Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor foreign operations

Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, I do not believe that this is controversial because it has been addressed in the past by the committee and by the Senate. Last year, the committee report included report language prohibiting the use of funds for the Medicare-Medicaid databank. This year, the House fiscal year 1996 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations report again makes it clear that the House committee does not intend for funds to be used for this function, which could generate both needless paperwork and fines for businesses across America. I just want to make the record clear that the Senate continues to agree.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in response to my distinguished friend from North Carolina--and I know North Carolina very well--I would challenge the distinguished Senator to name the industry that refused to come to North Carolina, or to Tennessee, on account of product liability. Specifically, the State of North Carolina, as well as my State of South Carolina, has foreign industry galore. They talk about the international competition, and within that international competition we just located, with respect to investment Hoffman LaRoche from Switzerland, the finest medical-pharmaceutical facility that you could possibly imagine; with respect to the matter of photographic papers, Fuji has a beautiful new plant there; and we have Hitachi, a coil roller bearings, and we have over 40 industries from Japan and 100 from Germany. The distinguished Presiding Officer has 98 Japanese plants in Tennessee. In my 35 years dealing with industry and bringing industry into South Carolina, they have yet to mention product liability. Now, let us get to the trial lawyers. Bless them, because if there is a lazy crowd of bums, it is the corporate lawyers that sit downtown here and infest this particular democratic body with billable hours-- billable hours. All they have to do is get up and see a Senator, and they send a bill. All they have to do is sit down and say something, and it is $200, $300, $400, or $500 an hour--the whole crowd up here in Washington. They have hardly ever tried a case in court. Let us go right to the particular product liability cases. The American trial bar association--the American Bar Association--is opposed to this measure. The Senator from North Carolina should know that. The Association of State Legislators have opposed it. The Association of State Supreme Court Judges have opposed it. The attorneys general have come here and law professors from all around the country have come here to oppose it. The reason they have come is that this is the most dastardly measure you could possibly imagine. Talk about balancing how they got together, why not apply this bill to the manufacturing? It is all applied to the injured parties who have difficulty getting a lawyer in the first instance. You have to have a chance to get in court, not just your day in court. But to get to court, you have to be willing to take on the expenses--not billable hours, but the risk of winning or losing. Under the contingency arrangement unless 12 jurors find in their behalf and the courts of appeal affirm that particular finding, you don't get paid. So it is not willy-nilly. They mention a coffee case--they have anecdotal nonsense--the coffee case in New Mexico where the lady dropped the hot coffee. She got third-degree burns. She went to the hospital for an extended period of time. But the trial judge cut back on that particular award. They never mentioned that. We have a good judiciary there in the State of New Mexico. So we can go into these cases. But to come here, as I heard one particular statement just earlier this afternoon, that the President of the United States was threatening a veto because he was bankrolled by the trial lawyers--I wish every one would look up and see the Senator who made that statement. He is an expert in bankrolling. That is all I can say. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, may I proceed for 5 minutes?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have been working with the other side of the aisle to see if there was some way to get additional operating resources for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency or ``ACDA'' as it is called. ACDA's appropriation in this bill has been reduced to $35,700,000, down from its current level of $50,378,000, and far below the President's request of $75,300,000. This amendment frees up approximately $2,700,000 in prior year appropriations that are earmarked in the fiscal year 1995 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act for the Chemical Weapons Convention. It allows these resources to be used instead for ACDA salaries and expenses. The amendment stipulates that these funds not be used to increase ACDA's staff. However, given the current funding situation that I have outlined, adding staff does not appear to be a viable option for this agency. Mr. President, we have tried to find an acceptable offset or list of offsets to provide ACDA with more than the $2,700,000 in this amendment. I know that was the wish of our distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, and Senator Pell, our former Foreign Relations Committee chairman. I believe that was the hope of the chairman of our committee, Senator Hatfield. However, this has not proven to be possible and this amendment represents the best we can do at this time. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is right on target. I have been a champion and remain a champion of Legal Services. I have learned over my 20-some, almost 30 years now that from time to time there are excesses. In the early days, we were paying for everybody to come up here and break up the Congress. And Senator Javits and I, we put the provisions in there that cases should relate to domestic, to landlord-tenant cases, employment cases, and everything else. This, of course, is a domestic case, but it is a case wherein a very responsible entity, namely the Indian tribe, had their own counsel and everything else of that kind. We are not going to use Legal Services moneys to sue the Governor of New Jersey. We are not going to use Legal Services to sue where the others have attorneys. This particular corporation, started by Associate Justice Lewis Powell when he was head of the American Bar Association, is one of the finest that there is, very much needed, and we need increases. The Senator from New Mexico and I cosponsored the amendment to increase the amount for Legal Services. We are not going to get the support of the Members of Congress when these excesses are allowed to go unnoticed. I am tickled that the distinguished Senator from Idaho has raised the question. If we can get some discipline over there and against these excesses, I think it will help Legal Services overall. So I agree to the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, last week, South Carolina State University and the city of Orangeburg celebrated 100 years together. I would like to take a few moments to reflect upon this university's contributions to South Carolina and to the Nation. As remarkable as its history has been, we find, on its centennial, that S.C. State is creating an even greater story to be told in the future. For it is the products of this university, in the form of its graduates, that have made and continue to make tremendous contributions to our society. And it is the graduating classes to come that will carry the legacy into the next century. For many years, S.C. State has been a focal point of African-American education in South Carolina. The school has served as a cultural nursing ground for African-Americans inside and outside the State of South Carolina. Through its fine academic tradition and strong sense of community, it has nurtured both the intellects and the self-confidence of its students. In the beginning, the college was established as a State supported institution under the system of segregation. Sixty years later, it was to produce a student body which stood at the vanguard of the civil rights movement. As Christine Crumbo of The State writes, ``They have always been the children of tradition, the students of South Carolina State. And the breakers of tradition.'' The college opened its doors on September 27, 1896. Both of them. Its campus consisted of only two buildings, neither of which was furnished with electricity or plumbing. However, the school had plenty of what was essential: students. The original enrollment was approximately 1,000 people ranging from kindergarten to college level, and, unlike other State colleges, S.C. State was coeducational from the start. A great deal of credit goes to Thomas E. Miller, the school's first president and founding father, who fought to establish the school. He left his political career to dedicate his time and his vision to creating an independent Colored Normal Industrial Agricultural and Mechanical College. The college started out with an emphasis on agriculture. About 80 percent of the first year's students came from farm families. Though the agriculture school was phased out in 1971, it still houses the headquarters for the 1890 Research and Extension Program. This serves farmers in the spirit of the old curriculum, incorporating such branches as The Small Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance Project. Today, South Carolina State has a strong liberal arts and business concentration. Over the past 100 years, South Carolina State has gained a reputation for producing alumni of high caliber who go on to distinguish themselves in their communities, and throughout the Nation. From teachers to professional football players, from actresses to scientists, S.C. State graduates have made their mark. They are ministers, community leaders, lawyers, and college presidents; for every aspect of public life, there is an S.C. State graduate excelling in it. Included among its ranks are our own Congressional Representative James E. Clyburn; Chief Justice Ernest A. Finney, Jr., the first African-American man to serve as a State supreme court justice; and Marianna White Davis, the first African-American woman to serve on the State Commission on Higher Education. In fact, one will notice a lot of firsts among the graduating classes of S.C. State. These men and women make the most of the knowledge and self-confidence that their educations instill in them and go on to affect change in this country. At South Carolina State, the students feel a part of something that extends back to their ancestors and forward to the next generation. I commend the efforts of the faculty and administration of S.C. State to continue its tradition of excellence, and I salute the university's independent spirit. I wish them another successful 100 years.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I think I have covered some of the highlights. The real problem that we have here is, in essence, that now everyone is on the hustings out on the campaign trail talking technology, jobs, talk, talk. What we would hope is that the President would want to walk here this afternoon and that we could get an agreement not to increase ATP funding this year, not even have a freeze, but let us continue with these particular projects now ongoing and now starting to pay off, with the companies having done their fair share. The program has seen a substantial cut, but let us not have total elimination--where we have good industries working in partnership with the Federal Government successfully--and not cut them off halfway through a particular endeavor. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment restores funding for five important technology programs that are significant investments in our country's future. They focus on three critical areas: Economic growth, education, and cost-effective environmental protection. The spending we propose in this amendment is fully offset, and the Congressional Budget Office has scored that offset at providing more than is needed for the programs we restore. The distinguished Senator from Iowa has been the principal sponsor also of the offset, which deals with accelerated collection by the Federal Government. We, as cosponsors, are indebted to him for his leadership. Otherwise, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has really led the way for our Environmental Protection Technology Program. Specifically, the amendment invests five important technology programs. It restores funding for four of them: A $300 million add-back for the Department of Commerce's Advance Technology Program, which contracts with industry to speed the development of new breakthrough technologies; $32 million more for the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program at the National Telecommunication and Information Administration; an additional $4.5 million for the Technology Administration at the Department of Commerce, including $2.5 million to honor commitments under the United States-Israel Science and Technology Commission; and a $62 million addition for the Environmental Technology Initiative at the Environmental Protection Agency, an important effort to develop innovative and cost-effective ways to protect the environment. These add-backs total $398.5 million. In addition, the amendment specifies that $23 million that is already in title I of the committee amendment is to go to the Education Department's Technology Learning Challenge Program. These five programs promote innovative new technologies--technologies, Mr. President, that can improve schools, protect the environment at lower cost, and create new industries and jobs to replace employment lost through never-ending downsizing and layoffs. We must invest now to benefit from those new technologies tomorrow. This amendment does that job. The amendment fully offsets these add-backs through a provision that would significantly improve the collection of delinquent Federal debts. It puts the squeeze on deadbeats who have not repaid money owed to the Federal Government. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this provision as raising $440 million in fiscal year 1996--more than enough to cover the add-backs. Mr. President, I want to turn first to investment in new job-creating technologies. I particularly want to focus on the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce. The Advanced Technology Program contracts with companies on a cost-shared basis to speed the development of new breakthrough technologies that offer great promise for the Nation but are too untested for the regular marketplace to fully fund. Just as other Federal research and development programs work through companies to develop the technologies needed for Government missions such as defense and space, the Advanced Technology Program works with companies in support of the critical Federal mission of promoting long-term economic growth and job creation. The amendment now before the Senate provides $300 million for the ATP. The $300 million level is significantly below the $341 million available for the program just last year in 1995. Currently, H.R. 3019 provides no 1996 funds for this important program, although the committee amendment's unfunded title IV would provide $235 million to support existing awards. Mr. President, I want to talk about several points in this important program. First, we are talking here about jobs. The Advanced Technology Program supports a vital mission of Government--promoting long-term economic growth. The voters know that America faces tough economic times. Foreign competition remains fierce, American companies continue with never-ending downsizing, and voters are understandably anxious and upset. It is ironic indeed that the Government spends billions in research and development dollars each year for defense security, but we are still debating the R&D efforts to promote economic security. Increasingly, new industries, jobs, and wealth will go to those who are fastest at developing and then applying new technologies. And if we are to save as many jobs as possible in existing industries, they too need to be technologically competitive. The ATP works to turn promising laboratory ideas into practical breakthrough technologies--technologies that the private sector itself will develop into new products and processes. And, we hope, technologies that American companies and American workers will turn into products before our overseas competitors do so. The Federal Government has long worked with industry to speed the development of important new technologies. Industry-government partnerships helped start entire U.S. industries--from the telegraph and agriculture to aircraft and biotechnology to computers and the Internet. These government investments paid off enormously for the Nation and its workers. We won the race to develop those technologies. But will we win others? I started the ATP because I saw our competitors overseas moving to develop and commercialize American ideas before we could, in areas such as superconductivity. And the race continues. Numerous small ATP winners tell us that their foreign competitors are often no more than 12 to 18 months behind them. This is not surprising. While American firms have difficulty getting private capital for long-term research that will not pay off quickly, other governments invest heavily in programs to support civilian technology. This year, the Japanese will spend $1.4 billion on national technology research programs for industry. The European Union is investing $14.4 billion over 5 years in 20 specific areas of research and technology, and individual European governments are investing additional R&D amounts to help their economies. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the explosive growth of foreign technology programs, we need not only Defense Department research programs but also economic growth programs such as the ATP. And given the economic insecurity facing the country, we should increase the ATP, not cut it. We need to help American industry accelerate the development of new technologies, new industries, and new jobs. If you want to let other countries win the technology race, then kill the ATP. Second, Congress has a serious obligation to honor our commitments to companies and workers in ongoing ATP projects. The pending bill acknowledged this when it included $235 million in the unfunded title IV of the bill. I commend Chairman Hatfield for including that provision. He put that in so that if Congress can find the money, then fiscal year 1996 commitments to some 200 current multiyear projects will be kept. Our amendment has an actual offset for that $235 million, as well as enough additional money to have a small new ATP competition in fiscal year 1996. Not passing our amendment will, in fact, abruptly reduce the ATP from its fiscal year 1995 level of $341 million to a fiscal year 1996 level of zero--a draconian move that will hurt companies across the country. It will particularly hurt the 100 companies in 25 States that won awards in fiscal year 1995 and now need fiscal year 1996 funding to continue their multi-year projects. These companies have hired staff and committed their own matching funds. Third, I want to emphasize that over the years the ATP has actually enjoyed strong bipartisan support. The law creating the program passed during President Reagan's second term, and the ATP received its first funds during the Bush administration. Mr. Bush's Commerce Department wrote the rules for the ATP, and did a good job. President Bush himself requested budget increases, and in 1992 14 Republican Senators on a defense conversion task force endorsed it. See ``Report of the Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the Defense Based,'' June 22, 1992. Unfortunately, in 1994 politics intruded because some Senators worried that ATP grants might be made in a political fashion. But this is the purest program you will find. Expert panels make the decisions-- not the Secretary of Commerce, not the White House, not any Member of Congress. Several States that have no Democratic Senators or Governor do very well under the ATP, including Texas and Pennsylvania. The ATP now supports 276 research projects around the country, involving 757 research participants in 41 States. The ATP is not porked, has never been porked, and is not used for partisan purposes. Fourth, the ATP is not corporate welfare. This program is not a handout to deadbeats. The purpose of the ATP is not to subsidize companies but to contract with the best companies to develop technologies important to the Nation as a whole. Companies also pay half the costs, hardly welfare. Moreover, no ATP funds are ever used to subsidize product development in companies; it supports only development work up to basic prototypes. More than half the awards go to small firms or joint ventures led by small firms. Fifth, both the ATP itself and the larger principle of industry- government technology partnerships enjoy solid support and excellent evaluations. In terms of industry's views, I want to quote first an important July 1995 policy statement by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) about technology partnership programs in general: The NAM believes that the disproportionately large cuts proposed in newer R&D programs are a mistake. R&D programs of more recent vintage enjoy considerable industry support for one simple fact: They are more relevant to today's technology challenges. . . . In particular, partnership and bridge programs should not be singled out for elimination, but should receive a relatively greater share of what federal R&D spending remains. These programs currently account for approximately 5 percent of federal R&D spending. The NAM suggests that 15 percent may be a more appropriate level. Groups explicitly endorsing the ATP include the Coalition for Technology Partnerships, a group of over 100 companies and other research organizations, and the Science and Technology Working Group, representing over two dozen scientific and engineering societies and other organizations. These groups see the ATP as an important investment in America's future prosperity and strength. In addition, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has conducted two reviews of the ATP in the past year. Despite some assertions to the contrary, they speak highly of the program. GAO found that the ATP had succeeded in encouraging research joint ventures, one of its purposes; that ATP winners did indeed often have trouble getting private funding because the research was too far from immediate market results; and even those companies that would have continued their research without ATP awards would have done so much more slowly or at a lower level of effort. A January 1996 report conducted by Silber and Associates provided further positive comments from industry. Of the companies surveyed, many maintain that the ATP has been the lifeblood of their company's innovative research efforts, permitting them to venture into arenas new to U.S. industry. Sixth, while the ATP is still new, it already has generated some real technical successes--successes that in the years ahead will create jobs and broad benefits for our Nation. Later, I will submit for the Record a detailed list of accomplishments, but for now I want to mention three particular cases. With help from ATP, Aastrom Biosciences of Ann Arbor, MI, has developed a prototype bioreactor that can grow blood cells from a patient's own bone marrow cells. In 12 days, the bioreactor will produce billions of red and white cells identical to the patient's own--cells that then can be injected into the patient to boost the immune system. The benefits from this system will be astounding. Now that the basic technology has been proven and patented, Aastrom has received $20 million in private funds to turn the prototype into a commercial product. With ATP help, the Auto Body Consortium--consisting of eight auto suppliers, with support from Chrysler, General Motors, and the University of Michigan--have developed a new measurement technology to make assembly-line manufacturing more precise. The result will be better fit-and-finish in car production, resulting in lower manufacturing costs and lower car maintenance costs. The new system is now being tested. Diamond Semiconductor of Gloucester, MA, used its ATP award to develop a new, risky technology for helping to reliably use much larger semiconductor wafers--the slices of silicon on which computer chips are built. Diamond Semiconductor's equipment can be used to make 12-inch wafers, holding many more chips than the old 8-inch wafers. Now that the technology is proven, a much larger company, Varian Associates, has invested in turning this system into a commercial product. Finally, there is one other key point. The President supports this program and opposes any effort to abruptly terminate it. It is a fact that when he vetoed the earlier fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State conference report he cited two main reasons--cuts in the COPS Program and elimination of the ATP. ATP funding is needed in order to get the President's signature and get on with finishing appropriations bills for this current fiscal year. The sooner we resolve the ATP issue, the sooner we get on with solving this protracted budget impasse. Mr. President, the ATP is one of our most investments in long-term economic growth and jobs. For that reason, we need to pass the pending amendment and fund the ATP.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me add that I agree with the comments of Senator Gregg. Projects of those types would fit well within the parameters of the emergency supplemental appropriations language.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to let me answer two or three points that I think should be clarified.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have been informed by the Parliamentarian, since the Daschle education amendment has passed, that the present amendment on technology needs to be conformed. I ask unanimous consent the Parliamentarian conform it in accordance with the Daschle amendment in the bill as it now appears.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is the technology amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to the distinguished Senator from California, who wishes to make a brief statement as in morning business. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HOLLINGS. With respect to emergency, I thought, Mr. President, that coming out of New Hampshire, my distinguished colleague would understand small business. I traveled that State extensively. If you have 20 or 30 employees and you have received a grant and you put up half the money and you are halfway through the particular project still soliciting finance on the open market and you have every promising indication that that is going to happen, and then all of a sudden the Government cuts it off and you know already from the very beginning that you had a need that could not be answered by normal banking sources, you are under an emergency. It is not an emergency because of any particular technology. It is an emergency because of the situation facing these small companies. The Senator addresses his comments with respect to the technology. I am talking about $235 million needed to maintain contracts that have already been awarded after going through all of this, getting the financing, setting up the operation, getting half way through and then facing a cutoff. That is an emergency. But the emergency designation in my amendment is not necessary, in a sense, because we do have a favorable offset and scoring, Mr. President. When the Senator says it is not scored, let me say that on March 12, today, we have a memorandum from John Righter of the Congressional Budget Office, on: ``The scoring of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, chapter 2, of a proposed amendment to H.R. 3019.'' I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, they have: ``Changes in direct spending, estimated budget authority, minus $440 million; estimated outlays, minus $440 million.'' So it has been scored, and the offset does produce real savings. Now, we are back to the old wag, Mr. President, of winners and losers and winners and losers and winners and losers in the Government. Earlier, I tried to emphasize this issue in the most courteous fashion, but I will have to do it in the most direct fashion. Let me refer specifically to a key report, and I read this and quote it exactly, Mr. President: ``Report of the Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the Defense Base, June 25, 1992,'' by Senator Warren Rudman, Senator Hank Brown, Senator William Cohen, Senator John Danforth, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Senator Trent Lott, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator John McCain, Senator John Seymour, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator John Warner. I read from page 24: The task force endorses two programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology as important to the effort to promote technology transfer to allow industries to convert to civilian activities. These programs are the Manufacturing Technology Program and the Advanced Technology Program. Now, Mr. President, the distinguished leadership over on my chairman's side of the aisle did not get into that litany then about picking winners and losers. Making that claim is pollster politics and pap. That is nonsense. It is not picking winners and losers. When we had the semiconductor problems and put in Sematech, it was not winners and losers. Industry came back in there. Then we get to the aircraft industry; we get to agricultural technology; we have the telecommunications technology. We can go right on down the list where Government has worked successfully in partnership, and we do not hear about picking winners and losers. And now here in the Advanced Technology Program comes the industry itself working with the Government, and using political statements to the effect of winners and losers and pork they just present symbols and labels and hope to kill the program that way. That is not debating it on its merits. The task force of my distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle, a dozen of them, found it was very, very important, including the majority leader. And it has not changed a bit. It is being administered properly, and no one contests that. No one wants to talk of the merit of the program or something that ask whether anything may have gone awry. They still want to use the symbols. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. There are various Senators that wanted to be heard. I have agreed with the distinguished chairman, Senator Gregg, we ought to move as expeditiously as possible to a vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask, on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bingaman, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Leahy, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Kerrey, the clerk to please report it.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey for bringing this issue to the Senate and I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment. Getting directly to the point, this amendment provides an additional $10 million to the Federal Bureau of investigation and the Department of Treasury to combat international terrorism. We have all been shocked and saddened to see the death and destruction caused by Hamas terrorists in Israel. These fanatics, and that is just what they are--these zealots are doing everything they can to stop the peace process. The scenes from the Middle East are simply revolting. Several times in the past few weeks we have watched innocent people--men, women, and children both Israeli and American--killed in senseless terrorist bombings. It is as if the people of Israel are being subjected to a tragedy like the Oklahoma City bombing--over and over again. They cannot even safely take public transportation without risking their lives. President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher will be in Egypt tomorrow to convene an international conference to combat terrorism. The President recently sent the Deputy Director of the CIA to meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials to see what technical assistance the United States can provide. I applaud him for the leadership he has shown on this issue and I hope he can achieve concrete progress at the conference. Mr. President, I am appalled when I hear reports that funding to support Hamas and other Middle-Eastern terrorism is coming from the United States. It is hard for this Senator to believe that any American would knowingly contribute money to support these cold blooded killers. But, apparently that is the case. So, this amendment provides Judge Freeh and his FBI with the resources needed to get to the bottom of this issue. It will help them uncover groups and institutions that are providing millions of dollars to support terrorism in the Middle East. And, it provides the Treasury Department with funding so they can moving expeditiously to freeze the assets of foundations and others that knowingly support Hamas and criminals that seek to derail the peace process through committing terrorist acts. It bolsters these agencies enforcement of Executive Order 12947 which is titled ``Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process.'' It is at least one way that we in the Senate can do something to respond to this emergency. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 3478 to Amendment No. 3466 (Purpose: To restore funding for, and otherwise ensure the protection of, endangered species of fish and wildlife)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in August 1992, we also had the National Science Board itself. I will read a couple of things and not put it in its entirety into the Record, which we would be glad to do. But the National Science Board concluded: Stronger Federal leadership is needed in setting the course for U.S. technological competitiveness. Implementation of a national technology policy, including establishment of a rationale and guidelines for Federal action, should receive the highest priority. The start of such a policy was set forth 2 years ago by the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy, but more forceful action is needed by the President and Congress before there is further erosion in the United States technological position. They made the recommendation to expand and strengthen the Manufacturing Technology Centers Program, the State Technology Extension Program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and I quote, ``Further expand NIST's Advanced Technology Program.'' That was very important, therefore, the National Science Board and its findings at that particular time. Going back to 1987 for a moment, Mr. President, we led off our original series of technology hearings that year with the distinguished entrepreneur, technologist, professor, industrial leader, dean at the University of Texas Business School, Dr. George Kosmetsky, who had helped create the Microelectronics Technology and Computer Corporation down in Austin, TX. We followed his testimony with the Council on Competitiveness. I will read just part of a Council on Competitiveness statement written not long after that particular time. The United States is already losing badly in many critical technologies. Unless the Nation acts today to promote the development of generic industrial technology, its technological position will erode further, with disastrous consequences for American jobs, economic growth, and national security. The Federal Government should view support for generic industrial technology as a priority mission. It is important to note that this mission would not require major new Federal funding. Additional funds for generic technology programs are required. Other Federal R&D programs, such as national prestige projects, should be redirected or phased in more slowly to allow more resources to be focused on generic technology. Of course, Mr. President, these themes were included and touched upon in our hearings and legislation, and we have been more or less off and running since then. We have, finally, by way of endorsement, the Coalition for Technology Partnerships. It has over 130 members, a combination of companies, trade associations, different companies themselves, such as the American Electronic Association, and several universities that work with industry on ATP projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this particular point a letter from the Coalition for Technology Partnership along with the listing of membership.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am delighted to congratulate Kelly McCalla on being named the 1997 Teacher of the Year for the State of South Carolina. For 11 years, Ms. McCalla has dedicated herself to educating the young people of Greenwood in her own inimitable style. She is an inspiration to anyone who aspires to do a job well and win the respect of others. As a teacher of science at Oakland Elementary School, Kelly McCalla engages students' minds and imaginations. As a member of the community, her contributions are vast. Whether organizing special youth events through her local church or participating in summer Bible School, Ms. McCalla contributes to local children's education outside the classroom as well. She is active in other programs that benefit the community at large such as Meals on Wheels, programs for needy children, and caroling at a local nursing home. Obviously, she is willing to teach by example the importance of being involved in the community. The award for South Carolina Teacher of the Year is given to educators who are representative of the many excellent teachers across the State, and it is clear that Ms. McCalla is worthy of this title. Said State Superintendent of Education Barbara S. Neilsen, ``The State selection committee saw the same magic in Kelly McCalla that her students do.'' These days, with everyone worrying about children's education, not just in terms of school but in terms of moral values, it is truly a pleasure to be able to honor someone like Kelly McCalla. She is instilling in her students something more than a knowledge of science, she is showing them how to love learning and to be involved, caring, decent people. And that is something that only a gifted educator can do. I send her my congratulations, my thanks, and my best wishes in the future.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a short interview that appeared this morning in USA Today. In it, textile businessman Roger Milliken outlines the inaccuracies in the present-day argument that only free trade can improve our Nation's economy. With a plethora of hard facts, Mr. Milliken debunks this myth by focusing on the real problem: America does not have real trade troubles with nations that accept and sell products from America. America's trade problems are with countries like Japan and China that won't let American products into their markets. Across the Nation, columnist and now Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has opened up the wound of disinvestment in America. Unlike the Washington pundits and experts, people across America know that trade matters. Hard-working people have a tremendous disaffection with our trade policies and that unsettledness is bound to grow. Mr. President, Roger Milliken hit the nail on the head of trade in this interview. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.