Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)

[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[Congressional Record: May 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2442, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 420

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2442) to reauthorize appropriations under the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as
amended, to revise administrative provisions of the Act to
improve the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to
administer grant programs, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made
in order by this resolution and shall not exceed ninety
minutes, with sixty minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation and thirty minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
committee amendments now printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in part 1 of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. Before consideration of any other amendment it shall
be in order to consider the amendment printed in part 2 of
the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by a Member
designated in the report. All points of order against the
amendments printed in the report are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.

{time} 1310

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McDermott). The gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary one-half hour of debate time to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon], pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 420 is the rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 2442, the Economic Development Reauthorization
Act of 1994.
This is an open rule. It provides 90 minutes of general debate time,
60 minutes of which is to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Works
and Transportation. The remaining 30 minutes is to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill. We are unaware of any controversy
surrounding the waivers.
Under the rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed
in part 1 of the report accompanying the rule, is made in order as an
original bill for the purposes of amendment. The substitute shall be
considered as read.
Further, the rule provides that before consideration of any other
amendment, it shall be in order to consider the Kanjorski amendment
printed in part 2 of the report. The Kanjorski amendment deals with the
marketing and commercial licensing of Federal developed technologies
and processes, and establishes a Business Development and Technology
Commercialization Corporation.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in
the report.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and the bill itself represent the results of
true bipartisan work and negotiations, as well as the cooperation of
several committees. I commend everyone involved for making these
efforts to bring a bill to the House which has been carefully
considered and which is the product of majority and minority
cooperation, as well as of collaboration among major committees.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2442,
the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 1994, which revises and
extends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 and the
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965.
This reauthorization of these programs, which have been dependent on
appropriations to keep them going since 1982, is long overdue. Now that
we seem to have a consensus that believes certain agencies of the
Government can help rebuild the economies of distressed communities by
ensuring that Federal funds are used to leverage private investment, we
have a good chance to have their reauthorization enacted.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents an area that has been
especially hard hit by the recession, by defense cutbacks, and more
recently, by two major natural disasters--the fires of last fall and
the January earthquake that destroyed so much of my district, including
businesses there--I am especially pleased to see that the committees
have shown a commitment to maintain a Federal presence to help such
severely distressed communities. The EDA is to be commended for
attempting to improve its role in helping communities adjust to these
types of natural disasters, to base closures, and to defense cutbacks
and for using its wide range of tools to help communities find new
jobs.

general leave

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 420.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of
H.R. 2442, the Economic Development and Reauthorization Act of 1994.
This is a totally open rule, something we do not see on this floor very
often. As a matter of fact, the extraneous material I just offered to
the Chair points out that almost 80 percent of all rules that have come
before this body this Congress have been closed or restrictive. So we
are very grateful for the opportunity to have our traditional free and
open debate.
However, there are several unusual features to this rule that Members
should be aware of. First, the rule makes in order a compromise
amendment in the nature of a substitute crafted by the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation and the Committee on Banking, Finance
and Urban Affairs. This compromise amendment, which is printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules for this rule, will be considered as
original text for the purpose of amendment on the floor.
Second, this rule allows for consideration of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], which adds a new
title III to the bill, regarding business development assistance, prior
to consideration of any other amendment.
Mr. Speaker, Members should be advised that amendments to the
Kanjorski amendment will be taken up prior to consideration of titles I
and II of the bill under the 5-minute rule. While I appreciate the open
rule on this legislation, I cannot support the blanket waiver of points
of order contained in this rule.
As I have pointed out in the past on numerous occasions, the
Committee on Rules should specifically cite in each special rule
reported which points of order under House rules are being waived and
why. That is how we got ourselves into the sea of red ink we are in
today--just waiving points of order, waiving the Budget Act. That is
what we do when we waive all points of order--we waive the Budget Act.
This is an area that I sincerely hope the Committee on Rules can
improve on in the future, and heaven knows, it needs improving.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski] came before the Committee on Rules last week with a hotly
debated amendment to, among other things, establish a new Business
Development and Technology Commercialization Corporation outside the
Government of the United States. This amendment required a germaneness
waiver which the Committee on Rules provided.

I would just like to point out for the record that during the
Committee on Rules consideration of another bill, just last week, H.R.
4296, which we all know is the assault weapons ban, the Committee on
Rules majority, that is the Democrats on the other side of the aisle,
refused to provide a germaneness waiver for the Republican amendment of
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and refused even to make it
in order. There was no ``give it a waiver,'' no ``allow it to be made
in order.'' That amendment would have allowed debate on the other
alternative to taking away the guns of law-abiding citizens. The
alternative would have required, this is the other side of the coin
now, would have required mandatory minimum sentences of criminals who
commit crimes with guns. In other words, throw the book at these
criminals, but do not take away the guns of law-abiding citizens.
We were denied that simply because the Rules Committee upstairs
refused to even allow that to be debated on the floor. Is that not a
shame?
Now, under this rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski]
is granted the opportunity to offer his amendment before any other
amendment and is granted a germaneness waiver. I guess it pays to be a
member of the Democrat Party. They certainly have special privileges.
Mr. Speaker, it is said that an elephant never forgets. I wish to
notify my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that our side will
be unlikely to forget this wavier. Hopefully, we can balance things out
the next time we come back up to the Committee on Rules for another
waiver.
Having said all that, I will reserve decision on how I am going to
vote on this particular rule until we have heard from the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], whose committee was bypassed by that
waiver. A little bit later on in this debate, I may have some questions
as to why the waiver was granted.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the information to which I
referred.

OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)............................................. 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)............................................. 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)............................................. 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)............................................. 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)............................................. 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88)............................................ 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90)............................................ 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)............................................. 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)............................................. 62 13 21 49 79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of
order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is
otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called
modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for
consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are
restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.

Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''
Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 5, 1994.

OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1(not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).
Offenders.
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993.... C H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill. 1 (D-1; R-0).... N/A....................... A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3: Campaign Finance 35 (D-6; R-29).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).
Reform.
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3400: Reinventing 34 (D-15; R-19). 3 (D-3; R-0).............. A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).
Government.
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994..... MC H.R. 3759: Emergency 14 (D-8; R-5; I- 5 (D-3; R-2).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3,
Supplemental Appropriations. 1). 1994).
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994..... MC H.R. 811: Independent Counsel 27 (D-8; R-19).. 10 (D-4; R-6)............. PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
Act. 1994).
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce 3 (D-2; R-1).... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).
Restructuring.
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994.... MO H.R. 6: Improving America's NA.............. NA........................ A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).
Schools.
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994..... MC H. Con. Res. 218: Budget 14 (D-5; R-9)... 5 (D-3; R-2).............. A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).
Resolution FY 1995-99.
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994.... MO H.R. 4092: Violent Crime 180 (D-98; R-82) 68 (D-47; R-21)........... A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).
Control.
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994.... MO H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act.. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994.... O H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act..... N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994...... C H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons 7 (D-5; R-2).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).
Ban Act.
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994...... O H.R. 2442: EDA N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
Reauthorization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta],
chairman of the full committee.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Public Works
and Transporation, particularly Mr. Shuster, our full committee ranking
member, Mr. Wise, chairman of our Subcommittee on Economic Development,
and Ms. Molinari, the subcommittee's ranking member, I rise in strong
support of House Resolution 420 which provides for consideration of
H.R. 2442, the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 1994.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 420 provides for a process which is
fair, responsible and responsive. It does so by providing for
consideration of the bill under an open rule. Under the provisions of
the resolution, no limitations are placed on amendments which may be
offered. The rule protects the rights of every Member of the House--on
both sides of the aisle. To those who advocate and support open rules
as the very essence of the legislative process, House Resolution 420 is
such a rule. When the leadership of the Public Works Committee
testified before the Rules Committee, we requested an open rule and
House Resolution 420 honors that request.
In that regard, I want to commend Chairman Moakley, the members of
the Rules Committee, and the manager of the resolution, Congressman
Beilenson, for bringing forth the kind of rule which I believe deserves
unanimous bipartisan support.
House Resolution 420 also makes in order a compromise substitute as
the original text for purposes of amendment. The compromise substitute
amendment reflects a bipartisan agreement of the Public Works Committee
and the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs to revise and
extend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 and the
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 and reauthorize the
programs of the Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian
Regional Commission.
On that point, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank
the many members of the Public Works and Banking Committees who have
worked long and hard on this important legislation. Those members
include Mr. Wise, Ms. Molinari, and Mr. Shuster of the Public Works
Committee, Mr. Kanjorski, chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic
Growth and Credit Formation of the Banking Committee, Mr. Ridge, the
subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Gonzalez, the full committee
chairman, and Mr. Leach, the committee's ranking member. Together,
these two committees have held more than a dozen hearings this Congress
exploring ways to modify, improve, and update the programs of EDA and
the ARC. Collectively, I believe these Members have produced a product
that is visionary, responsive, and constructive.
The compromise substitute reauthorizes EDA and ARC programs for 3
years through fiscal year 1996. There are two titles in it. Title I
reauthorizes EDA programs at $322 million for fiscal year 1994 and at
an estimated amount of $386 million for each of fiscal years 1995 and
1996. Moreover, like previous committee- and House-passed EDA
reauthorization bills, the substitute revises EDA's eligibility
criteria and requires applicants to develop an investment strategy.
These reforms will better enable EDA to target truly distressed
communities and ensure that the funds are used to leverage private
investment.
Title II reauthorizes ARC programs at $249 million for fiscal year
1994 and at an estimated amount of $214 million for each of fiscal
years 1995 and 1996. To date, the Appalachian Regional Commission has
overseen the construction of more than 2,200 miles of the Appalachian
Development Highway System. The highway system, together with the ARC's
community development programs, help diversify the economy, attract new
business, and improve the quality of life in Appalachia.
In each succeeding Congress since 1981, the Public Works Committee
has reported a bill reauthorizing and revising the EDA and ARC programs
and the House has passed these bills by overwhelming margins. Those
bills did not become law because the two previous administrations
opposed these programs. Now we have an opportunity to begin anew and I
believe that H.R. 2442, and specifically the compromise substitute,
incorporates the necessary principles which will serve as the basis for
long-standing bipartisan support for this legislation.
First, the authorizations contained are at levels considerably
reduced from the pre-1982 authorization levels because of the
Committee's strong commitment to help reduce our Federal deficit and
national debt.
Second, the committee is strongly committed to maintaining a Federal
presence to help severely distressed communities. In doing so, the
substitute revises EDA's eligibility criteria to target the limited
Federal dollars to the most distressed communities of our Nation. This
is a major program reform that is long overdue.
Finally, in order to be eligible for assistance under H.R. 2442, the
applicant must submit an investment strategy outlining how a particular
project fits into a community's development plan. The required
investment strategy will outline how the applicant will leverage
private sector monies to leverage the Federal investment, and will help
ensure that EDA is funding the right kinds of projects.
Today, for a number of reasons, I believe that Congress is in the
best position in years to enact meaningful legislation to authorize and
improve the EDA and ARC programs. I believe that H.R. 2442 and the
substitute provide Congress with a great opportunity to better enable
the programs of the Economic Development Administration and Appalachian
Regional Commission to contribute to the economic strength of our
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of House Resolution 420 to allow us to
consider this important legislation in a fair and open process.

{time} 1320

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in no way do I want to criticize the chairman of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Mineta]. That is my old committee, and the gentleman
from California does an excellent job on that committee. I admire and
respect him for it, but I do have to question these waivers.
Before I yield to the next speaker, Mr. Speaker, I just would like to
ask these questions and perhaps answer them myself, so people
understand what these waivers are all about.
Mr. Speaker, question No. 1, why is a blanket waiver of points of
order against consideration of the bill provided by this rule?
The answer is, the Committee on Public Works and Transportation
included a CBO cost estimate in its report of the bill, House Report
103-423, part 1. However, the Banking Committee report, House Report
103-423, part 2, does not include a CBO cost estimate. Waivers of
clause 2(l)(3)C of rule 11 requiring a CBO cost estimate and clause
7(a)1 of rule 13 requiring a committee cost estimate are needed because
of the absence of any cost estimate in the Banking Committee's reported
bill.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are not following the rules of the
House, so we have to have these waivers.
Question No. 2. As the gentleman knows, the Committee on Public Works
and Transportation and the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs produced a compromise amendment in the nature of a substitute,
which is printed in part 1 of the Rules Committee report. This
amendment will serve as original text for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule. Why does the rule reported by the Rules
Committee waive all points of order against this compromise amendment?
A waiver of clause 7, rule 16 regarding germaneness is needed for the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. This bill was introduced by
request of the Clinton administration. The introduced bill was only an
authorization for the EDA; Public Works and Banking added the ARC.
Thus, the amendment in the nature of a substitute in not germane to the
introduced bill.
Mr. Speaker, additionally, a waiver of clause 5(a) of rule 21
prohibiting appropriations on a legislative bill is needed because
section 118(d) ``Funds Transferred From Other Departments and
Agencies'' allows for the transfer of certain receipts without
returning them to the Treasury and going back through the
appropriations process, very, very confusing.
Question No. 3, the rule before us also allows for consideration of
an amendment, prior to any other amendment, by Mr. Kanjorski, printed
in part 2 of the Rules Committee report, adding a new title III, called
Business Development Assistance, to the base text. What points of order
are waived by the rule against this amendment?
A waiver of clause 7, rule 16 is necessary; the amendment is not
germane to the bill.
The amendment also needs a waiver of 5(a) of rule 21, prohibiting
appropriations on a legislative bill. Section 304(d)(4) of the
Kanjorski amendment allows the Business Development and Technology
Commercialization Corporation, that is a long phrase, established under
this new title to retain and use a percentage of any royalties without
returning funds to the Treasury and going through the appropriations
process, in other words, following the rules of the House.

{time} 1330

Question: Would the gentleman agree that as a general principle the
Committee on Rules could improve the deliberative process by citing
specific House rules that are being waived by the special rules
reported?
I would just say, the gentleman does not have to answer that
question. It is the question of why we are concerned about blanket
waivers, because I am sure that people who might be viewing this or
even Members in their offices do not understand what I just said. It is
the rules of the House we are concerned with and Members should know
what these specific waivers are.
Mr. Speaker, I make this point not in real criticism but in hope that
the next rules put out that specifically waive points of order will be
such as we can look at and understand.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I am glad to yield to my very respected friend, the
gentleman from California.
Mr. MINETA. As the gentleman will recall, the introduced bill by
request only had the Economic Development Administration, but
historically the Committee on Public Works and Transportation in
dealing with the Economic Development Act always has with it the
Appalachian Regional Commission, so to the extent we added ARC to the
introduced bill, or to our bill, we had to get a technical waiver, the
gentleman is absolutely correct on that.
Mr. Speaker, we did have a cost estimate as to title I and title II
portion of the bill. The Committee on Public Works and Transportation
really never asked for a general waiver nor is there a violation of the
Budget Act in this provision or in the introduced bill or in the
substitute that we have under consideration here.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to explain our committee's position on the
relevant points that the gentleman brought up, and I hope the gentleman
will accept the explanation for that.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has certainly made a very
cogent statement and he has made my case. The fact is that under this
rule, no specific budget waiver is included. We are giving a blanket
waiver but there is nothing in here that is going to waive the Budget
Act specifically.
Mr. Speaker, Members are entitled to know that and that is why I say
any rule we bring to this floor ought to cite the specific waivers so
Members know what they are voting on.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I am glad to yield to one of the most respected Members
of our Committee on Rules, another gentleman from California. We are
always overrun with Californians on this floor for some reason.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the explanation by Chairman Mineta for the
reason for at least a couple of the waivers in there, but to the larger
question our friend, the gentleman from New York poses, I think he
makes a very valid point and this member at least of the Committee on
Rules will join with the gentleman from New York in urging our
committee in the future to be as specific as we possibly can in
explaining the reasons for the various waivers, and in many cases as
the gentleman understands, they are relatively technical in nature, in
some instances as was explained by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Mineta] for historical reasons in a sense we are including the ARC in
with the EDA, was necessary for that purpose. In any case, I think it
is a useful suggestion and perhaps we can work together on making it a
reality.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has made that argument in the
Committee on Rules and I have commended him for it in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the ranking member of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology. The gentleman has returned to
Washington even though there is an election primary going on in
Pennsylvania today, and he wants to get back up there.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that one of the germaneness
waivers in this rule has some major consequences to it, and I wish it
had been more carefully considered.
Mr. Speaker, when we have an open rule, it is extremely important in
many instances that we make certain that the committees of jurisdiction
are properly protected. In the case of the Kanjorski amendment that
will be offered under the waiver permitted in this rule, I think that
is particularly important. This amendment is not germane to a public
works bill. The bill that is going to be on the floor is a public works
bill, but in this case what has happened is that the amendment slops
over into the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, because the amendment will deal with the subject of
technology transfer, more particularly the Federal Technology Transfer
Act, and this bill is going to drastically alter the Federal Technology
Transfer Act.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell Members a few reasons why that is probably
not a good thing for us to be doing with an amendment where germaneness
was waived.
First of all, technology transfer in a centralized regime has been
shown to be a failure time, after time, after time. When we centralize
technology transfer, we get all the worst policies for this country.
The Kanjorski amendment seeks to renege on what we have already decided
to do in Federal technology transfer programs to decentralize the
programs, it seeks to recentralize the programs and thereby it seems to
me creates havoc in what we have been trying to achieve for some period
of time in these programs.
Second, in the same area, the economic incentives that we are seeking
to bring about in all of this come from individual laboratories and
they promote economic development at the local level. What we have got
here is now an attempt to renege on that and go back toward centralized
kinds of control. It seems to me that makes no sense.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell Members where we have a real problem. As was
mentioned in the remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs portion of this
does not have the cost estimate in it. So we are waiving germaneness
and we are waiving the rules of the House with regard to the Committee
on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs' cost report. Guess why it may
not have that. Because when the original Kanjorski bill on the subject
matter addressed in this amendment was introduced, it had a $12 billion
price tag to it. That was for fiscal years 1995-99.
Mr. Speaker, there are no cost figures given whatsoever for the
amendment that is going to be before us. He has taken out some sections
that were in the bill, but nevertheless we are sitting there with that
bill that was originally introduced at $12 billion, we now have no cost
estimates from the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, we
have no costs in the amendment itself, we are already spending millions
of dollars on the National Technology Transfer Center and the National
Technical Information Service, millions are being spent already, and
this is another add-on that we do not know the cost of.
Mr. Speaker, let us compare the $12 billion. This entire bill, the
entire bill that is going to be before us is a $1.2 billion bill.
Mr. Speaker, if this thing stretches out to where the gentleman's
original legislation was, this particular amendment could be 10 times
the cost of the entire bill we have before us.
Mr. Speaker, it makes absolutely no sense to waive germaneness of the
amendment and bring it to the floor in this kind of manner. This is
exactly the kind of thing that ought to be brought before committees,
it is exactly the kind of thing that ought to be brought to the floor
in proper sequence, not with rules waived and not with germaneness
waived on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, let me make one final point. We are also doing this in
violation of what the Clinton administration wants. The Clinton
administration opposes this section (c) amendment.
Let me read a couple of things here that the Commerce Department has
to say about this particular subtitle (c). The general counsel says
that the administration would oppose subtitle (c) ``because it creates
a new corporation which would be empowered to act as patent licensing
agent for Federal agencies. If it is intended that agencies be required
to use the corporation's services, the provision is inconsistent with
Federal law and policy, such as the Federal Technology Transfer Act,
which encourages agencies to take an active part in managing and
promoting their inventions. If the authority is merely permissive, it
is difficult to see how the corporation could derive the revenues it
needs to survive. We do support the principles of section 722, but
believe that legislation would be premature at this time. The National
Technical Information Service already makes much of this information
available through catalogs and periodic alerts when an important
invention is available for licensing. It also maintains a Patent
Licensing Bulletin Board as a subsystem of FedWorld, its on-line
gateway to bulletin boards and other information throughout the
Government. Additional time is needed to develop and refine the system.
At the present time, NTIS, which is self-supporting, would not be able
to give the information products away for free and without limit as the
section envisions. Accordingly, we recommend that subtitle (c) be
deleted.''
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a germaneness waiver that goes
against an administration policy, which in my view is bad policy when
we begin centralizing tech transfer, and more importantly is done
without cost estimates, and specifically the Committee on Banking,
Finance and Urban Affairs refused to put the cost estimates into the
report on the bill.
The Speaker, this is a bad, bad thing to do a germaneness waiver on,
and for that reason I am very disappointed in what would typically be a
good idea, an open rule, but an open rule that waives germaneness for
this kind of an amendment seems to me does all the wrong things.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Let me respond briefly, if I may, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker]. Let me say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] that he made some very valid points, some of which were not,
quite frankly, as our mutual friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], will attest, were not made to us at the meeting of the
Committee on Rules. So some of this is sort of first time.
We have heard some of these things, but I accept them. I understand
what the gentleman is saying. I listened carefully to what the
gentleman was saying, so I think your comments were extremely useful
and will be useful to us in the future.
I do want to respond, at least partially, to this extent at least, to
let Members know that the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] was, in fact, to which we gave this
germaneness waiver, was a part of the original bill as reported by the
Banking Committee. It did, although as I understand it now, it may well
be that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] was not included
in these conversations, if that is the case, I wish the Committee on
Rules had been advised of this earlier; that we did have the approval,
that the Committee on Rules did have the approval, of the relevant
involved committees of jurisdiction before we granted this particular
waiver.
I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] and members
of his committee believe they are put at a disadvantage, because they
think his amendment should be part of the original base bill instead of
having to come in as a separate amendment.
I just wanted to explain this history that this was with the consent
of the relevant committees and we made it in order.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEILENSON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes an important point. It
is my understanding, for instance, that the chairman of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to the Committee on Rules
specifically asking that the germaneness waiver not be granted and, you
know, in the case of the Science Committee, it is true that the
majority did agree to waive it. I did not, however, and really did not
find out about the fact that this was moving through until after the
committee had already said to go ahead on it.
I think that is bad policy. But that is a problem within our
committee, not with you. In reference to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, I think you did have a letter from the Energy and Commerce
chairman asking you not to grant the waiver.
Mr. BEILENSON. The gentleman is correct. At first we did in fact have
that, and I was suggesting earlier, our mutual friend, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], will attest to the fact that during the
hearing that representation in fact was made by the chairman of that
committee. But subsequent to that time, at the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the various parties involved, perhaps
not all, perhaps not the gentleman himself had the opportunity, was
notified in a proper fashion, in a timely fashion, but the other people
involved including the chairman to whom the gentleman from Pennsylvania
alludes, in fact, did get together and did consent to this particular
way of bringing the measure to the floor and bringing the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] in as a
separate measure.
There was apparent approval of everyone to whom the Committee on
Rules spoke, a method which we are offering on the floor today.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield further, the problem is,
there is some concern about the process here, because there was an
attempt to assure that the minority, I think, was included, but when my
objections arose on my behalf, and I think the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] also was concerned about this, that seems to
have been ignored in the process, and we moved forward without the
minority being given due course.
Mr. BEILENSON. If I may reclaim my time, the gentleman makes a valid
point except to say, in fairness, I think the members of the Committee
on Rules were not aware of the gentleman's problem or, in fact, that
the proper gentlemen were not spoken to with respect to the minority's
position.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield, just so you know, it was my
impression, given some discussions I had on it, was that if the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and I had not said that we
were not going to sign off on this, that it was not to be brought
forward, so I ended up somewhat surprised when I found out the whole
thing was rolling ahead despite the fact the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and I had not agreed to the process.
I thank the gentleman for his explanation.
Mr. BEILENSON. Not at all, and I appreciate, as I said earlier, the
gentleman's remarks that were most helpful.
I want to respond to one more just so the Members will not be too
terribly concerned about this either. The gentleman alluded to the fact
the Kanjorski amendment or Kanjorski bill, as originally introduced,
had something like a potential $12 billion cost. This gentleman is
informed and does, in fact, believe that the amendment which was made
in order and for which germaneness was waived does not involve any
substantial cost whatsoever and it was on that basis, of course, that
we granted this waiver which we thought under the circumstances was,
therefore, relatively a technical one.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield further, the problem is the
reason why it does not have any cost on it is it is based on a royalty
system which they claim repays all of this. The problem is with the
royalty-based system, you have now waived the rules of the House in
order to make the royalty system not subject to the appropriations
process, whereas rules before have always said that the royalty-based
system had to be subject to appropriations.
The only way you are establishing that is by doing an end run around
another major process of the House.
Mr. BEILENSON. I thank the gentleman again for his comments. They
have, in fact, been useful, and this gentleman hopes they will be
attended to in the future.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to some extent to my colleague, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. Walker would make the argument that this is a form of
centralization. I would say that it is quite the contrary. It is an
attempt to decentralize something that has been centralized.
He would suggest in the second argument that the original bill
contained an expenditure of $12 billion. That is absolutely correct.
However, the original bill covered the closing of the transfer price
loophole which would have raised $24 billion for the U.S. Treasury, 12
of which would have been committed to create jobs for Americans and the
other $12 billion would have been used and should be used to reduce the
deficit.
I find it strange that my conservative colleague from Pennsylvania
neglects to tell his colleagues that, in fact, that portion, the fourth
leg of the original bill, would have expended $12 billion to create
millions of jobs for average Americans, good-paying jobs, and would
have brought in $24 billion, $12 of which would have gone to the
reduction of the deficit.
On the germaneness question that he raises, the reason there is a
germaneness question is that the Banking Committee cooperated with the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and at their request took
this out of the original text of the bill that it was in originally and
set it out as an amendment in a separate item so that it can be handled
in the future for purposes of committee jurisdiction as a separate
title to the bill.
I think what we are arguing here is something very important. Let me
say that it would seem to me that the argument of my friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, would be that this suddenly fell from
heaven as an idea. I wanted to assure my colleagues of the House that
this is not true.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a member of the
subcommittee, knows, who helped fashion this and as an original
cosponsor of the bill, we worked on this bill and now this amendment
for well over 18 months. We have had thousands of pages of testimony
and eight full congressional hearings on this subject, some here in
Washington and some around the country. We have had the advice of some
of the best experts in the country, both in technology, in law and some
of the people that deal with technologies, and on the investment in
technologies.
Let my tell my colleagues some of the facts that we heard that are
astounding. The astounding facts are the U.S. Government spends about
$80 billion a year on research and development, and we do have some
developed mechanisms within the Federal system to put this technology
out into the marketplace, but they have not been terribly successful.
One of those agencies testified that over the last 5 years they have
been very successful in putting out 314 technologies, 314 technologies
licensed to the private sector in 5 years for a grand total of revenue
of $36 million to the Federal Treasury.
Now, if you break that down on a 5-year portion, that is about $7
million a year that came into the U.S. Treasury, and the U.S.
Government has been spending $80 billion a year in research and
development.
Now, I am not the best businessman in the world, but I know the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is known to represent the interests of
business, and I would suggest that a $7 million return to the U.S.
Government on an $80 billion investment on a yearly basis does not
smack of the best of business in the world. As a matter of fact, may I
say to my colleagues on the Republican side, this bill is about as
close as you are ever going to get to putting the American Government
in the hands of the private sector to handle what the private sector
can do best.
This is hardly what you would call a Government-involvement bill.
This is a bill to attempt to take what has been and is considered a
valuable inventory of assets owned by the American people and paid for
by the American people that has not properly been commercialized and
marketed, and taking the process of the American marketing ability and
the private sector and to use that process to avail American small
business, medium-sized business, and entrepreneurs to getting American-
paid-for technology so that they can individually commercialize that
technology.

{time} 1350

I would say this is about as close as we can come to what I would
consider my friends on the other side should be offering. As a matter
of fact, let me say and assure you that this is a bipartisan bill.
The Members who served on the subcommittee I am proud to chair of the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs came out of the banking
subcommittee on a unanimous voice vote. We did not have objection. We
have sponsors in the bill who are very bipartisan in nature. As a
matter of fact, one of my closest colleagues in the House, and friend
and fellow Republican from Pennsylvania, Mr. Tom Ridge, is standing for
the governorship of Pennsylvania right in this very election. I am
proud to say that Tom Ridge was a cosponsor and a codeveloper of this
concept in the bill. Tom believes, as I do, that this does not believe
or belong to have partisan markings to it. This truly is an American
bill. This is an attempt to take American paid for technology and to
find a way for average Americans, small businessmen, medium-size
businessmen and entrepreneurs, to have the same shot at advanced
American technology as the very large corporations in America have
today, but most of all what very large corporations in Japan and around
the world have today.
What we found in our testimony is that there is one agency, one
country in this town that has more than 21 experts who do nothing else
but every day study the technology reserves of the U.S. inventory and
then they are the largest purchasers of licenses and rights to that
technology, to be taken home to their homeland, developed into products
with some of our natural resources and then sent back as a finished
product into the American market and then sold.
All we are asking for is the opportunity for the average American to
see it. Now, how do we intend to do that? The bill is not that
complicated. It says that Americans should be able to know what is in
the inventory, what kind of research and development over the last 20
years, when we financed 1.5 million research and development projects,
what did they do, what did they find, what are they capable of being
commercialized for?
I challenge my friends who challenge this bill and I challenge the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to walk through the system of
buying Federal technology and find out how expensive and how difficult
it is. If you are a private individual in Pennsylvania and you wanted
to go into business and use American technology, you had better be
prepared to spend a couple of years and a couple of million dollars
before you are ever going to get title or license to that property.
Instead of that happening, what we suggest is the creation of a
database so that all of the technology will be readily retrievable by a
PC and a modem in every American home and business in the United
States. It will be cross-indexed, cross-referenced, not only so it can
be purchased but so that we do not have duplication of efforts in
scientific laboratories and schools and laboratories all over the
country.
Let me tell you a story that really made me move this bill through.
For the last 20 years of my life I followed the process of enzyme use
in new processes in the United States, 20 years ago or longer, the
process to take wastepaper and dissolve it into glucose and then put it
through bacteria and make ethanol in a simultaneous atmosphere was
discovered by the Gulf Oil Co. and the Nissan Mining Co. of America,
way back in the early 1970's. It was the mutation of an enzyme from the
Nagasaki sewer system that these two great corporations spent a great
deal of research and development and finally developed the wherewithal
where we could take waste cellulose, which makes up more than half of
every ton of municipal waste, and converted into a fuel product for
automobiles, at a reasonable cost. That process has been carried on
until most recently a famous American university has brought it down to
a cost where they can take that wastepaper, put an enzyme to it and
convert it to ethanol at a cost of less than 75 cents a gallon; almost
or it is a commerciable product. It is not yet in commercial stages,
but it is working toward it within the next year or two.
In discussing it with some of the scientists who are working on this,
it became clear to me that the biggest problem here is the cost of the
enzyme, which represents almost half the cost of the production of that
fuel.
When we looked around the country to see who was doing enzyme
research, I was amazed to find that one of the most talented
individuals who could solve the problem of the cost of that enzyme
existed at the same university not far from the very laboratory where
this process is being made. But there was no way in the Federal system
to make sure that these people knew that they were commonly working on
a similar problem.
What we are attempting to do with this universal database of
inventory of research and development is make it possible within the
next year that businessmen, entrepreneurs and researchers throughout
this country could cross-reference and find out what their colleagues
in the past have done. Then we are going to take that database and make
it available to good old American marketing techniques through a
private corporation which is charged with marketing this research and
development and selling it to the American market. And we hope they can
do it by television, something similar to the Discovery Channel, where
Americans of all shades of life can watch technologies owned by the
Government are put out on this network.
Finally, a single one-stop shopping for the technology, a quick
action rather than 2 years and $2 million, make it a lot shorter and a
lot cheaper so American businessmen, small and medium and large,
American entrepreneurs could have an opportunity to develop jobs by
taking American technology and putting it to work.
I think it is probably, if anything, on a partisan basis as
Republican as you can get in this House. I think we can stand in the
Banking Committee on the side of the fact that we spent more than a
year's time, extended study, and have the evidence to support the
passage of this amendment which is attached to this bill under the
rule. All the gracious considerations that we have been given by the
Committee on Rules to accomplish this tomorrow with this bill when it
is brought up for final passage will only afford not only the Banking
Committee but finally the American people to share in the wealth and
the genius of research and development that American taxpayers' money
have been spent on for too long without bringing that to
commercialization.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the consideration of
H.R. 2442, the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 1994.
I would like to thank the members of the Rules Committee for
ensuring, under the rules, that a key part of H.R. 2442, as reported
from the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, is allowed to
be considered by the full membership of the House of Representatives.
Specifically, the rule makes in order, as the first amendment for
consideration during debate on the bill, an amendment I will offer to
utilize the fruits of this Nation's research as an engine for creating
significant numbers of new jobs in private sector businesses.
Under the version of H.R. 2442, which was unanimously reported from
the Banking Committee, with strong bipartisan support, a new subtitle
7(C) was included to enhance the ability of U.S. small: and medium-
sized businesses to obtain information and licenses on technologies and
process developed through Federal R&D. By making it easier for small
and medium-sized businesses to commercialize these these technologies,
tens of thousands of new jobs will be created which offer good wages
and real opportunities for advancement to working men and women across
this country. In the final analysis, I believe that this is what
economic development is all about.
Under the rule before us now, I will offer a modified version of
these provisions from the Banking Committee's version of H.R. 2442 as
an amendment to create a new title III to the bill.
I am pleased to inform the Members that the language of the amendment
I will offer was developed in collaboration with both the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. Neither committee is opposing the amendment in the form in
which it will be offered. Similarly, it is my understanding that Public
Works Committee Chairman Mineta, and Subcommittee Chairman Wise, both
intend to vote for the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, despite the enormous potential for job creation under
the amendment, the amendment has been the focus of some
misunderstanding. In our revisions, developed with the assistance of
the Science Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have
corrected some of the causes of these misunderstandings. Nevertheless,
I would like to take a minute, to outline what the amendment does, and
just as importantly, what it does not do.

The amendment does not change current law; it supplements current
law. Today, Federal agencies and labs are charged with the
responsibility of attempting to transfer technologies they develop to
private sector commercial application. Increasingly, some Federal
laboratories are entering into cooperative research and development
agreements [CRADA's] as part of their efforts to achieve technology
transfer. These efforts are not changed under the amendment.
Today, universities which develop technologies and patentable
inventions, during the course of Federally funded research, have the
right to file patents, issue licenses, and receive royalties from the
private sector commercialization of the technologies and patents. This
does not change under the amendment.
Today, through the activities of Federal agencies, labs, and
universities, initial efforts at technology transfer are decentralized
and diffused. This does not change under the amendment.
Under the amendment, all rights and responsibilities of Federal
agencies, labs, and universities are protected and preserved.
What the amendment does provide for is, first, the creation, by the
Secretary of Commerce, of a comprehensive, integrated data base of all
technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights to which the
Federal Government has an interest. Currently, there is a great deal of
effort underway to improve and expand data bases within the Department
of Commerce. The language of the amendment will support and assist the
Secretary in moving forward with these efforts.
Second, the amendment provides for several studies on the
effectiveness of the Federal Government's overall technology transfer
efforts and methods to enhance those efforts. If, after the completion
of those studies, the President determines that it would not impair the
operation of Federal policies and programs relating to technology
utilization and commercialization, the President will establish a
Business Development and Technology Commercialization Corporation.
Following its creation, the President will provide for its conversion
to private ownership.
The Corporation will be charged with undertaking an aggressive,
multifaceted marketing effort to increase awareness by U.S. small- and
medium-sized businesses of the availability of licenses to
commercialize Federally held technologies. Working in conjunction
Federal agencies, laboratories, and universities, the Corporation may
also assist in the actual licensing of these technologies to U.S.
businesses. In our view, the services of the Corporation represent an
important opportunity to assist Federal agencies, laboratories, and
universities in carrying out their technology transfer
responsibilities. Under the language of the amendment, however, Federal
agencies, laboratories, and universities are not required to utilize
the services of the Corporation.
Third, the amendment authorizes the Corporation to serve as a
clearinghouse of information for U.S. businesses on finance assistance
which may be available through other Federal programs, through State or
local governments, or through the private sector.
The driving principle throughout the amendment is the need to make it
easier for U.S. businesses to have access to technologies developed
through Federal funding. Today, only very large businesses and foreign
interests have the resources to effectively learn of and pursue rights
to these technologies. The amendment recognizes that small- and medium-
sized businesses are the major job creating entities in this economy
and that it is imperative that we make it easier for these businesses
to have access to these new technologies.
Mr. Speaker, as important as improved job training and welfare reform
are, we will achieve only partial success on those fronts if we do not
simultaneously take meaningful steps to encourage the development of
thousands of new small businesses throughout this country to create
tens of thousands of new jobs, at good wages, with real futures. That
is what this amendment is all about. As such, I thank the members of
the Rules Committee for making the amendment in order during the debate
on H.R. 2442, and I urge the adoption of the rule and the amendment.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] for his kind and very bipartisan good
wishes for Tom Ridge in his bid to become Governor of Pennsylvania. We
wish him all the success in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am delighted to
have a chance to speak on this rule. I know our Banking Committee has
some time, but in the interest of everyone's time, I thought I would
speak at this time, I say to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, House Resolution 420, for
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2442, the Economic Development
Administration Reauthorization Act. We have worked long and hard on
this piece of legislation, and I think that people, especially in
business, and people who are looking for good-paying jobs, are going to
applaud this legislation.
This is an open rule. I compliment my friend from New York for
getting this open rule. It does not happen often.
It is noncontroversial from the minority point of view. No
legislation is perfect, and this bill is not perfect. But it is a good
bill, and I will be stating the reservations I may have when we argue
this particular bill and not the rule on the floor.
The rule's provision for considering an amendment in the nature of a
substitute provides for immediate consideration of the Kanjorski
amendment. The Kanjorski amendment providing for high-tech transfer
corporation consists of major provisions of H.R. 3550, legislation of
which I am an original cosponsor. Without the Kanjorski amendment,
bipartisan support for the substitute bill would be greatly weakened.
This proposal is designed to create new, good-paying, high-tech
private sector jobs without any major new Government outlays. This
initiative is designed to expedite businesses' utilization of hundreds
of billions of dollars of research and development for work paid by the
Federal Government--that is, our taxpayers--over the past several
decades.

{time} 1400

For years and years the taxpayers have paid for research and
development, but no one has really utilized it. This gives us a chance
for our companies, our workers, the people that are working to build up
our economy, to have this opportunity.
A clearinghouse of information about federally funded new
technologies would be created, and that is precisely what we have been
hearing in our Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and the
Committee on Small Business, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
where we deal with economic policy and trade. People are saying,
``Where can we go to in the Federal Government to find these new
discoveries? Where can we find these discoveries that can help us, the
new breakthroughs?'' And this is going to help us.
Mr. Speaker, a government chartered corporation, funded by a stock
sale, a stock sale, would operate as a one stop shopping place for
businesses. We cannot expect our American businesses to come and search
all over the country, all over Washington, pay huge fees to various
companies so they can find out what is available. I think that this
clearinghouse is going to be a real blessing, a real boon to our
businesses and to the people who are looking for good-paying jobs.
Unless burdened by unacceptable floor amendments, Mr. Speaker, the
bill will have significant bipartisan support I predict. I intend to
support this legislation, if the House approves it substantially as
reported and with the Kanjorski amendment to the substitute.
So, I urge my colleagues to vote for this constructive rule and to
vote for this job creating initiative, and I want to thank the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my friend, for giving me this
time today, and I want to compliment all the Committee on Rules members
for obtaining an open rule. I think that is a real feather in their
cap, and I want to say we all appreciate that work.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Green
Bay, WI [Mr. Roth].
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, to repeat, and as the gentleman from
Wisconsin said, this is an open rule, and I urge my colleagues to
approve it.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution
420 which provides for consideration of a substitute amendment to H.R.
2442, the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 1994.
House Resolution 420 provides for consideration of this substitute
amendment under an open rule. Under the provisions of the resolution,
no limitations are placed on amendments which may be offered. When the
leadership of the Public Works Committee testified before the Rules
Committee, we requested an open rule and House Resolution 420 honors
that request. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman
Moakley, the members of the Rules Committee, and the manager of the
resolution, Congressman Beilenson, for bringing forth a rule which
deserves unanimous support from both sides of the aisle.
House Resolution 420 provides for a compromise substitute amendment
to be in order as the original text for purposes of amendment. The
compromise substitute amendment reflects a bipartisan agreement of the
Public Works Committee and the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs to revise and extend the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 and the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 and
reauthorize the programs of the Economic Development Administration
[EDA] and the Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC].
Mr. Speaker, many of us have waited 12 long years to have the chance
to be here today. This is the first time since 1982 that we actually
have a realistic chance to reauthorize the Economic Development
Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
I join with my good friend and Chairman Norm Mineta in supporting
adoption of House Resolution 420. The Committee on Public Works and
Transportation ordered the EDA and ARC reauthorization bill reported
last November by a unanimous vote. We worked very closely with our
colleagues Congressman Bud Shuster and Congresswoman Susan Molinari,
who are ranking members of the full committee and Economic Development
Subcommittee respectively, to craft a bill which has bipartisan support
in our committee. We achieved this goal, and we have been working
together ever since to make sure that this spirit of cooperation
remains. I want to say that we would not be here today if it were not
for the cooperative working relationship enjoyed between the majority
and minority on the Public Works Committee.
H.R. 2442 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Banking,
Finance and Urban Affairs and to its Subcommittee on Economic Growth
and Credit Formation. I would like to compliment my friend and
colleague, Congressman Paul Kanjorski, chairman of the Economic Growth
Subcommittee, for his cooperation in the past weeks to reach a
compromise. Since the Banking Committee reported H.R. 2442 on April 26,
1994, the Public Works and Banking Committees have been working
together to achieve a product which we all can agree upon, and I
believe that both sides have gained from the effort. The final product
is the compromise substitute amendment; it is a good amendment and I
believe that it will be broadly supported. Again, I want to compliment
Chairman Gonzalez and Congressman Kanjorski on the way they approached
these ultimately successful negotiations, and wish to also note the
support provided by Congressman Leach and Congressman Ridge on the
minority side of the Banking Committee.
The substitute amendment to H.R. 2442 authorizes the Economic
Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission for
a period of 3 years through fiscal year 1996. Title I of the substitute
amends existing provisions of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 [PWEDA]. This approach differs from previous EDA
reauthorization bills which struck existing titles of PWEDA and rewrote
the legislation. Title II authorizes funds for ARC programs and amends
the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. It includes
provisions which are similar to previous ARC reauthorization bills.
Several of the provisions contained in the substitute amendment
address criticisms of the administration of these programs and include
recommendations made by witnesses at hearings conducted by our
committee on the legislation. During these hearings, representatives of
numerous organizations, development districts, and local, regional, and
State governments from both urban and rural areas have pointed out that
many areas of the Nation continue to need the economic assistance
provided by the EDA and ARC programs. Among the most often mentioned
recommendations for the programs were multiyear funding at higher
levels and expediting a simplified applications process, particularly
for EDA Programs.
The authorization for fiscal year 1994 mirrors the already enacted
appropriation of $322 million for EDA Programs. For each of fiscal
years 1995 and 1996, the substitute authorizes an estimated amount of
$386 million for EDA Programs. The substitute amendment authorizes $249
million for fiscal year 1994 and an estimated $214 million per year for
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 for ARC Programs.
As we have moved the Economic Development Reauthorization Act through
the legislative process, Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and
Appalachian Regional Commission Federal Cochairman Jesse White have
been very helpful to the committee. For instance, Secretary Brown has
indicated that EDA will be a cornerstone for areas hit by military base
closures and the loss of military contracts. EDA officials have
testified that they are already heavily involved in assisting
communities affected by defense spending cuts as well as areas severely
impacted by natural disasters such as Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki,
Typhoon Omar, the severe storms of Kansas, the Midwest floods, and the
recent earthquake in southern California.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to take both the EDA and the ARC
into modern times. Much has changed in our country since both were last
authorized in the early 1980's, and the programmatic changes contained
in the substitute amendment will go a long way toward modernizing the
way both do business.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of House Resolution 420 to allow us to
consider this important legislation in a fair and open process.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on
the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________