Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 9 Oct 1992 21:51:10 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: ==> Clinton/Gore On Technology

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  TECHNOLOGY: THE ENGINE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
America can compete and win, but only if we have a
positive vision guiding our economic policies.  Our
economic future depends on our capacity not only to
invent and master the new technologies of the
future, but to ensure that these ideas move rapidly
to market to spur growth, create new jobs for our
people and strengthen our industrial performance.

         In Putting People First, Bill Clinton,
announced his support for a revenue-neutral
transfer from unnecessary defense R&D to civilian
and dual-use R&D.  On September 8, 1992, Governor
Clinton announced how the details of his new
civilian technology initiative would explicitly
strengthen our manufacturing base. Today, Governor
Clinton details further how his strategy will
strengthen the ability of American firms to
commercialize new technologies.

     America's competitiveness rests ultimately
with the private sector. U.S. firms must expand
employee involvement and participation,
continuously improve their product and process
technology, increase their investments in R&D,
plant and equipment, worker training, forge better
relationships with their suppliers and customers,
and shorten the time required to bring products to
market.

     Yet, it is imperative that we recognize that
government has a role in encouraging
pre-competitive technology development, encouraging
dual-use technologies, supporting industry-led
consortia, and making the most of technological
advances.

     Al Gore has been a leader for more than ten
years in high technology and telecommunication
policy. As Vice-President, Al Gore will head
efforts to implement the Clinton/Gore national
technology strategy.

     In particular, we must move forward with the
following reforms:

o Build Information Superhighways: to develop an
advanced communications network, which will help
companies collaborate on research and design for
advanced manufacturing, allow doctors across the
country to communicate, put immense resources at
the fingertips of American teachers and students
and much more.

o Reform federal R&D programs to focus on critical
technologies: The funding will be focused so that
more resources are devoted to critical
technologies, such as advanced materials,
information technology and new manufacturing
processes.

o Reform our National Labs: Federal labs will have
ten to twenty percent of their existing budget
assigned to establish joint ventures with industry.

o Create a world-class business environment for
private sector investment and innovation: Changes
in America's tax, trade and regulatory policies are
also needed to help restore America's industrial
and technological leadership.

o Invest in technology programs that empower
America's small businesses. The Clinton/Gore
economic plan will create 170 market driven
manufacturing extension centers over four years.

o Establish education and training programs for a
high-skill workforce: The U.S. education and
training system must make sure that American
workers have the requisite skills for a technology
intensive workforce.

TECHNOLOGY: THE ENGINE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
A National Technology Policy for America
September 18, 1992

SUMMARY

Last June, I introduced a National Economic
Strategy called Putting People First.  It will
create 8 million new jobs and a higher standard of
living for the American people and for our
children.  My Technology Policy is part of the
ongoing effort to further define that vision and
describe how we will implement it.       I have
every confidence that America has the energy and
the talent to regain its industrial and
technological leadership.  Unfortunately, the
Bush-Quayle Administration has done nothing while
wages have stagnated and our economic leadership
has eroded.  Despite the growing consensus on what
needs to be done, they refuse to act, recycling the
tired and failed policies of the past.  America can
compete and win, but only if we have a positive
vision guiding our economic policies.  Leadership
in developing and commercializing new technologies
is critical to regaining industrial leadership,
creating high-wage jobs, and ensuring our long-term
prosperity.  Investments in research and
development are important not only to high-tech
industries such as aerospace and electronics, but
to basic manufacturing industries, and to small
businesses which must be innovative to survive.
  Although the government has a role to play in
restoring America's competitiveness, most
responsibility rests with the private sector.  U.S.
firms must expand employee involvement and
participation, continuously improve their product
and process technology, increase their investments
in research, development and technology, plant and
equipment, and worker training, shorten the time
required to bring products to market, and forge
better relationships with their suppliers and
customers.

Government can and must support these efforts.  Our
most successful competitors help their businesses
-- large and small -- to compete more effectively.
We must go beyond support for basic research and a
reliance on "spin-offs" from defense R&D.  My
technology policy consists of six broad initiatives
aimed at helping Americans develop and quickly
utilize new technologies:

1.   Investing in a 21st century infrastructure;
2.   Establishing education and training programs
for a high-skills workforce;
3.   Investing in technology programs that empower
America's small businesses;
4.   Refocusing federal R&D programs on critical
technologies that enhance industrial performance;
5.   Leveraging the national R&D investment; and
6.   Creating a world-class business environment
for private sector investment and innovation.

I will give our Vice President Al Gore the
responsibility and authority to coordinate the
Administration's vision for technology and lead all
government agencies, including research groups, in
aligning with that vision.  This is a real job for
a distinguished national leader whose experience,
energy and intellect are a perfect match for the
challenge.

This technology policy outlines the kind of strong
action I will take to bring America back to a
leadership role in the world economy.  Please join
us in this history-making endeavor. I welcome your
support and ideas.

Bill Clinton
A TECHNOLOGY POLICY FOR AMERICA'S ECONOMIC FUTURE
    America's economic performance and
international influence rest, in large part, on its
technology base. Technology has accounted for the
bulk of U.S. productivity gains during the past
half-century, spawned entire new industries,
created millions of jobs, and been a primary source
of America's ability to maintain a high standard of
living for its citizens. We are the world leaders
in biotechnology, information technology, aerospace
technology and many other fields on the frontiers
of science applied to human life. As a result of
intense international competition, however, the
U.S. technology edge has eroded in some of our
prominent industries.

Unfortunately, by losing the lead in the
commercialization of many American invented
technologies we are losing control of our own
economic growth and prosperity.  If U.S.
productivity growth had grown at the same rate in
the 1970's and 1980's that it did in the 1950's and
1960's, the standard of living of the American
family would be 40 percent higher.  Instead of
struggling to get by, working men and women would
be better able to buy a home, pay their health care
costs, and send their kids to college.  The United
States must act now to establish a technology
policy that will help U.S. companies to succeed in
world markets and help American citizens earn a
good living in the global economy.

I.   NEEDED: A TECHNOLOGY POLICY TO COMPLEMENT OUR
SCIENCE POLICY

At the end of World War Il, Vannevar Bush defined
the framework for U.S. science policy in his
report, Science. The Endless Frontier. This policy
has paid tremendous dividends to the nation.  It
made the United States a world leader in science;
made America's university education and research
system the best in the world; allowed us to supply
ourselves and other nations with skilled scientists
and engineers; and made it possible to provide
technology to academia, industry and the government
on a scale that no single company or laboratory
could have accomplished alone.

For several decades after the war, we did not
perceive the need for a technology policy to
complement this science policy. After all, the U.S.
economy enjoyed significant spillover dividends
from defense R&D expenditures, and the largely
self-sufficient U.S. private sector was ahead of
other countries in its capability to invest in
technology and capture the economic benefits of
basic research.  Today, the United States faces a
new environment:   Natural resources, what we dig
out of the ground, are being replaced by knowledge
and technology, what we dig out of our minds, as
the source of national economic competitiveness.
Leading-edge technologies often find their first
application in the civilian sector and only much
later in defense, if at all. For example, the 8088
Intel microprocessor used in the Patriot missile,
which symbolized U.S. high-tech defense systems in
the Gulf war, is three generations old and is not
even used in today's personal computers.   The
resources needed to develop technology are
increasing dramatically and, in many cases, are far
greater than any individual company can afford.  It
can cost $1 billion to bring to market a new jet
engine for commercial airliners.  On average, it
takes about 12 years and over $200 million for a
pharmaceutical firm to develop a new drug.
Increased international competition has led to
shorter product cycles, putting even more stress on
resources.  The product life for many electronic
components today is less than one year, which, puts
incredible pressure on firms to constantly upgrade
existing products and develop new ones.   Some
foreign competitors have succeeded by exploiting a
new innovation system that links R&D tightly to
market needs. In 1975, the Japanese auto industry
held only 10% of the U.S. market; today, it has
about 30% of the U.S. market. It did so, not by
devoting massive resources to basic research, but
by stressing incremental improvements in existing
technology, rigorous quality control, rapid
time-to-market, and tight inventory controls.

R&D results flow quickly around the world, but
production know-how does not. As a result, many
foreign competitors are able to rapidly absorb the
results of America's research, while U.S. firms
must often work for years to master the production
systems that give industry in other countries an
edge. For example, the research breakthrough in
superconductors that was achieved in an IBM lab in
Switzerland was soon confirmed in Japan and China,
and within weeks extended by researchers in the
United States.  By contrast, it has taken years for
American companies to begin to master the lean
production system that the Japanese automobile
industry developed.

Science policy alone does not address these issues.
In essence, science policy is a supply-push policy
in which the government supports science education,
basic research and some applied R&D that relates to
specific national missions.  During the Cold War,
this policy worked well because U.S. industry
dominated world markets and massive U.S. defense
spending for high-tech weapons systems provided a
big demand for leading edge technology. Today,
however, U.S. industry faces intense international
competition, and the global civilian market, not
the Department of Defense, is the testing ground
for most of the new technologies.

Technology policy picks up where science policy
leaves off. It is not limited to just research and
development. It also focuses on the rapid
application of new ideas. The absence of a coherent
technology policy is one of the key reasons why
America is trailing some of its major competitors
in translating its strength in basic research into
commercial success, and why America is losing its
lead in technology.  Even in the technologies where
we still lead, we face the challenge of translating
the world's best research into the world's best
jobs for American workers.

II.  THE CHALLENGES TO AMERICA'S INDUSTRIAL AND
TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP

The private-sector Council on Competitiveness put
the problem bluntly in its report, Gaining New
Ground: Technology Priorities for America's Future:
"The U.S. position in many critical technologies is
slipping and, in some cases, has been lost
altogether.  Future trends are not encouraging."
   This conclusion is based on U.S. industry's
assessment of the evidence, accumulated by detailed
studies of nine major sectors of the economy and a
review of over 90 different critical technologies.
It is supported by the experiences of many
different industries.   Several billion dollars and
more than a decade are required to bring a new
commercial aircraft to market. While U.S. military
R&D is providing fewer and fewer spillovers to
America's commercial aircraft industry, Europe's
Airbus Industry has received $25 billion in direct
government subsidies since its founding. Buoyed by
these subsidies, Airbus has displaced McDonnell
Douglas as the world's second largest aircraft
manufacturer and is beginning to take significant
orders away from the industry leader, Boeing. If
these market losses continue, they will seriously
erode Boeing's ability to invest in the next
generation of aircraft technology and put hundreds
of U.S. high technology contractors at risk.

As a science-based business, the chemical industry
has benefitted from America's strong research base.
But over half of the chemical industry's products
are sold to other manufacturing industries, and the
growing weakness in segments of the U.S.
manufacturing base has serious repercussions for
the future health of the U.S. chemicals industry.
The U.S. electronic components industry developed a
significant amount of the basic technologies used
by the industry today and has led in the formation
of new electronic companies.  Nonetheless, its
inability to cross-subsidize businesses, its loss
of volume markets, its manufacturing problems, and
the high relative cost of capital in the United
States over the past decade have allowed foreign
competitors to dominate many market segments. U.S.
industry is weak in actuators, optoelectronic
components and hardcopy technology, and it is
losing badly in memory chips, electronic packaging
and interconnections; and display technologies.
The U.S. machine tool industry is in trouble. The
U.S. share of world production has declined from
about 50% in 1955 to about 15% today, and imports
account for half of the U.S. domestic market. The
U.S. machine tool industry is made up mostly of
small companies that do not have the resources to
sustain the necessary investments in new technology
or systematically upgrade the manufacturing skills
of their employees.   For many people, the U.S.
computer industry symbolizes U.S. technological
preeminence. Advances in computers and software
have driven major changes in virtually every other
sector of the economy and are also critical to
national defense.  U.S. computer systems firms are
still the dominant producers in world equipment and
software markets, but their leadership is under
assault.  The U.S. balance of trade in computers
has deteriorated substantially in the last decade.
The world market share of U.S. computer companies
fell from 81% in 1983 to 61% in 1989, and the U.S.
industry is increasingly dependent on foreign
components for its products.

The growing problems of U.S. technology-intensive
industries are backed up by economic indicators:
The U.S. high-tech trade balance posted a deficit
for the first time in 1986. It has since swung back
into slight surplus, but remains negative in
semiconductors and is approaching a zero balance in
computers.   In a recent high school career
interest survey, the top five career choices of
American students were lawyer, musician,
psychologist, fashion designer and photographer.
The bottom five were computer engineer, mechanical
engineer, chemist, civil engineer and physicist. As
a result, not enough U.S. students are pursuing
training in technical fields. Over half of the
doctoral degrees from U.S. universities in
engineering, 40 percent of those in math and a
third of those in physics go to foreign students
who are increasingly choosing to return home after
they graduate.   Foreign companies are collecting
almost half of all new U.S. patents and boosting
their share every year. In 1990 the top four
recipients of U.S. patents were Hitachi, Toshiba,
Canon and Mitsubishi.

The United States invests only 1.9% of its GNP in
non-defense R&D, while Germany invests 2.8% and
Japan invests 3.0%.   In 1991 U.S. investment in
plant and equipment hit a 14 year low of 10.7% of
GDP, down from 11.4% in 1990.  Even more alarming
is the fact that the United States invested a
smaller share of GDP in plant and equipment last
year than any other Summit 7 country. The U.S.
investment level is half Japan's rate of 22% and
below Germany's rate of 14.5%.   Using current
exchange rates, the United States invested  $550
billion in plant and equipment in 1991 and Japan
invested $662 billion, despite the fact that
Japan's economy is only 60% the size of the U.S.
economy.

America cannot afford to ignore these warning
signals. If we are to safeguard the standard of
living of American citizens and improve the ability
of U.S. industry to compete in world markets, we
must develop a coherent technology policy.  III. A
NEW FRAMEWORK FOR U.S. TECHNOLOGY POLICY  In order
to implement an effective U.S. technology policy, I
will declare that U.S. technological leadership is
a national priority and organize the government for
results.

The President alone has the authority to focus the
national will and galvanize the necessary
resources. When elected, I will do just that.
First and foremost, a Clinton-Gore Administration
will emphasize the need to renew our civilian
technology base.  America cannot continue to rely
on trickle down technology from the military to
maintain competitiveness of its high-tech and
manufacturing industries.  Civilian industry, not
the military, is the driving force behind advanced
technology today.  Only by strengthening our
civilian technology base can we solve the twin
problems of national security and economic
competitiveness.

The Vice President will take on the task of
organizing all facets of government to develop and
implement my Administration's technology policy. As
a first step, he will establish a central focus for
the coordination of government activities related
to civilian technology and create a forum for
systematic private sector input into U.S.
government deliberations about technology policy
and competitiveness.

At present, three obstacles prevent close
government industry interaction.  First, the
diffused nature of government technology programs,
which span many departments and agencies, makes
them hard to coordinate and manage.  The Federal
Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and
Technology (FCCSET) lends itself to planning these
programs, but not to managing them.  Second, some
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) and the Freedom of Information Act prompt
premature disclosure of information that is
essential to U.S. long-term competitiveness by
forcing open meetings and giving foreign
competitors immediate access to sensitive material.
Third, conflict of interest regulations, that were
put in place for valid reasons, nevertheless
inhibit the participation of knowledgeable private
sector individuals in government discussions about
how to strengthen America's competitiveness
position in crucial technologies.  These issues
must be addressed to make sure that government
technology programs are responsive to private
sector needs.

Within the Administration, the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP) and FCCSET play an
important role in coordinating policy and enhancing
cooperation between the private and public sectors.
We will significantly strengthen both of these
organizations.  For example, the U.S. needs to
strengthen its ability to monitor the position of
the U.S. in critical technologies and industries,
and to increase the collection and dissemination of
foreign scientific and technical information.  We
rarely know what our market share is in a given
industry, what our foreign competitors are doing to
target the industries of the future, and what steps
are needed to restore U.S. competitiveness.       A
Clinton-Gore Administration will work with Congress
to review the way it handles the budget process.
The federal R&D budget is currently considered
piecemeal by numerous Congressional authorization
and appropriations committees, which makes it
nearly impossible to set priorities among competing
programs or make trade-offs among related
activities.  Furthermore, although Congress must
exercise oversight over technology programs,
micro-management and pork-barrel politics will
destroy the effectiveness of these programs.  I
will push for a line-item veto, and will
aggressively use the Presidential rescission
authority to stop these practices.

A TECHNOLOGY POLICY FOR AMERICA Six Broad
Initiatives

The Clinton-Gore technology policy consists of six
broad initiatives that together will restore
America's technological leadership:
1) investing in a 21st century infrastructure,
2) establishing education and training programs for
a high-skill workforce,
3) investing in technology programs that empower
America's small businesses,
4) refocusing federal R&D programs on critical
technologies that enhance industrial performance,
5) leveraging the national R&D investment, and 6)
creating a world-class business environment for
private sector investment and innovation.

1.  Building a 21st Century Technology
Infrastructure.

Infrastructure has traditionally been the
responsibility of federal and state governments.
Investing in infrastructure means more than
repairing bridges, harbors and highways.  Today,
the United States faces a new series of
communications, transportation and environmental
needs for the 21st century.  The creation of a 21st
century infrastructure program would serve as a
critical technology driver for the nation.  It
would stimulate major new national R&D efforts;
create large, predictable markets that would prompt
significant private sector investments; and create
millions of new jobs.

A 21st century infrastructure would address many
practical problems.  For example, the government
can serve as a catalyst for the private sector
development of an advanced national communications
network, which would help companies collaborate on
research and design for advanced manufacturing;
allow doctors across the country to access leading
medical expertise; put immense educational
resources at the fingertips of American teachers
and students; open new avenues for disabled people
to do things they can't do today; provide technical
information to small businesses; and make
telecommuting much easier.  Such a network could do
for the productivity of individuals at their places
of work and learning what the interstate highway of
the 1950s did for the productivity of the nation's
travel and distribution system.

Each year, I plan to devote a significant portion
of my four year, $80 billion Rebuild America fund
to laying the groundwork for the nation's
infrastructure needs in the 21st century.  Federal
funding for the National Research and Education
Network is one example of how the federal
government can serve as a catalyst for private
sector infrastructure investment.  We will also
provide additional funding to network our schools,
hospitals and libraries.

As part of the effort to assess U.S. needs and
develop appropriate programs, the federal
government must monitor, or "benchmark", what
foreign governments are doing.  For example, the
Japanese government has committed to invest over
$120 billion by 1995 to develop a digital broadband
communication infrastructure called the Information
Network System, and plans to invest another $150
billion to establish model programs for business
and residential users.

A comprehensive infrastructure program must also
include effective standards and regulations.  By
establishing reasonable standards and a
constructive regulatory environment, the government
can send clear signals to industry about important,
emerging markets and spur private sector
investment.  For example, the digital standard that
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in
cooperation with industry, established for high
resolution television provides an excellent
indication of the future technical direction of the
industry and will do much to facilitate private
sector R&D.

A 21st century infrastructure program should
consist of the following five elements:   Funding
the establishment of key networks and demonstration
projects;   Benchmarking U.S. programs against
those of other major industrial nations;
Establishing standards and a regulatory climate
that fosters private sector investment;   Involving
the federal labs, companies, and universities in
conducting R&D on key technical issues; and
Providing training for users of networks and
databases.

2.   Establishing Education and Training Programs
for a High-Skill Workforce.  The workplace place of
the future will be technology intensive.  The U.S.
education system must make sure that American
workers have the requisite skills.  The focus
should be not only on the top American students who
measure up to world-class standards, but also on
average and disadvantaged students.  It must also
take into account the need to upgrade workers'
skills and help people make the difficult
transition from repetitive, low-skill jobs to the
demands of a flexible, high-skill workplace.
Unlike Germany, the United States does not have a
sophisticated vocational education program, and
unlike Japan, U.S. firms do not have a strong
incentive to invest in the training and retraining
of their workers.  We need more of both, geared to
meet the needs of the mobile U.S. workforce.
I will implement the following programs to
strengthen the skills of America's workforce:
 Establish tough standards and a national
examination system in core subjects like writing,
communication, math and science; level the playing
field for disadvantaged students; reduce class
sizes; and give parents the right to chose the
public schools their child attends.
Establish a national apprenticeship program that
offers non-college bound students training in a
marketable skill.

Give every American the right to borrow money for
college by establishing a National Service Trust
Fund.  Students can repay their borrowing as a
percent of their earnings over time, or by serving
their communities for one or two years doing work
their country needs.   Stimulate industry to
provide continuing, high skills training to its
frontline workers.

For small manufacturers to compete today, it is not
good enough simply to have access to new equipment
and new technologies if their workers do not have
the skills and know-how to operate them
efficiently, and engage in truly flexible
production.  Yet, too much of our training is for
only top executives or workers after they have lost
their jobs.  My plan calls for companies with over
50 employees to ensure that 1.5 percent of their
payroll goes to training throughout the workforce
-- not just for the top executives.  But we must do
more for smaller companies who cannot afford to set
up the training programs.  These companies need to
adapt to new technologies and new equipment and the
constantly new demands.  New production technology
should be worker-centered and skill-based, not
skill-eliminating.  In the high-performance
workplace, workers have more control over
production and worker responsibility is increased.
Some companies that have invested billions in new
capital equipment have found that genuine employee
involvement and good labor-management relations are
ultimately more important.  Therefore we need to
undertake the following:  Manufacturing training
centers:

We need to promote private sector-led efforts to
set up training for small companies. These can be
done by building off community colleges training
and should be an integral part of the network of
Manufacturing Extension provisions. These would
also be integrated with my Apprenticeship
initiative so that young people will have the
opportunity to learn specific skills needed for
specific manufacturing jobs or industries.
Councils including private sector and academic
leaders as well as workers would help decide
generic areas for training.  Certificate of
training guarantees:

In order to be eligible for federal funds for
manufacturing training centers, such centers would
have to provide all future employers with a
Certificate of Guarantee.  This would ensure that,
when workers do not pick up the necessary skills
the first time, these centers would provide
additional training -- at no additional cost to the
employer.

Best Practices on Worker Participation:

An integral function of the Manufacturing Extension
Centers will be to collect and disseminate
information on "best practices" with regards to
worker participation.  Increasing worker
productivity is one of the keys to increasing
overall manufacturing productivity.

3.   Investing in Technology Programs that Empower
America's Small Businesses.

A healthy and growing small-business sector is
essential to America's economic well-being.
America's 20 million small businesses account for
40 percent of our GNP, half of all employment, and
more than half of the job creation.  My technology
policy will recognize the importance of small and
medium-sized business to America's economic growth
with:  Market-driven extension centers:
Creating 170 manufacturing centers will put the
best tools in the hands of those companies that are
creating the new jobs on which the American economy
depends by helping small- and medium- sized
manufacturers choose the right equipment, adopt the
top business practices, and learn cutting-edge
production techniques.  In order to enhance U.S.
industrial competitiveness, public policy must
promote the diffusion and absorption of technology
across the U.S. industrial base.  Some state and
local governments are already involved in
technology diffusion using manufacturing centers.
They  are helping small businesses improve the
productivity of their existing machinery and
equipment, adopt computer-integrated or flexible
manufacturing techniques, and identify training
needs.

The Commerce Department has five Manufacturing
Technology Centers across the country and has plans
for two more.  Unfortunately, these efforts are
only a drop in the bucket compared to those of our
major competitors.  Germany has over 40 contract
R&D centers (Fraunhofer Gesellschaft) and a broad
network of industry associations and research
cooperatives that effectively diffuse technology
across industry.  In Japan, major
government-sponsored research projects, 170
kohsetsushi technology support centers for small
businesses, and tight links between companies and
their suppliers serve much the same function.
There is no comparable system in the United States.

A Clinton-Gore Administration will build on the
efforts of state and local governments to create a
national technology extension program, designed to
meet the needs of the millions of small businesses
that have difficulty tracking new technology and
adapting it to their needs.       The involvement
of workers is critical to developing and executing
successful industrial extension programs.  In
technology, as in other area, we must put people
first.  New production technology should be
worker-centered and skill-based, not
skill-eliminating.  In the high-performance
workplace, workers have more control over
production and worker responsibility is increased.
Some companies that have invested billions in new
capital equipment have found that genuine employee
involvement and good labor-management relations are
ultimately more important.

No less than 25 of these new manufacturing centers
will be regional technology alliances devoted to
regions hit hard by defense cut-backs.  These
alliances could promote the development of dual-use
technologies and manufacturing processes on a
regional basis.  Extending the Small Business
Innovation Research Program (SBIR)

In addition to creating a national technology
extension service for small and medium-sized
businesses, I will also expand the Small Business
Innovation Research Program.  By requiring that
federal agencies set-aside 1.25 percent of their
R&D budget for small businesses, this program has
helped create billions of dollars of new commercial
activity while improving the research programs of
the federal government.  Given this track record,
the SBIR program should be doubled over a period of
four years to 2.5% to accelerate the development of
new products by innovative small businesses.
Funding private sector-led training centers
We also need a fundamental change in the way we
deal with R&D and technology if we are to lead a
new era of American manufacturing.  Currently, our
R&D budget reflects neither the realities of the
post-Cold War era nor the demands for a new
national security.  At present, 60% of the federal
R&D budget is devoted to defense programs and 40%
percent to non-defense programs.  The federal
government should aim to restore a 50-50 balance
between defense and non-defense R&D.  That is why I
have called for a new civilian research and
development program to support research in the
technologies that will launch new growth industries
and revitalize traditional ones.

This civilian technology program will:   Invest in
Private-Sector Led Consortia:  When the private
sector creates consortia to share risks, pool
resources, avoid duplication and make investments
that they would not make without such agreements,
government should be willing to do its part.
Support for consortia such as the SEMATECH,
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences and the
Advanced Battery is appropriate.  By requiring
firms to match federal contributions on at least a
50:50 basis, the government can insure that we are
leveraging public dollars and that they are
market-led and market-oriented.  Often major
companies are reluctant to invest in their
suppliers and assist them in quality management
techniques, because they fear they will go to
another company.  Private-sector-led consortia
allow the major companies to cure that problem by
coming together and agreeing on industry-wide
efforts to invest in smaller suppliers.  Some of
these consortia will be funded by the Advanced
Technology Program.

Inward Technology Transfer:  While we must
strengthen the links between American R&D and
American jobs, we must also develop a strategy for
acquiring, disseminating, and utilizing foreign
technologies.  Our Government must increase the
collection, translation and dissemination of
foreign scientific and technical information.
4.   Increasing Dramatically the Percentage of
Federal R&D for Critical Technologies.  I will view
the support of generic industrial technologies as a
priority mission.  The government already spends
$76 billion annually on R&D.  This funding should
be refocused so that more resources are devoted to
critical technologies, such as advanced materials,
information technology and new manufacturing
processes that boost industrial performance.
At present, 60% of the federal R&D budget is
devoted to defense programs and 40% percent to
non-defense programs.  This level of support for
defense R&D is a holdover from the massive arms
build-up of the 1980s.  At the very least, in the
next three years the federal government should
shift the balance between defense and non-defense
programs back to a 50-50 balance, which would
free-up over $7 billion for non-defense R&D.
Having achieved this balance, the government should
examine whether national security considerations
and economic conditions warrant further shifts.
  I will also create a civilian research and
development program to support research in the
technologies that will launch new growth industries
and revitalize traditional ones.  This civilian
technology program will:   Help companies develop
innovative technologies and bring new products to
market; Take the lead in coordinating the R&D
investments of federal agencies; and Cooperate and
consult with industry, academia and labor in the
formulation and implementation of technology policy
and R&D programs.

Advanced Manufacturing R&D:        The United
States is currently underinvesting in advanced
manufacturing R&D.  The federal government should
work with the private sector -- with the private
sector taking the lead -- to develop an investment
strategy for those technologies critical to 21st
century manufacturing.  Following the lead of my
running mate, Al Gore, and several of his
colleagues, we must do more to support industry's
efforts to develop the advanced computer-controlled
equipment ("intelligent machines") and the
electronic networks that will enable American
factories to work as quickly and efficiently as
their Japanese counterparts. These technologies
also include flexible micro- and nanofabrication,
simulation and modeling of manufacturing processes,
tools for concurrent engineering, electronic
networks that allow firms to share business and
product data within and between firms, and
environmentally-conscious manufacturing. According
to industry experts, the United States has an
opportunity to capitalize on the emerging shift
from mass production to flexible or "agile"
manufacturing.

5.   Leveraging the Existing Federal Investment in
Technology to Maximize its Contribution to
Industrial Performance.  R&D conducted at the
federal labs and consortia should be carefully
evaluated to assure that it has a maximum impact on
industrial performance.  Furthermore, cooperation
between universities and industry should be
encouraged.

America's 726 federal laboratories collectively
have a budget of $23 billion, but their missions
and funding reflect the priorities that guided the
United States during the Cold War.  Approximately
one-half of their budget is directed toward
military R&D.  By contract, the budget for the
National Institute for Standards and Technology
(NIST) - the only federal agency whose principal
mission is to assist industry - accounts for less
than one percent of the total federal lab budget.
Despite several years of legislative reform and
many new directives, the labs still do not have the
autonomy or funding to pursue joint ventures and
industry aggressively.

These labs and other private non-profit research
centers are national treasures because they house
large, multi-disciplinary teams of researchers who
have honed the skills of balancing basic and
applied research for long-term, mission-oriented
projects.  It would take years to match these
special capabilities elsewhere.  Today, the labs
and industry cooperate on defense needs; we need to
change regulations and orientation to get this
cooperation on technology development for
commercial usage.

To remedy these problems, I propose the following:
 The budget of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology should be doubled.   Federal labs
which can make a significant contribution to U.S.
competitiveness should have ten to twenty percent
of their existing budget assigned to establish
joint ventures with industry.

Private corporations should compete for this
funding through review by panels managed by the
labs and made up of corporate and academic experts.
Lab directors should have full authority to sign,
fund and implement cooperative R&D agreements with
industry.  Some labs, such as NIST, already have
this authority, but others do not.

Industry and the labs should jointly develop
measures to determine how well the technology
transfer process is working and review progress
after 3 years.  If these goals have not been met,
industry and the labs should reevaluate their
involvement, and funds should be redirected to
consortia, universities and other organizations
that can work more effectively with industry for
results.       University research accounts for a
large part of the federal basic research budget.
Funding for basic university research should
continue to be provided for a broad range of
disciplines, since it is impossible to predict
where the next breakthrough may come.  While
maintaining America's leadership in basic research,
government, universities and industry must all work
together to take advantage of these new
breakthroughs to enhance U.S. competitiveness.
 Cooperative R&D programs represent another
opportunity. Consortia can help firms share risks,
pool resources, avoid duplication, and make
investments that they would not undertake
individually.  By requiring that firms match
federal contributions on at least a 50:50 basis,
the government can leverage its investments and
ensure that they are market-oriented.  Many
industries are demonstrating a new found
willingness to cooperate to meet the challenge of
international competition:   SEMATECH has proven to
be an important investment for the industry and the
Nation.  It has helped improve U.S. semiconductor
manufacturing technology, helped reversed the
decline in world-wide market share of U.S.
semiconductor manufacturing equipment companies,
and improved communications between users and
suppliers.    U.S. automakers have recently formed
the United States Council for Automotive Research
to develop batteries for electric cars, reduce
emissions, improve safety, and enhance
computer-aided design.   The Michigan-based
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, which
now has 130 members, is helping to develop and
deploy the technologies necessary for world-class
manufacturing.     The Microelectronics Computer
Technology Corporation (MCC) is developing an
information infrastructure which will enable
businesses to develop, manufacture, deliver and
support products and services with superior speed,
flexibility, and quality.   U.S. steel-makers are
cooperating to develop manufacturing processes
which would use less energy, create fewer
pollutants, and slash the time required to turn
iron ore and coal into steel.

A Clinton-Gore Administration will work to build a
productive partnership between government, research
labs, universities, and business.

6.   Creating a World-Class Business Environment
for Private Sector Investment and Innovation.
   Changes in America's tax, trade and regulatory
policies are also needed to help restore America's
industrial and technological leadership.  In a
global economy in which capital and technology are
increasingly mobile, we must make sure that the
United States has the best business environment for
private sector investment.  Tax incentives can spur
investment in plant and equipment, R&D and new
businesses.  Trade policy can ensure that U.S.
firms have the same access to foreign markets that
our competitors enjoy in the U.S. market.
Antitrust reform will enable U.S. firms to share
risks and pool resources.  Strengthening commercial
sections of our embassies will increase our ability
to promote U.S. goods abroad.  Streamlining export
controls will reduce the bureaucratic red tape
which can undermine competitiveness.  And an
overhaul of cumbersome defense procurement
regulations will strengthen both our civilian and
defense industrial bases.  Permanent incentives for
private sector investment:

Too many federal incentives meant to spur
innovation are on-again-off-again programs that
industry views as unreliable.  As a result, they
have not realized their full impact.  Several
permanent tax measures should be put in place
immediately to stimulate commercial activity.  They
include the following:   Make the R&D tax credit
permanent to provide incentives for U.S. companies
that invest in developing new technology.   Place a
permanent moratorium on Treasury Regulation
1.861-8:  This regulation increases the effective
rate of U.S. taxation of R&D and creates a
disincentive for companies to conduct R&D in the
United States.   Provide a targeted investment tax
credit to encourage investment in the new equipment
that we need to compete in the global economy, and
ensure that depreciation schedules reflect the
rapid rate of technological obsolescence of today's
high-tech equipment.   Help small businesses and
entrepreneurs by offering a 50% tax exclusion to
those who take risks by making long-term
investments in new businesses.  An effective trade
policy:

The Bush-Quayle Administration has failed to stand
up for U.S. workers and firms.  We need a President
who will open foreign markets and respond
forcefully to unfair trade practices.  I will:
 -    Enact a stronger, sharper Super 301 to ensure
that U.S. companies enjoy the same access to
foreign markets that foreign companies enjoy to our
market.  Furthermore, although the U.S. has
negotiated many trade agreements, particularly with
Japan, results have been disappointing. I will
ensure that all agreements are lived up to,
including agreements in sectors such as auto parts
and semiconductors.  Countries that fail to comply
with trade agreements will face sanctions.       -
  Successfully complete the Uruguay Round.  This
will help U.S. manufacturers and high-tech
companies by reducing foreign tariffs, putting an
end to the rampant theft of U.S. intellectual
property, and maintaining strong disciplines
against unfair trade practices.       -    Insist
on results from our trade agreements.  Although the
U.S. has negotiated many trade agreements,
particularly with Japan, results have been
disappointing.  I will ensure that all trade
agreements are lived up to, including agreements in
sectors such as telecommunications, computers and
semiconductors.  Countries that fail to comply with
trade agreements will face sanctions.  Promote
manufactured goods exports by small and medium
companies:  To promote exports of manufactured
goods, I will strengthen the commercial sections of
our embassies abroad so that they can promote U.S
goods, participate in foreign standards-setting
organizations, and support the sales efforts of
small and medium-sized businesses.  We should also
provide matching funds to trade associations or
other organizations who establish overseas centers
to promote U.S. manufactured goods exports.
Streamline Exports Controls:       Export controls
are necessary to protect U.S. national security
interests and prevent the proliferation of nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons.  Nonetheless,
these controls are often overly restrictive and
bureaucratic, creating a mountain of red tape and
costing the U.S. tens of billions of dollars in
exports -- while undermining the competitiveness of
the high-tech industries on which our national
security depends.  The United States should:
-    Further liberalize East-West export controls
that are unnecessary given the end of the Cold War.
-    Avoid unilateral export controls and controls
on technology widely available in world markets.
Unilateral controls penalize U.S. exporters without
advancing U.S. national security or foreign policy
interests.
-    Streamline the current decision-making process
for export controls.  While our competitors use a
single agency to administer export controls, the
United States system is often characterized by
lengthy bureaucratic turf wars between the State
Department, the Commerce Department, the Pentagon's
Defense Technology Security Agency, the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, the Department of
Energy, and the National Security Agency.
Antitrust Reform:  Increasingly, the escalating
cost of state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities
will require firms to share costs and pool risks.
To permit this cooperation, the United States
should extend the National Cooperative Research Act
of 1984 to cover joint production ventures.
Civil-military integration:  Department of Defense
procurement regulations are so cumbersome that they
have resulted in an unnecessary and wasteful
segregation of our civilian and defense industrial
bases.  The military specification for sugar
cookies is 10 pages long.  Government procurement
is so different from private sector practices that
companies now set up separate divisions and
manufacturing facilities to avoid distorting the
commercial part of their business.  The U.S. must
review and eliminate barriers to the integration of
our defense and civilian industrial base.  These
barriers include cost and price accounting,
unnecessary military specifications, procurement
regulations, inflexibility on technical data
rights, and a failure to develop technologies in a
dual-use context.

   *******        Taken together, the six
initiatives discussed above comprise a technology
policy that will restore economic growth at home,
help U.S. firms succeed in world markets, and help
American workers earn a good standard of living in
the international economy.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections