On the recordMarch 10, 1994
I rise today to express my opposition to S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act. Every Member of this body unquestionably supports the goals of S. 4--to make the United States a more competitive nation worldwide. Many of us differ, however, on how to achieve this goal. S. 4 promises bigger, more intrusive Government at a time when we should be reducing Government and removing the handcuffs that restrict small business. This bill doubles the size of the Commerce Department. It triples the size of one of its agencies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. S. 4 creates or expands at least six programs within the Commerce Department and establishes three new advisory boards. The underlying assumption of S. 4 is that the Federal Government, rather than the free market, is better suited to determine winners and losers in high-technology industries. This logic is fundamentally flawed and will do little to enhance U.S. competitiveness. In fact, the only increased competition we will see, if S. 4 is enacted, will be between Members of Congress and special interest groups fighting for pork-barrel projects. And mark my words, precious taxpayers dollars will flow to projects, not based on merit but on the skill of the special interests and politicians. If anyone doubts me, I've got a courthouse in Brooklyn to show them. The Government can play an important role in promoting U.S. competitiveness. But that role is not to handpick new industries to subsidize.
Source
govinfo.gov




