[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?

                          ____________________