[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S. 
4, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Brown Amendment No. 1493, to institute a cost share 
     requirement for single business applying for funding the 
     Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania just 
commented. I was trying to listen at the same time. If I am correct, he 
said the comments I made at some time last evening were uncalled for 
and unsenatorial. I wish the distinguished Senator would refer to those 
comments so we will know exactly what he is talking about.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am talking about the comment where he said the Senator 
from Missouri was hypocritical. And he had another comment. The Record 
has been reviewed. It was just the subject of discussion in the 
Republican Cloakroom.
  I make an inquiry of the Senator from South Carolina if the Senator 
from South Carolina has altered those comments as they appeared today 
in the Congressional Record? Has there been any alteration in those 
comments as they appear today in the Congressional Record, Senator 
Hollings?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Not that I know of. I am just trying to get the Record 
right now. This is what it was. It is shown to me here:

       Mr. President, the Record will be printed there, and I 
     constrained myself. I can tell you that right now. I referred 
     to the facts, and he does not like being corrected by way of 
     facts. The reason one uses the word, ``monkeyshines,'' is a 
     polite expression maybe for hypocrisy, for the simple reason 
     you cannot come moving in Sematech for the semiconductor 
     industry, moving if you please for the private aircraft 
     industry, going along with the sales and everything else, and 
     come on this bill and say, with technology, now that this is 
     a whole new venture. We know it is not a new venture.

  Is that what you referred to?
  Mr. SPECTER. I refer specifically to the comment ``monkeyshine'' and 
the comment ``hypocritical.'' My reading----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I did not----
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may finish? Rule 19, I believe it is, prohibits and 
looks askance at comments which are made of a personal nature. I 
believe that when there is a statement that a Member of this body is 
hypocritical, I believe that is personal. I believe that is 
inappropriate under the rules.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly why I did not call the Senator 
hypocritical. They pressed me on the word ``monkeyshines.'' I said it 
is a polite expression, maybe, for hypocrisy, for the simple reason --
and I went down, exactly what I said. I will elaborate and perhaps it 
is a good time now to clear the air with respect to this in the Record, 
because I am proud of myself as a Senator, I am proud of myself at the 
decorum in the Senate here that we have, and my adherence thereto.
  There was another occasion, and we can get into that, where the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania came to the floor and distorted 
the Record. Let not this one be distorted. Simply stated, I have worked 
with the distinguished Senator from Missouri on this bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from South Carolina yield to tell me 
where this Senator distorted the Record? Where did I distort the 
Record?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina?
  Mr. SPECTER. ``Distortion'' is another characterization, Senator 
Hollings, which is uncalled for under rule 19. That is a charge, an 
accusation. Now back it up. Where did this Senator distort the Record?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It was quite some time ago, Mr. President. I will go 
right to that Record with respect to Senator Metzenbaum.
  What really occurred there was that this particular Senator was 
handling a bill. It was a very sensitive subject --and, incidentally, 
involved the distinguished Senator from Missouri at the time. The 
Record will show--and then was later removed, and I have been trying to 
find it since, because certain staffers came and got that Record. But 
Senator Baker would remember it. He was the majority leader at the 
time.
  And what happened was that we were arguing about religion and with 
respect to prayer in the schools. And we had had the exchange between 
the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the Senator from North 
Carolina referred to as the ``Lay leader,'' the ``Baptist lay leader,'' 
and the ``Episcopal minister.''
  I think at that particular time, I am confident the Senator from 
Maine came on the floor, Senator Mitchell, and we heard from Judge 
Mitchell. So then I referred to myself as the Lutheran Senator. We were 
doing that in the lightening of the moment at the particular time, and 
this is where the distortion comes in.
  I was not alluding to Senator Metzenbaum in a disparaging way as a 
Jewish Senator or anything of that kind. When Senator Metzenbaum came 
in right behind me and he sought recognition, I turned to him and said, 
``We will now come and hear from the distinguished Senator from B'nai 
B'rith.'' He took exception, and I immediately apologized.
  That is where it ended for about an hour and a half until the Senator 
from Pennsylvania came all the way to the floor, as he comes this 
morning, and stating that the Record was offensive and he put it 
totally out of the whole cloth. I went back to get those references 
from the original transcriber's notes and was never able to find them. 
The distortion was in the context of what it was not at all. We were 
all talking and referring at that particular time. I did not do it in a 
smart aleck way or anything else like that. I had done it in a light 
way, referring to the distinguished Senator from Ohio and therein is 
what I was referring to when the Senator from Pennsylvania came down 
and took exception.
  Thereupon, Senator Baker came on the floor and we had an exchange, 
and everything, and I thought then the feelings were all settled down. 
But he alluded, as he has come to the floor at this particular time, 
taking exception to me and how I insulted everybody and everything else 
of that kind. That was the distortion I referred to.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am fascinated to hear the Senator from 
South Carolina defend his accusation that I distorted the Record by 
reference to an event which happened in 1981. It could have been 1982, 
but I believe 1981. I thought that when the Senator from South Carolina 
was charging this Senator with distortion that he was referring to 
something that I had said this morning.
  I remember the incident very well. It was just a few months, I 
believe, after I had come to this body. I believe it was in the spring 
of 1981, and I had an office in the Russell Building. I did not come 
all the way over today to make a statement. I was here for a vote and 
waited to make that brief statement. But in 1981, I did hear the 
comment on the squawk box, and I did hear the Senator from South 
Carolina refer to the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] as the Senator 
from B'nai B'rith. I was very much offended by that comment.
  I do not think it is humorous, and I do not think that it is 
explainable in terms of an earlier comment which the Senator from South 
Carolina may have made referring to his own religion.
  I came to the floor of the Senate, and I walked up to the Senator 
from South Carolina and I said to him, ``I'm about to make a statement 
on the floor that I thought what you said was inappropriate.'' I am 
virtually certain I used the word ``inappropriate'' in my comment to 
the Senator from South Carolina, and I did not characterize it anymore 
harshly than that, although I felt very, very keenly about it.
  It may be that there is some difference between being a member of the 
religion of the Senator from South Carolina in this country as opposed 
to being a member of my religion in this country. Maybe there is a 
difference, or maybe his experiences are different from mine. But I 
deeply resented that comment about Senator Metzenbaum being the Senator 
from B'nai B'rith. I took the floor--and it was not easy to do being a 
newcomer here--to take exception with a Senator who had been here since 
1966, 14, 15 years at that time.
  After I made the comment, Senator Baker came to me and he said to me, 
``Arlen, Senator Hollings and Senator Metzenbaum want that matter 
expunged from the Record.'' But the rule is that all the Senators have 
to agree before it will be taken out of the Record. I said to Senator 
Baker, ``Howard, I don't want to do that.'' A short conversation 
followed, with Senator Baker's persuasiveness, and I said, ``I'll think 
about it.''
  Later in the day, perhaps an hour or 2 afterward, I said to Senator 
Baker: ``Since Senator Metzenbaum wants it, since Senator Hollings 
wants it''--Senator Baker represented to me--``I will agree to it, 
Howard, since you wanted it and you are the leader here, on the 
condition that there is a spot in the Record which shows that something 
was expunged, something was taken out of the Record,'' because I do not 
like altering the Record.
  I do not like doing that. I have great problems with the practice in 
this body of doctoring the Record, changing the comments which were 
made, beyond the exception of grammatical changes. I do not think that 
is the right thing to do, but that is what I did at that time.
  Since the Senator from South Carolina has brought up the subject, I 
would ask him if he requested that that segment be expunged from the 
Record in 1981, as Senator Baker represented to me that Senator 
Hollings had made that request?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I definitely did not. In fact, I said for the Record--
and did not get it in time--I said to the staff that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania totally misunderstands the context. I never could get the 
Record, and I would like to have that Record now. Maybe if the original 
notes of the stenographer--I asked for them and have never been able to 
find them, because it seemed like a crass remark, a remark totally out 
of taste and totally out of context, and it was not, because that is 
how the reference was made at that particular time.
  I am confident Senator Helms will tell you that. I am confident the 
Senator from Missouri will tell you that, because I remembered we 
referred to the Baptist leader, the Episcopal minister, the Lutheran 
Senator. It was all three of us at that time, and that is why when we 
turned--to keep the same mood and lightness of it because we did not 
want to get heated into a religious thing. I could explain the context 
and I wanted that explained and I did not want the Record--in fact, I 
sent and even asked that somebody go back to the original notes, even 
though the printed part was there. Maybe they had on one of these 
machines, or whatever, that original record.
  But I have explained that and, of course, fortunately the community 
down home, in my hometown, understands exactly what was said. I want to 
get into this other part of the Record here in just a minute and tell 
you exactly my feeling on that one.
  But they immediately sent three TV crews from New York. They went to 
the various temples in my hometown of Charleston, SC. I have always had 
the friendship, the warmth, the understanding, the support and--the 
best compliment of all is to have a misunderstanding, Mr. President, of 
this arise and the best compliment of all is to try to get some 
critical statement by a community or an individual. And they reviewed 
all over Charleston, spent the whole weekend and never could get one.
  That was the greatest compliment of all, because they know me, 
understand me and I am not that kind of person. That is why I 
apologized immediately to Howard. I said, ``You know, I didn't mean to 
offend you.'' I apologized immediately. It was sometime later when the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, after the apology and the understanding was 
had, came to make a Federal case of it.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we have been nearly 5 full days on a 
bill that is very similar to a bill that was passed in less than 5 
minutes 2 years ago. Most of the amendments that have been proposed to 
this bill, and almost all of the debate that has occurred in that 5-day 
period has had nothing to do with the bill. That has, of course, been 
true of the discussion this morning.
  I recognize that the rules of the Senate are such that any Senator 
can talk for as long as he or she wishes at any time on any subject, 
and that any Senator can offer an amendment at any time, even though it 
has nothing to do with the subject. But I cannot recall in my 14 years 
in the Senate and my more than 5 years as majority leader an occasion 
in which the debate and the amendments have, in the aggregate, had so 
little to do with the subject.
  There has been very little discussion over the past 5 days about this 
bill, about what this bill is trying to do, and the debate has ranged 
over a whole range of issues that have nothing to do with the bill.
  Yesterday, for example, we had a debate and discussion on espionage 
matters. In the previous days, we had debate and discussion about other 
things that have nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. And I expect 
that several more of the amendments are going to relate to matters that 
have nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.
  That is obviously permitted within the rules, but I would hope my 
colleagues could exercise some restraint, both with respect to the 
subject matter of the amendments and the subject matter of the debate. 
It is clear that Senators can get up and talk for as long as they want 
about anything they want to say. It is clear that Senators can continue 
to offer amendments that have nothing to do with the bill that is 
before us. But I submit that at some point any useful purpose in such 
efforts is passed and that it is now an appropriate time to get back to 
a discussion of this bill.
  Any Senator has a perfect right to vote against this bill if he or 
she wants to. Any Senator has a perfect right to get up and explain why 
he or she will not support this bill. But I think this discussion has 
already gone too far afield, and I implore my colleagues to now permit 
a return to consideration of the bill. I hope we will get an amendment 
that has something to do with this bill as opposed to the continuing 
series of amendments that have nothing or little to do with the bill, 
and that we can, through the exercise of restraint, concentrate our 
efforts and our words and our activities on the pending legislation.
  Obviously, I cannot impose any such standard on Senators. That is up 
to individual Senators themselves. But I think that we have reached a 
point where we have gone much further afield, much further from the 
subject than is appropriate, necessary, or even desirable. I ask my 
colleagues, does anybody have anything to say about this bill, which is 
supposed to encourage economic growth and promote economic growth and 
create jobs in our society?
  I hope that we can focus ourselves on the bill. Much has been said, 
and we obviously cannot change what has been said or undo what has been 
done. But my hope is that we can now return to a discussion of this 
legislation and hopefully act on it one way or the other.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the majority 
leader. I have an instinct that they may have been made as a cooling-
off period as much as for substance, but I appreciate the substance of 
what he has said, and I agree with the substance of what the majority 
leader has said.
  I took the floor for a few moments, and I have spoken only once on a 
matter directly relevant to this bill--I do not make a practice to 
speak on other matters--and I referred very briefly to the comment of 
the Senator from South Carolina last night, which I thought was an 
important point to make, albeit briefly, on my reasons for voting 
against cloture.
  I am not sure what the count is over here, but I think my vote may be 
enough to defeat cloture, or my reasoning may be enough to attract at 
least two Republican Senators who wanted to vote against cloture on the 
first vote, to vote against cloture beyond the first vote. So that I 
think my comment on my position for a vote is directly related to this 
bill as this body works, and as there is a unification of Republicans 
in response to what happens on the other side of the aisle. So I think 
it was directly relevant.
  When the Senator from South Carolina said that this Senator had 
distorted the Record, that brings a rather vehement response. I do not 
take that comment lightly at all. And based on what he has said, he has 
not made any statement of distortion. He said that when I complained 
about his comment about the Senator from B'nai B'rith, it was taken out 
of context.
  Well, now, at worst, being taken out of context is totally, totally, 
totally different from a distortion. But when he says it was taken out 
of context, I do not believe, Mr. President, that there is any 
acceptable context of saying to any Senator that he is a Senator from 
B'nai B'rith. And I do not believe that there is any acceptable context 
to making a reference to B'nai B'rith, someone's religious affiliation.
  And when the Senator from South Carolina refers to Episcopalians and 
Lutherans, I do not know what it is like growing up as an Episcopalian 
or a Lutheran. I have an instinct that being a part of majoritarian 
America is a lot easier than being a religious minority, and I will not 
detail why I feel that way. But it is true even in Russell, KS, even in 
a small town like that, it is different.
  Now, I have great respect for the Senator from South Carolina. In the 
14 years that I have been here, we have had a good relationship, and I 
expect us to disagree from time to time. When the Senator from South 
Carolina makes a comment that he has been lauded by the Jewish 
community in his home State, I can understand that because I do not 
think that there is any animosity or any deep-seated ill feeling by the 
Senator from South Carolina. I think that these are comments which were 
made in the heat of the moment.
  I have respect for him, and I do not suggest to him in any way that 
he has any religious bias. I think we will continue to have a good 
relationship in this body. But that will not stop me when I hear him 
make a statement as I did in 1981, or when I heard the statement that 
was made last night.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand and appreciate what the 
distinguished Senator said. Mind you me, when I said start the Record 
or the situation, what I said, and continue to try to describe the all 
people of good will--in order to understand--would look at the context. 
I would agree categorically you do not refer--I do not know the 
religion of the Presiding Officer; never thought of anyone else. But we 
were discussing religion at that particular time. I wish I had that 
Record. You go ask our colleague, Jesse Helms. He will tell you. He 
said, well, as a lay Baptist teacher, Sunday school teacher, Bible 
reader--or however he described himself, and the Senator from Missouri 
as an Episcopal minister, and then I referred to myself in the same 
facetious vain.
  Now, when you have Senators talking about prayer in the schools, and 
religion, and another Senator comes up and you do not refer to his 
religion, in a way, that is the sensitivity that we have in the South. 
They say: Wait a minute; you referred to the others, but you do not 
refer to the one?
  That is how sensitive we are. It was not intended at any time to hurt 
Senator Metzenbaum's feelings, and he knows that and I know that. We 
have had the best of relationships since that time. I did apologize 
immediately. I said that was not the intent, and then he finally 
understood. He had not heard.
  I appreciate the respect the Senator has for me, and I have 
tremendous respect for the Senator, but that was an unfortunate 
situation. Those kinds of things continue to get reported and reported 
out of context. They do not go into the scene as it was set.
  I agree with the Senator categorically; you do not walk up and refer 
to anybody by their religion. But when you are discussing religion in 
the Chamber of the Congress here, and each is pointed out in their 
singular religion, which we were, and then another Senator comes and 
yields, that is why, in the light moment that we had, we were trying to 
lighten it so we did not get too serious and too much feeling in that 
particular subject matter. And it passed at that time.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, by definition, the incident now being 
discussed occurred 13 years ago. It was discussed extensively at the 
time. I believe no useful purpose is served by raising it at this time, 
discussing it, and debating it further.
  I would like to again implore my colleagues to get back to the bill. 
I hope and encourage my colleagues to do so.
  This matter is over 13 years old. No purpose is served in it being 
brought up again here today and debated here today. I hope very much 
that my colleagues will go back to the bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the majority leader, and I appreciate the 
respect and friendship of my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. President, let me get right to the point here with respect to 
this bill and the tremendous frustration one must encounter. I know the 
Senator from Missouri. We work closely together. He was chairman and I 
was ranking member. I am chairman now, and he is ranking member. I was 
making the case that these programs are peer reviewed; these programs 
do not become pork barrel.
  So it is with the National Science Foundation. I do not have to quote 
the Senator from Missouri. But he asked questions at that particular 
time. There was a Rockefeller amendment. So we got into the issue of 
peer review at that time. That is years back.
  Early on this particular bill, I can mention several others who 
addressed the issue of peer review. I just quote myself because at the 
hearing on this particular measure, I was then talking with the Senator 
from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] and we were talking about these 
manufacturing centers. I quote:

       Since they have been characterized as ``Hollings centers,'' 
     let me level with everybody. I am also chairman of the 
     Subcommittee on Appropriations. I met with my counterpart, 
     Congressman Neal Smith over on the House side, and it has 
     been contended that we have a struggle over this thing even 
     going on now. And one of the grave misgivings of everybody is 
     that this is not going to be pork. Incidentally, the Senate's 
     record is pretty good on that. In last year's highway bill, 
     the Senate did not have a single demonstration project when 
     we passed the highway bill; we did not have any pork. Pork 
     came about later in the conference.

  I think it was $400-some million:

       On this particular score, there is not going to be any 
     pork.

  And gave my State proposal a double review, talking about that 
particular program. So I told my counterpart, Chairman Smith. I said:

       Look if we start putting or writing into this bill these 
     centers, manufacturing centers, the program is dead. It is 
     going to become pork. It has got to be administered by the 
     Secretary of Commerce with peer review. So I thought publicly 
     you and I have not had a chance to discuss this, but this was 
     a wonderful opportunity for everybody to understand the 
     ground rules. There is no pork in this one. There is no rural 
     or urban development. It is getting together the financial 
     effort and interest in technology, whether it is in South 
     Dakota or South Carolina.

  So there has been a sensitive point with me to hear opponents come to 
the floor and say of S. 4 that we will have holes in our pockets, and 
pork barrel, and here is this big sum of money. I could not understand 
that argument, my colleagues, because we have gone out of our way to 
avoid exactly that. I obeyed the ground rules. I enforced the ground 
rules over on the House side about it, and then when we finally come to 
this debate, you hear the argument that these safeguards and 
restrictions are not in the bill.
  I thought that was a tremendous misrepresentation, and still think so 
when they try to refer to it that way. And, I said, ``What in the world 
is going on?'' Nobody seems to understand the bill. The Senator from 
Wyoming finally furnished us a release which quoted the chairman of the 
Democratic Party in April of last year saying, ``By gosh, we are going 
to get the Commerce Secretary and we are going to put the money in out 
here in California. It is important to carry in the Presidential 
election, and the Secretary is going to correlate the effort.'' But he 
was not talking about this bill. He was talking about how the training 
funds and other accounts that the Secretary of Commerce has no access 
to or jurisdiction over.
  So I said, now hearing the ranking member talk about burning holes in 
the pocket, and pork, and then hearing the Senator from Wyoming's 
charges, no wonder we have a fever on the other side of the aisle that 
this is a pork barrel bill, and too much money, despite the fact they 
all voted for it.
  That is one of the particular frustrations that has made me call the 
position on the other side of the aisle a ``monkeyshine.'' You can call 
it ``fanciful.'' You can call it other words. I was restraining myself, 
and am still restraining myself because, in response to that 
mischaracterization of this measure, which we hear time and again, I 
have noted the experience and politics of the people administering the 
program. We have the Under Secretary in charge of technology, who was a 
Reagan appointee, in charge of the Board of Directors of the National 
Science Foundation. We have Arati Prabhakar, brought over from DARPA 
into the Commerce Department, an appointee by both Reagan and Bush. She 
is the Administrator of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology.
  Then opponents of the bill argued that S. 4 involves a lot of money.
  I could read the Record here about burning holes in the pocket, about 
how we are going to throw money at California. That is a very 
treacherous kind of reference on this particular bill. Then when the 
distinguished Senator started off, and I knew he had admonished me with 
respect to the matter of peer review. We had expressly provided for 
peer review by the National Academy of Engineering, and we defended 
that requirement on the House side. We have been appropriating for this 
measure for the last 3 years.
  Then he said, well, this is a new philosophy, new philosophy, and 
with his prestige and dignity, when he stands up he gets the attention. 
It is a very treacherous and dangerous thing to talk about a new 
philosophy and a new approach with regard to industrial policy in the 
light of this Record.
  So I cite that Record. I go down, and I say here was a Senator 
leading the way for industrial policy with respect to the semiconductor 
industry. A year ago he put in a bill as the principal author. What 
does he say on that bill?

       Federal financial assistance to the semiconductor industry 
     consortium, known as Sematech, has been successful in 
     improving the competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor 
     industry.

  He cites that successful example to justify a similar assistance for 
the aircraft industry. I read from the following paragraph:

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

  So I am sitting there saying, ``Wait a minute. He has been leading on 
this philosophy, and he is talking about the transfer of technologies 
from defense to commercial purposes.'' And then I go of course to the 
report of the Republican Task Force on Defense Conversion. He is a 
member of it. Let me quote from it:

       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 defense 
     industries to convert to civilian activities. These programs 
     are the Manufacturing Technology Program and the Advanced 
     Technology Program.

  That endorsement was back in June 1992, almost 2 years ago. So how 
can we now be alleging a new philosophy, a new departure, when the 
program was endorsed 2 years ago?
  This bill was supported in the committee, unanimously voted out, and 
as ranking member helped to get it cleared on the floor, but time did 
not allow for final passage; it was not adopted, so we put the bill 
back up again, and the amounts are in there, and it comes back. And 
what we are doing in S. 4 is this: We are following chapter and verse 
the philosophy of the Republican task force on defense conversion.
  So we see it there; we see the statement by the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri. And he says in May of last year, with respect to the 
Aerotech bill. That bill has a number of cosponsors, both Democrats and 
Republicans, and the idea of that legislation is to provide for private 
sector input into the spending of about $10 billion, which the Federal 
Government now does each year in the research and development area in 
aerospace. It advocates that the aerospace industry emulate the model 
of Sematech, to make it possible for a consortium of U.S. aerospace 
industries, with the support of Government, to join together in the 
development of new technologies in that private industry.
  So we have the example of the Senator's leadership with respect to 
semiconductors. We have his leadership with respect to the aircraft 
industry.
  How can we now start talking about an alleged new philosophy, when 
the Senator knows his record and he knows his bill and he knows the 
unanimous support for S. 4. For 4 days and 4 nights, their nongermane 
amendment after nongermane.
  We started off with GATT, and we went to pesticides, and we went to 
post offices, and we went to recordkeeping, and economic impact 
statements. We are just all over the lot. I thought ``monkeyshines'' 
was a pretty polite characterization of this situation. That is why I 
described it that way. I have been trying my best in total frustration. 
When you have 4 days and 4 nights and are trying to find out what is 
the intent of those on the other side of the aisle. Finally, we get an 
inkling from the Senator from Wyoming, who said, ``Wait a minute, this 
is not industrial policy, this is political policy led by the chairman 
of the Democratic Party.'' Then the Senator from South Carolina begins 
to understand the change in the rules and why they are going through 
this filibuster.
  Specifically, as to the amount of money, that keeps coming up and 
keeps getting misrepresented. When we reported that bill out, it was 
$1.5 billion a year ago. We took it over to OMB and they said, ``That 
is not going to stay within our budget.'' We cut it back to about $1.3 
billion for 1 year and $1.4 billion for the other year, and that is 
where they get the $2.8 billion. But under the old initiation and 
report of the bill with amounts of $1.5 billion for one year and $1.5 
billion for the next, it would have been $3 billion. I can be exact now 
because we debated it. The bill before us is $143 million less for 
fiscal 1995 than what the Senator from Missouri supported.
  So here I am. They are misrepresenting the amounts and they keep 
coming up on that. I try to explain how, from DARPA, we have taken the 
programs, and I list the programs in 31 States. There are over 85 
programs that we bring from Defense to Commerce. That is where we get 
defense conversion. I talked to too many Republican colleagues who do 
not understand it. They get in caucuses, and I take it they are told 
stories about the Democratic Party chairman and what have you. I cannot 
rebut that misinformation in the caucus. I try my best. The horse is 
out of the barn.
  We had an earthquake out there. They gave $8.8 billion to California, 
and nobody raised the political question at that time. They gave $5.6 
billion to FEMA, not to Commerce. You are all watching Mr. Brown. You 
better watch Mr. FEMA. If you are President and you have your man from 
Arkansas, you say here is what to do and when to do it. You got $5.6 
billion to do it. In marked contrast, there is strict peer review under 
S. 4. These programs are industry initiated, not Government picking a 
winner. We do not pick. The California industry, at best, if I am the 
Secretary of Commerce, has to initiate the request. They have to come 
with over half of the money under the law and thereupon pass merit 
selection or peer review of the National Academy of Engineering.
  ``Monkeyshines''--maybe that was not strong enough. But you can sit 
here and watch all of these extraneous efforts that have no reference 
whatsoever to this particular measure and have the Members vote on the 
amounts, when they do not understand we have taken it from Defense to 
Commerce, when the amount is less than what the Senator from Missouri 
supported, when the bill was reported. What can a Senator do trying to 
bring the truth out and trying to bring the facts out?
  Here it is not any new philosophy, but the philosophy of the Senator 
from Missouri that we are following. He worked on this bill with us. 
The bill came out. And, in candor, he came to me at the beginning of 
the year and said, ``I do not like what went on in Geneva in December, 
this matter of green lighting the subsidies.'' He said, ``I am going to 
have to oppose the bill.'' I said, ``Please do not oppose the whole 
bill on that. After all this has unanimous support on both sides of the 
aisle. There is not an industrial group that has not written in and 
said we are for it.'' He said, ``Well, I am going to have to at least 
get the attention of the administration to see if we can get GATT 
amended.''
  Well, here is the distinguished Senator, and we are on opposite 
sides. I was against fast track, and he was for it. We heard those pro-
fast-track arguments, such as how in the world are you going to get 114 
nations back together again to deal with amendments. We do not want to 
have any amendments, once we get an agreement on GATT, the Uruguay 
round. But now, my gracious, first out of the box is an amendment by 
that same Senator, an amendment to a bill he supported over the last 3 
years.
  Inconsistency, fanciful--certainly inconsistent. I will leave it 
there. I appreciate the opportunity to once again talk to the 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We have been very 
reasonable. We tried to accept what amendments relate to the bill. But 
I cannot go along with, evidently, whatever the exercise is--I am 
afraid to use any word around here, because people take exception. But 
I have laid out the facts, and the Record is not to be changed. I said 
what I said and meant what I said, and I am sorry we had to say those 
kinds of things, but that is what the Record is. I have to try as 
manager of the bill to bring the facts to the colleagues.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I listened to the distinguished majority 
leader, and I share part of his frustration. But if we are adding up 
who used most of the time, I think most of the time has been used on 
that side of the aisle--it may be two-to-one. We talk about the 4 days, 
and we ought to get a perspective. It has not all been used on this 
side. We had a number of Whitewater speeches over there, defending 
that, which is difficult to do, so it takes a long speech. All of this 
has been intertwined with this bill.
  I think the Record should reflect that we have been cooperating with 
the majority leader. We gave him a UC this morning to take up something 
he mentioned to me yesterday. We also have agreed to clear an 
environmental bill, which is now blocked on that side of the aisle. We 
have been trying to accommodate the majority leader. I know how 
difficult it is to keep things moving.
  In reference to this bill--and I am not an expert and probably could 
be corrected--but it started over a couple years of $280 million, and 
now it is $2.8 billion. It has grown a lot, about 10 times.
  I do not know all the politics of it. I am not getting into all the 
politics of it.
  But we did have a conference. We did have a discussion. We are 
concerned about it. It was about a year ago that they brought out this 
stimulus package. Democrats said we have to pass this $13 billion 
stimulus package to get the economy going. We did not think so.
  This is sort of a ministimulus package. Many of us do not think this 
bill is worth passing.
  We just had a big debate here on the balanced budget amendment.
  A lot of colleagues who really are going to vote for this with great 
eagerness made great speeches on the balanced budget amendment. We said 
we do not need a balanced budget amendment; we have the will to hold 
down spending.
  This is the first test since we debated the balanced budget 
amendment, and I do not know how many votes we are going to get on that 
side, but I bet I can count them on one hand or less.
  If we want to go on, I know this is an authorization bill. The 
appropriation may be smaller. But this is a spending bill. It is 10 
times larger than it was a couple years ago in the Bush administration. 
If that is not significant, so what is $3 billion? If it is $3 billion 
or $2.8 billion what is the difference? It is not much money. Someone 
said yesterday it was four or five times the budget of their State. I 
think it was Idaho. And it is probably as large as the budget of a lot 
of States.
  I think it ought to be looked at in context. I think we are trying to 
cooperate. We got together a list of amendments last night.
  I know how frustrating it is for the manager. I have been there. That 
is the Senate rule. You do not have to have a germane amendment. They 
are offered all the time.
  In fact, we broke into the proceedings yesterday to consider a bill 
about an Indian tribe in Alabama, and probably should have.
  So I want the Record to show that it had not all come from this side. 
We are prepared to cooperate. We are not certain you are going to get 
cloture. We do not like some of the things that were said by the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina. Maybe they were necessary as 
he just indicated. We do not think so, particularly when they are 
directed at our friend from Missouri.
  So we are ready to go. We told the majority leader we have three 
votes, three amendments lined up. We have two other amendments. I hope 
they are fairly related to the bill. I am not certain. One is on OSHA, 
which is not closely related. But the other was on business documents, 
or something, that might be related.
  I want to assure the majority leader we will continue to cooperate as 
we did yesterday, as we did this morning, and we hope that we can make 
some changes in this bill and pass it.
  But if changes are not going to be made, then we have to do what we 
think we have to do. We had a conference. We have taken a party 
position. I hope we can sustain that position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would just like to comment to begin with 
that my friend from Missouri needs no one to defend him. His record of 
service, his standards of integrity, his straightforward dealings with 
all colleagues on both sides of the aisle require no elaboration by 
this Senator.
  But I want to make it clear that in the brief 8 years that I have 
been here I have never known the Senator from Missouri to engage in 
monkeyshines, or engage in any devious activity of any kind.
  I have always known the Senator from Missouri to be frankly a moral 
compass for many of us who appreciate his fundamental belief in 
fairness and his fundamental philosophy that has been, I think, an 
example for all Senators.
  I hope that the Senator from South Carolina recognizes that when he 
levels criticism at the Senator from Missouri and brings up past 
records or past sponsorship of bills or statements that he has made, 
some of us find it disturbing because of the very high regard with 
which we hold the Senator from Missouri.
  As I say that, I understand and appreciate the deep frustrations that 
the Senator from South Carolina has about the lack of progress on a 
piece of legislation about which he feels passionately and fiercely. I 
certainly do not envy his position, having spent, as he so well 
described, 4 days and 4 nights attempting to get this legislation 
passed.
  At the same time, I hope the Senator from South Carolina recognizes 
that the Senator from Pennsylvania, in fact all 43 other Members on 
this side, holds the Senator from Missouri in the highest respect and 
admiration and, of course, are not pleased when we hear what was 
described as monkeyshines on his part.
  Mr. President, in keeping with the admonition of the majority leader, 
I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 10 minutes as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________