congress only last year passed major new tax incentives 
that should go far to revitalize the flagging venture capital market. 
Primarily because of the work of my friend Senator Bumpers, last year's 
budget bill contained tax breaks that would encourage capital to move 
into risky, startup businesses. The new law allows a taxpayer who holds 
certain types of stock in small businesses to exclude 50 percent of any 
taxable gain on the stock. In addition, any individual or C corporation 
can elect not to recognize gain on the sale of publicly traded 
securities if the proceeds from such sale are rolled over into stock or 
a partnership interest in a small business investment company.
  These provisions were designed to--and should--push more private 
money toward investments in small, startup companies. I prefer to see 
what effect these incentives have on the availability of venture 
capital before we resort to allowing the Federal Government to throw 
public money into the venture capital pool.
  Finally, Mr. President, although I support the overall goals of S. 4, 
the National Competitiveness Act, I am compelled to vote for the 
Danforth amendment on the grounds that it places some check on the 
overall spending levels in this bill. I voted against tabling the Brown 
amendment last week which would have reduced the amount authorized in 
this bill from $2.8 billion to $1.5 billion. The Danforth amendment 
would bring the amount authorized in the bill down to $1.8 billion. The 
best thing we can do to help small firms looking for venture capital is 
to ensure that we have a robust economy. And the best way to do that is 
to reduce the deficit. This amendment helps us move one step closer to 
that goal.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the bill before the 
Senate. This bill is nothing more than the Senate's attempt to 
micromanage industrial policy by passing out pork to select industries. 
This is bad policy and it is not in the best interest of our Nation.
  Why are we creating this new layer of Government involvement with 
industry? Private enterprise, not Government, is best able to respond 
to the marketplace and conduct the research and development from which 
new products will emerge.
  The purpose of this bill, S. 4, is expressed in its long title:

       A bill to promote the industrial competitiveness and 
     economic growth of the United States by strengthening and 
     expanding the civilian technology program of the Department 
     of Commerce, amending the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 to enhance the development and 
     nationwide deployment of manufacturing technologies, and 
     authorizing appropriations for the Technology Administration 
     of the Department of Commerce, including the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. President, instead of doing all that the bill's title says, 
wouldn't it be easier and more effective to encourage competitiveness, 
promote research and development, and spur economic growth by lowering 
the capital gains tax, and remove other impediments to creativity and 
investment?
  Wouldn't such an across-the-board incentive allow American industry 
as a whole?
  The answer is ``yes.''
  So why does the bill before us authorize a $2.8 billion grant program 
that will favor only certain companies and universities that are grant 
recipients? The answer is pork.
  The National Competitiveness Act is said to be designed to encourage 
the growth of the information superhighway. Well, if we pass this bill, 
the only thing the highway will carry is pork.
  The country indeed needs policy that will encourage manufacturing 
growth and the development and deployment of advanced technology. Those 
are noble goals. But I do not believe they will be accomplished by 
passing out the taxpayers' money.
  The committee report notes:

       Of the approximately 360,000 smaller American manufacturers 
     those who employ 500 or fewer workers) most have not advanced 
     in adoption of modern manufacturing technology and methods 
     from where they were a generation ago. Only 6 in 10 of them 
     employ advanced technology, compared with 9 out of 10 plants 
     with more than 500 employees. . . . Clearly, if we are to 
     reshape American's manufacturing outlook, we must recognize 
     that it is these smaller companies which most need the 
     efficiency and flexibility inherent in modern advanced 
     manufacturing. And then having recognized the challenge, we 
     must meet it.

  I agree 100 percent. It appears we don't disagree with the problem or 
the goals. We disagree with the remedy.
  I do not believe that creating 100 manufacturing extension centers 
funded by the Government will solve the problem. That money could be 
put to much better use by private industry itself. I have full faith 
and confidence that the spirit of inventiveness that has characterized 
generations of Americans could be fostered without 100 extension 
centers.
  Mr. President, this bill uses impressive and high-sounding terms such 
as technology grants, extension centers, and manufacturing advisory 
committees. The fact of the matter is all those terms are just a 
synonym for pork.
  If we are serious about encouraging industrial development, we may 
have the tools to accomplish that goal. But this bill does not do that. 
It creates a new gravy train with the Secretary of Commerce in the 
engine car to deliver pork to select industries.
  Mr. President, we can't buy competitiveness. We have tried to buy our 
way out of every domestic problem we have faced. We have failed 
miserably in almost every area. It appears that competitiveness and 
industrial research and development have become the newest frontier for 
the failed impresarios of the money game.
  Unfortunately, this bill does little more than start the pork train 
on its way, and I have no choice but to oppose its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to request the yeas and nays en bloc on the Danforth amendment 
and the final passage of H.R. 820 with one show of hands serving as a 
sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Now I ask for the yeas and nays en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We are checking with the leadership. Do they want a 
quorum call for a few minutes?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I do not want a delay.
  I ask for the regular order to proceed to the vote.

                          ____________________