Steve Lohr, "Sale of I.B.M. Unit to China Passes U.S. Security Muster," New York Times, 3/10/05, C7.The article ends on an interesting, rather cryptic note (perhaps due to poor editing?). The second-to-the-last paragraph offers a comment from a member of a Congressional group, suggesting that "Congress [should] . . . review the authority of the investment committee, which dates from the cold war [sic]." The last paragraph quotes an Illinois Republican who "plan[s] to push for hearings to see if the committee's role should be expanded to 'take more account of economic security as well as military security.'"
There's a slippery slope -- defining "economic security." It's difficult these days to discern a coherent Republican position on the role of government; or is this it: minimal in rhetoric; maximal (neo-mercantilist) in practice?