[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.

                          ____________________