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


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

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I hope those in support of the Simpson 
amendment will now proceed to the floor, because the reason we yielded, 
I guess, to these extraneous matters, is they are just as relevant as 
the Simpson amendment is to the underlying bill. No relation 
whatsoever. I keep insisting that you can go down the list of all these 
matters, whether it is regulatory or anything, they have nothing to do 
with the developing of technology.
  Just going down the summary sheet, the Economic and Employment Act 
has nothing to do with it. The impact statements there, nothing to do 
with the development of technology. Private property rights has nothing 
to do with the development of the Nation's technology. The flex 
amendments has nothing to do--judicial review of adverse decisions has 
nothing to do with the development of technology. Davis-Bacon does not 
contribute to the research and development of technology. Paperwork 
requirements has nothing to do with it. I can go right on down this 
list here--banking regulations and all.
  S. 4 has been worked out over the years with bipartisan support until 
now. I take it what got us off track is that the Senator from Missouri 
did not like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations 
relative to subsidies.
  On that particular score, what in heaven's name have we been doing 
over the years but subsidizing? So it is an offset. They make direct 
allocations, I take it, of funds to Airbus. We, indirectly, come around 
either through the Defense Department, through the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, in space research, allocating the spinoffs 
from these research endeavors to the aircraft industry, coming around 
indirectly with the Export-Import Bank.
  In one particular item, Mr. President, relative to the recently 
hailed contract of sale of aircraft, civilian aircraft to Saudi Arabia, 
we understand that 6 billion dollars' worth of commercial aircraft from 
United States manufacturers to furnish a civilian fleet of about 50 
planes was linked to the rescheduling of $9.2 billion in Saudi debt in 
United States defense equipment.
  Now, Mr. President, there is also the transaction being facilitated 
by $6.2 billion in export financing provided by the Export-Import Bank.
  I can tell you now, to come here and talk about a new philosophy on 
account of what they did on GATT is begging the question, and they know 
it. They have to know that. Here, we use every device; they use every 
device, and that is the message. We are into a competition. You are not 
going back and asking 114 nations to renegotiate the subsidies section. 
That is not going to happen.
  The distinguished Senator who raises the point wanted to say, I wish 
to make sure it does not happen. He pressed for fast track. This 
Senator opposed it. I was defeated. The Senator from Missouri won the 
fast-track debate, put it on there so that there could not be any 
amendments by any Members of the Senate. Now he comes with an amendment 
here on this Senator's bill, on the technology bill, because he knows 
he can't amend GATT.
  Now we are getting to the meat of the coconut. We wonder how in 
heaven's name you get a unanimously passed bill 2 years ago, ready to 
send it over into law. Then you ran out of time, so you come back and 
unanimously report it out again. All Democrats, all Republicans joined 
last year. We finally get it to the floor and then find our colleagues 
almost in a block yesterday afternoon voting to kill the bill, voting 
to kill the bill. And you finally hear this morning what evidently is 
on their mind because that is just terribly unfortunate.
  It is not that at all. I described Arati Prabhakar, the fine lady who 
is the administrator now, the Director of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, coming over from the Defense advanced 
research programs section of the Pentagon. I wanted to emphasize--and 
will probably again before this debate is out--her background, showing 
exactly what she did at that particular time in the Department of 
Defense, because we had her confirmation hearings, and in her 
curriculum vitae it notes:

       Managed one of the largest DARPA offices; execute a total 
     annual budget of $300 million and 300 contracts with 65 
     companies, including large electronics manufacturers, 
     traditional defense contractors, midsized, small technology 
     firms, 50 universities, and 30 other laboratories.

  Now, they never said there were big bucks to be given out over there 
by the Department of Defense. They never said that was a new 
philosophy. This is what she is doing now and has been doing for years. 
They never said that was new technology or, rather, new policy, that we 
ought to have a debate here on a new policy.
  That has been going on, and to have it now go on in commerce instead 
of defense was exactly what they asked for in the defense conversion 
report of the Republican body. The Republicans in the Senate convened, 
studied, and reported. The Senator from Missouri signed it, amongst a 
good 16 to 17 other Republican colleagues. They said what we should do 
is transfer DARPA, namely, defense research, into private or commercial 
research under the Commerce Department. What they said was we endorse 
NIST. We endorse the Advanced Technology Program. Those are their 
words.
  So here we have Ms. Prabhakar doing exactly that. You cannot do 
better than that. You cannot do better than that. We not only do the 
programs over but we take the director of the programs and bring the 
distinguished leader and director of those programs in defense and have 
her as the new Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and she is at work there.
  Now we have at least a year's experience. They do not come, and, say, 
``Look at the pork; look how this contract was given; look how this 
facility was built; look how this research grant was made,'' because 
they cannot. It cannot be done that way. It has to be merit selected 
and in competition and reviewed by the National Academy of Engineering 
with the peer review process.
  So they do not have any examples of abuse--not a single one.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I could stay here and listen to the 
distinguished chairman for the rest of the day. In fact, on occasion I 
have. I have found it to be a matter of some great education.
  I should note, Mr. President, that I am a cosponsor of this 
legislation with Senator Hollings and am proud to be. I enjoy the 
company I am in. I am pleased to be following his leadership. I think 
he has tried mightily and successfully to keep this legislation focused 
on its primary purpose.
  It is so easy when legislation comes up to toss this, that, and other 
extraneous things at it as though somehow we are going to come out with 
a better law that way. The fact is that in most of these instances it 
simply goes nowhere.
  The distinguished chairman has tried to keep together a piece of 
legislation that reflects not only the needs of today, but into the 
next century. As one who has children who will live most of their lives 
in the next century, I applaud the chairman for that. I applaud his 
leadership. I applaud him for his farsightedness, and I hope that we 
will resist the siren call of just adding on other things that will 
simply slow down and probably kill the legislation in the long run. 
Sometimes it is the death of legislation by good intentions more than 
anything else. Let us keep our eye on the ball.
  Mr. President, if the chairman has no objection, I would like to 
refer for just a very few minutes to the issue of health care. I assure 
him that I will take but just a very, very few minutes.

                          ____________________