[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
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I have sought recognition for a few moments to state
that I intend to oppose cloture on the National Competitiveness Act of
1993. I would like to articulate my reasons for that judgment, because
I think that opposing cloture, otherwise known as a filibuster, should
be employed only on rare occasions in the Senate, because I firmly
believe in the majority rule, that is 51 votes out of 100 and not to
require 60 votes.
But I have come to this conclusion because of my views that this bill
is too expensive in its present form, but fundamentally on my response
to the tactics of the majority.
Last night's debate I found very unfortunate. I decided not to
respond in the heat of the moment, but to reflect on the matter
overnight.
But, essentially, the Senator from South Carolina, who is on the
floor, I found his comments about the Senator from Missouri
unwarranted, unprofessional, and unsenatorial. The Senator from Rhode
Island commented at greater length yesterday and I do not intend to say
anything further.
But the manager's position and the majority's position reminds me of
what happened on the stimulus package last year when, with great
reluctance, I joined all the other Republicans in a filibuster.
I found that difficult because there were so many items in that
stimulus package which I thought were important, especially important
to my State, Pennsylvania, the same State as the presiding Senator here
today. But I did so because of the tactics of the manager of the bill
when the tree was tied up initially, even drawing protests from Senator
Breaux and Senator Boren on the other side of the aisle. And I did so
after a scathing attack on the Republican leader, Senator Dole, and
efforts by this Senator as well as others to respond which were not
met.
It seemed to me, in the context of what was happening there,
difficult as it was, I joined all other Republicans in a filibuster and
in opposing cloture, which was hard to do, but, as I say, I did so
because of those reasons on something which I think ought to be
employed very, very sparingly.
I think we are at that point on this bill today. And I think that
beyond the tactics which I have referred to, but I think that on the
substance of this bill.
I also thought, parenthetically, that the stimulus package last year
was too expensive, some $1.9 billion on projects which already had
funding in the pipeline. But they were important matters--youth
employment programs for cities like the big cities of my own State.
But, as I have taken a look at this program, this National
Competitiveness Act of 1993, and I see its total cost, it seems to me
that it is excessive in light of the problems of deficit spending and
the national debt.
We have for the current fiscal year, fiscal year 1994, expenditures
of some $526 million. Under this bill, the authorization would rise in
1995 to $1.370 billion and then in 1996 to $1.478 billion. In my
judgment, that is excessive and unwarranted in light of the deficit and
in light of the national debt.
I have a problem philosophically, which I expressed briefly earlier
in the debate on this bill, on having the Government pick winners and
losers. When the Senator from Missouri offered an amendment which would
make the research and development tax credit permanent, I joined in
that. It was a somewhat involved procedural matter, where the amendment
called for no appropriations and then for the Finance Committee to use
the funding for a permanent research and development tax credit, which
I think to be the preferable course, where it is not the Government
making selections and awards but it is the private sector expending
private sector money and making judgments and having the research and
development tax credit.
I note, Mr. President, that under the pending bill there is a program
designated as an Advanced Technology Program with Government grants to
selected high-technology industries.
My own view is that while it is fine to have a stimulus for high-
technology programs, I am very skeptical about the wisdom of having the
Government make the selections as to which of those high-technology
programs are going to get Government grants.
We have done wonders in the United States. It is as a result of our
technology and as a result of the free enterprise system. I had
occasion to be in France recently to take a look at their economy. And
to focus just a moment on productivity and ingenuity in America, where
we developed the airplane and automobile and electricity and nuclear
energy and the atomic bomb, that has been as a result of what the
private sector has done. That is why I am so reluctant to see the
Government start to make the decisions.
In my 14th year in the Senate I have grave reservations about
governmental judgment, something that was reinforced yesterday when I
sat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and asked a question
about nuclear waste disposal and got an answer from the Chief of Naval
Operations which strained credulity, saying we had a way to dispose of
nuclear waste.
So frequently, when we look at what the Government does and what the
Government spends money on, we wonder why. But if the private sector
puts up the money, then they are at risk. That is why I am very
reluctant to see such an enormous expenditure undertaken.
At the same time, I am concerned about research and development and I
am concerned about stimulus. After reflecting on the matter, it is my
view that the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado last
night, [Mr. Brown] probably strikes the appropriate balance, that is at
some $1.5 billion. It is still probably too much. It may be too much,
but at least it would be an accommodation.
I am advised by the Senator from Missouri he has had discussions with
the Senator from South Carolina about a lower figure, which would not
result in a Republican effort to defeat cloture, that is, to carry
forward on a filibuster. I think filibusters are highly undesirable,
Mr. President, on grounds of principle and especially now, given the
public reaction and public disdain for gridlock.
The Congress as a unit has never been very popular. It has seldom
been more unpopular than it is now. That in part is driven by the
public view that we are fractured and we are partisan and we are
political and we are wrapped in gridlock. That is why I do not like to
see filibusters on this Senate floor so the American people see
disagreement about which they have an instinct, largely true, that it
is partisan and political. I, for one, do not like seeing the partisan
votes where virtually everybody on that side of the aisle lines up that
way and everybody on this side of the aisle winds up the other way.
My record in the Senate, now this 14th year, demonstrates my
independence. I have been in the minority on this side a great deal as
I have seen the individual issues. I think too frequently in our body
people are unwilling to exercise independent judgment. I am not ready
to respond in a knee-jerk reaction to a request to filibuster.
When the Senator from Missouri asked me to support that earlier this
week, I replied in the negative. When the assistant Republican leader
made the same request I gave the same answer. When the Senate
Republican leader asked the same thing I again declined, as recently as
yesterday evening. But what I saw last night has convinced me we have
to take a stand and we have to oppose the kind of tactics which we have
seen on this bill. We ought to take a stand to reduce the cost of this
measure, acknowledging the value of research and development but not
having the enormous increase to in excess of $2.8 billion.
If I had to pick a figure, frankly, I would pick a figure lower than
the figure picked by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] last night--
$1.5 billion. But I intend to support a filibuster permanently until
the figure is reduced to $1.5 billion on this pending legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from South Carolina wait for
a moment?
____________________