[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 420 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2442.
{time} 1445
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr.
Torres in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]
will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, before I make my opening remarks, it gives me
great pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the chairman of the full Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2442,
the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 1994, which was
reported out by both the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. The
Banking Committee received sequential referral of this bill and
reported it out on a bipartisan basis on April 21, 1994.
This bill represents a compromise between the versions of the bill
reported out by the Banking Committee and the Public Works Committee
and serves as the original text for purposes of floor consideration.
Under this compromise, Chairman Paul Kanjorski of the Banking
Committee's Economic Growth and Credit Formation Subcommittee has
agreed to offer a separate amendment which would establish a Business
Development and Technology Commercialization Corporation for the
transfer and commercialization of federally-held technologies and
processes. The Banking Committee's version of the bill originally
included this provision. I want to thank Chairman Mineta and the Public
Works Committee for their cooperation and assistance in developing this
compromise. I also thank and commend Representative Kanjorski for his
hard work on this bill.
The bill reauthorizes the Economic Development Administration and the
Appalachian Regional Commission for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996.
These two governmental entities provide vitally-needed assistance to
low-income communities throughout the United States.
The Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional
Commission have not been reauthorized since 1980. I must congratulate
the administration for renewing its commitment to these agencies
because both the Economic Development Administration and the
Appalachian Regional Commission represent important tools for providing
economic development assistance and jobs to distressed communities
throughout the Nation.
Under the bill, the Economic Development Administration's programs
are reauthorized at $312.6 million for fiscal year 1994 and $306
million for each fiscal year 1995 and 1996. The Appalachian Regional
Commission is reauthorized at $249 million for fiscal year 1994 and
$214.2 million for each fiscal year 1995 and 1996.
The bill provides various important new approaches for the Economic
Development Administration. Under the bill, there is a greater emphasis
for leveraging EDA funds with non-Federal funds, EDA funds will be used
to target areas with the greatest needs, and EDA funds can better be
used to stimulate job development and job retention. Likewise, the
performance of the Appalachian Regional Commission is enhanced through
the creation of a regional development task force and the creation of
demonstration authorities included under the bill.
I ask that the House expeditiously pass this legislation.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Gonzalez] for his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, before I begin today I want to take just a
moment to say this is the first time in 12 years that we have had an
EDA/ARC reauthorization bill on the floor with a good chance for
enactment. Both agencies have been kept in place by the good work of
the appropriations committees in both bodies, and it is time to put the
cart before the horse. This bill comes to the floor with bipartisan
support--and we on the Public Works and Transportation Committee take
great pride in this. Another unique thing about today is that it marks
the last time that Mr. Carl Lorenz will be available to the Public
works and Transportation Committee to help guide the EDA and the ARC
yet again through the legislative process. Carl was set to retire last
week, but I convinced him to stay until we are through here today and
tomorrow.
Carl has been on the staff of the Public Works Committee for 30
years. He was here in the 1960's when the EDA and the ARC were created.
He is here now. Carl is unmatched in the area of knowledge about
economic development in our country. He has been a trusted advisor to
many chairmen on Public Works and Transportation, and he has helped me
greatly in my tenure as chairman of the Economic Development
Subcommittee. I want to wish him well as he moves to his retirement.
For the last few months he has had that glint in his eye, and I an sure
that his wife, Nancy, and his children Jeffrey and Karen will be glad
that he will be able to spend more time at home. Knowing Carl, I
suspect that he will be trading in the workload here for the load of
his golf bag, or perhaps provisions for his Ocean City retreat. In any
case, Carl, we all wish you well, and thank you for your many years of
dedicated service to the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, many of us have waited for 12 years to
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 asking my
colleagues to join with us in support of this bill. My own Committee on
Public Works and Transportation ordered the 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 minority members on the full committee and Economic Development
Subcommittee respectively, to craft something that had bipartisan
support in our committee. We have achieved this goal, and have been
working together ever since to make sure that this spirit of
cooperation remains. I want to say that we would not be before you
today were it not for the cooperative working relationship enjoyed
between the majority and minority on Public Works in this regard.
H.R. 2442 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Banking,
Finance, and Urban Affairs, and to the Subcommittee on Economic Growth
and Credit Formation. I would like to compliment my friend and
colleague, Congressman Paul Kanjorski, who chairs the Subcommittee on
Economic Growth and Credit Formation for his cooperation in the past
weeks to reach a compromise in terms of the substitute amendment we are
working from today. The Banking Committee reported a significantly
different version of H.R. 2442 on April 26, which contained new
programs and issues not addressed in the Public Works version. The two
committees have been working together to achieve a product that we all
can agree upon, and I believe both sides have gained from the effort.
What we have is a good vehicle here--one that I believe 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 legislation before us today authorizes the Economic Development
Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission for a period of
3 years. Because these agencies have already been the subject of
appropriations for fiscal year 1994, the authorization can be viewed as
applying to fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Title I of the bill amends
existing provisions of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965 [PWEDA]. This approach is different from previous EDA
reauthorization bills which struck existing titles of PWEDA and
rewrote the legislation. Title II of the bill authorizes funds for ARC
programs and amends the current Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965, including provisions similar to those contained in previous ARC
reauthorization bills.
Several of the provisions contained in the bill address criticisms of
the administration of these programs, and include program
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 level for fiscal year 1994 would
mirror the already enacted appropriation of $322 million for EDA
programs. For fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 the authorization
figure for EDA would be $386 million. Funding for the Appalachian
Regional Commission is authorized at $249 million for fiscal year 1994,
and $214 million a year for fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996.
Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown has been very helpful in providing
assistance to the committee as the legislative process has gone along.
I do not want to say, however, that it is the intent of the Public
Works & Transportation Committee to hold further hearings in the fall
to address some of the ongoing analysis Secretary Brown is undertaking
at EDA in particular. Secretary Brown has indicated that EDA will be a
cornerstone for areas hit by military base closures and 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
Hurricane Andrew, the storms in Guam and Hawaii, and the earthquake in
southern California. In addition, the agency has become active in
assisting the flooded areas of the Midwest.
The House has passed similar EDA and ARC reauthorization bills in
each Congress since 1981. In the last Congress, the House passed a
reauthorization bill by voice vote under suspension. In the 101st
Congress, the House passed the bill by a vote of 340 to 82. In the
100th Congress, the vote was 330 to 89; in the 99th Congress, it was
260 to 96; in the 98th Congress, the vote was 306 to 113; and in the
97th Congress the House passed the EDA/ARC reauthorization bill with a
vote of 281 to 95.
Mr. Chairman, we have a chance here 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 H.R. 2442 will go a long way toward modernizing the way both do
business. I ask my colleagues to join with me in this effort and pass
H.R. 2442.
{time} 1450
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the ranking Republican
member on the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I
would like to emphasize particularly to my fiscally conservative
brothers and sisters that when this legislation first came before the
committee, it called for over $400 million a year in spending for EDA
and about $250 million a year for ARC.
Through negotiation and through compromise, we have been able to take
$100 million a year out of the EDA spending and reduce the ARC funding
from $249 million to $215 million, or about a 15-percent cut. So we
have been able to negotiate a compromise here which very significantly
reduces these expenditures.
Beyond that, I would particularly like to focus on the Appalachian
Regional Commission and some independent studies relating to the
effectiveness of ARC. First of all, ARC is the kind of a program that
is effective because it is not a Washington-driven program but, rather,
a program which has the decisionmaking power in the hands of local
people, so the decisions as to how to spend the money in localities is
made by local groups rather than by Washington dictating expenditures.
That is a very significant point, it seems to me.
Beyond that, studies conducted by the Regional Research Institute
found that ARC programs have made a significant impact on the
difference we see in Appalachia. Many of us know that in Appalachia we
have suffered chronic high unemployment.
{time} 1500
In fact, 15 or so years ago, we were always in double digit
unemployment in the Appalachian part of Pennsylvania, and today that
average figure is down by anywhere from 5 to 8 percentage points, in
part because of the ARC program.
Let me be more specific. The Independent Regional Research Institute
has reported that ARC programs in 1991 alone generated $8.4 million
more income for Appalachia. That certainly is a tremendous return on
the investment, when you consider the whole program is only about $200
million a year.
Further, that same independent research group reported that counties
in Appalachia averaged 48 percent more income growth than similar
counties not benefiting from the ARC program.
So this is a strong testament as to the effectiveness of this
investment to create jobs in an economically depressed portion of our
country, and I strongly urge support for this legislation today.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2442, the Economic
Development Reauthorization Act of 1994.
As has already been noted, this bill represents the work of the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation. The language before the Members today
is a consensus document. Like all consensus agreements, their are
individual aspects that, in isolation, we might have done differently.
Nevertheless, I believe this bill represents an important step forward
in revitalizing the Economic Development Administration and steers in
the direction of enhancing the way it assists communities facing
serious economic distress across this country.
During the consideration of this legislation in the Banking
Committee, we received considerable testimony that the EDA must improve
its strategic economic development planning to ensure that so-called
best practices are factored into economic development programs and
activities. It was also suggested that the EDA should play an increased
role in coordinating information on the economic and community
development activities of all Federal agencies to ensure that
duplication is avoided and that the EDA is able to identify the
greatest needs.
I am pleased to note that the bill before us specifically addresses
both of these significant issues. It creates within the EDA an Office
of Strategic Economic Development Planning and Policy. Within this
office, a Federal Coordinating Council for Economic Development is
established to assist in providing a unifying framework for economic
and regional development efforts and to develop a governmentwide
strategic plan for economic development.
The Banking Committee also received compelling testimony that
nonprofit organizations and community development corporations should
be eligible to apply for EDA assistance without the existing barriers
to their participation. The Banking Committee concluded that all
parties involved in promoting economic development should be able to
compete equally for EDA funds to ensure that the best proposals, which
have the highest likelihood of success, are supported. Again, I am
pleased to note that the bill before us accomplishes this important
objective.
Consistent with the need to make nonprofit organizations eligible to
apply for EDA assistance, and the need to enhance the EDA's strategic
planning activities, the Banking Committee identified the need to
ensure that the EDA develop a method to prioritize all applications for
assistance. Again, this is accomplished in the bill before us. The EDA
is directed to establish such a prioritization system based on the
relative needs of all areas eligible for assistance and the capacities
of the applicants to leverage private sector capital and create
partnerships with others in the affected community.
The Banking Committee received testimony that there is a significant
need to review the performance of Economic Development Districts
[EDD's] in assisting distressed communities foster economic
development. Accordingly, the committee retained language requiring
performance evaluations of EDD's at least once every 2 years. This
language is retained in the bill before us now.
The Banking Committee also shares the view that significant
improvements must be made in the time it currently takes the EDA to
process grant applications. Accordingly, we retained language to
expedite the approval process and directing the EDA to report to the
Congress on its progress in reforming the current system.
Also in the bill is language inserted by the Banking Committee
permitting the sale of loans and other financial instruments in the
portfolios of revolving loan funds to third parties at the discretion
of the fund managers. The revolving loan funds have played an extremely
important role in multiplying the economic development assistance
provided by the EDA. Providing fund managers with the authority to sell
loans in their portfolios to third parties or into the secondary market
will allow them to significantly increase their liquidity and allow
them to make even more loans to encourage economic revitalization in
distress areas.
Finally, the bill before us retains language added by the Banking
Committee providing for the establishment of a nationally competitive
challenge grant demonstration project. Challenge grants may represent a
significant new dynamic in the way economic development assistance is
provided to communities. It requires them to find means to leverage
private sector contributions to economic development funds and to forge
partnerships between organizations in the communities.
Of course, not all of the initiatives contained in the Banking
Committee's reported version of H.R. 2442 are contained in the bill
before the Members today. The committee had, at the administration's
request, included language authorizing the EDA, under its title 9
authorities, to guarantee loans associated with economic development
initiatives. We also included language providing for a pilot program on
equity finance. Under the provisions of the bill before us today, the
EDA is directed to conduct a study of innovative economic development
financing tools, including loan guarantees and equity financing and to
report to the Congress within 1 year with recommendations. I look
forward to the receipt of this report and look forward to working with
the Public Works committee in the future to address the need for
financing assistance as a part of a comprehensive economic development
strategy.
Banking Committee also adopted language providing for a business
development assistance initiative. While it is not contained in the
base bill we have brought to the House floor, we did agree that this
should be an issue placed before the full House. Therefore, following
general debate I will offer a Kanjorski/Ridge amendment embodying a
revised version of this language adopted by the Banking Committee to
utilize the fruits of this Nation's research as an engine for creating
significant numbers of new jobs in private sector businesses.
The amendment enhances the ability of U.S. small- and medium-sized
businesses to obtain information and licenses on technologies and
processes developed through Federal R&D. By making it easier for small-
and medium-sized businesses to commercialize 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.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two basic parts of this bill.
One is the Kanjorski-Ridge amendment, and of course the other is the
bill itself.
Basically I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ridge], for their
hard work on the amendment to this bill. I think it really adds
something to this bill that has to be added. I am very much in favor of
the amendment, which provides for expediting the transfer of
Government-sponsored technology to the private sector, as the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], before me has pointed out.
As an original cosponsor to the bill from which this amendment really
comes, which is the genesis of this amendment, I would say that this is
something that we have been working on for a long time, and this bill
allows us to do that. I believe that we will give depressed areas an
additional way to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without
costing the Federal Government vast new additional outlays.
We have a great deal of federally funded research and development.
Our Government has millions upon millions of dollars for research and
development, but we have businesses throughout the United States that
do not know where to go to find the fruits of this research and
development. If you are a businessperson, whether in Chicago,
Milwaukee, Los Angeles, wherever it might be, this will set up a
clearinghouse. So if you are looking for a certain type of information
or R&D you go to this clearinghouse and you know whether our Federal
Government has done some research and development in this area.
Big business and industry now have to search all over the federal
bureaucracy to find some nugget of R&D. Did you know that Japan has 22,
or did and still probably does, 22 full-time people going through our
Government archives and agencies to find research and development that
our Government has done that our businesses themselves do not know is
available?
Well, what this amendment is going to do is set up a clearinghouse so
that our businesses and industry, small business and industry, can
profit from this research and dvelopment that our American taxpayers
have paid for.
This will allow the small and medium entrepreneurs in the United
States and foreign firms, which the foreign firms already have, to
access this valuable research and development work--paid for by the
U.S. taxpayers--but which the foreign firms already have access to.
I urge my colleagues to listen carefully to the debate on this issue
and on this amendment.
As for the rest of the bill, I have some problems, although some
functions are worthwhile and worth saving.
At least until this morning, we still did not have from CBO a cost
estimate for the substitute bill before us. It is very important. If we
are going to vote on this legislation, we ought to know what the cost
figures involved are.
Some of my colleagues think that the Economic Development
Administration has outlived its usefulness. The EDA's mission has been
too unfocused, they say, and I think their criticism many times is
accurate, leading some to conclude that the EDA is too lenient with tax
dollars.
{time} 1510
If there is any one thing that we want to be sensitive to, it is the
way our tax dollars are being spent. Some of the redevelopment mission
should be left to local government for both funding and for
administration. We have to have more local control.
For these and other reasons, as the Members will recall, President
Reagan and President Bush advocated EDA's termination. Congress has not
authorized the EDA in more than 14 years, its operations being
continued by the Committee on Appropriations' annual spending bills.
As for me, I think it is very important that we take a look at the
Kanjorski-Ridge amendment and vote for that. There are other amendments
here, I think, that are also worthwhile. I ask my colleagues to take a
look at the amendments as they come up and weigh each amendment on its
merits.
In the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, in fact, we
scaled back authorized appropriations for the Appalachian Regional
Commission, only to have the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation insist on a higher figure.
In my opinion, the Appalachian Program is duplicative. If we take a
look at it, we will find this is accurate. It is long overdue for some
elimination, as were the other regional commissions that were
terminated and could have been terminated a long time ago. This would
reduce authorized spending of this bill by some $528 million, and, by
golly, if we can find where we can save money, if we do have
duplication in our administration and in these agencies, I think it is
incumbent on us to cut back and to make sure there is not a
duplication. After all, every tax dollar we spend here had to be earned
by someone.
Looking at the bill as a whole, H.R. 2442 would reauthorize the
Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional
Commission through fiscal year 1996. The authorizations for EDA grant
programs would be $422 million in each of 1994 and 1996. This is about
$10 million more than the President has requested in his budget.
For the Appalachian Regional Commission, as I indicated earlier, $214
million would be authorized in each of 1995 and 1996.
This reauthorization bill, H.R. 2442, contains some reforms that
attempt to address past criticisms of both the ARC and the EDA.
Importantly, the grandfathering of eligibility has been eliminated.
That is a good provision. This had resulted in more than 85 percent of
the country being eligible for EDA grants, instead of only chronically
depressed areas, as originally envisioned.
Instead, the bill provides that eligibility must be proven each time
an economic development project application is submitted.
Additionally, H.R. 2442 requires EDA and ARC to reduce red tape. If
there is any one thing that we hear from our businesses and industry
back home, it is that we have too much red tape. That is a good feature
of this bill.
It also speeds up the processing time for applications, and whenever
our business and industry work with the Government that is one of the
complaints we have, it takes too long and there is too much red tape.
Also in this bill we improve grant selection decisions.
So I think these are good provisions in this particular legislation,
and the bill begins to leverage more private dollars to stretch public
dollars. That is what we need.
The bill tightens targeting requirements so only 45 percent of the
country, instead of 85 percent of the country, is eligible for this
funding.
The bill promotes more competition among recipients in an effort to
improve efficiency.
The EDA has brought assistance to those areas suffering from national
disasters. It has, in many cases, ably assisted in local economic
development projects.
Today, the EDA plays an increasingly important role in helping former
military bases and defense contractors convert to civilian purposes.
I think, all in all, when we take a look at the amendments, we take a
look at the bill as we work our way through this legislation, that this
legislation is not perfect, but it has some provisions in it that are
going to help our country. I think we should make judicious and wise
decisions as we now work our way through this legislation. Let each
Member vote accordingly.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Roth] makes an excellent point on the EDA and the eligibility. In
the past there has been criticism of the Economic Development
Administration as being too eligible; that is, 85 percent of the
country has been eligible for EDA programs. The gentleman from
Wisconsin is correct that eligibility is now restricted to somewhere
between 40 and 45 percent of the country. The criteria is much more
tightly drawn. This has been a bipartisan effort in the various
committees.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Building and
Grounds of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, every year we come to the floor and we
sort of fight over this bill. There are Members in the Congress, and I
do not judge their intentions or the quality of the work they do, but
they try to gut and kill this bill each year.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. Congress provides $15 to $20 billion a
year, per year, in foreign aid. Congress provides another $200-plus
billion, billion with a B, $200 billion plus to Japan, Germany, and
Europe, and to our allies, where we help protect them from a world that
has changed so much, I wonder why all that money is needed any more.
We are talking about $2 billion over 3 years for American
communities, $2 billion over 3 years, where many people have dirt
roads, no sewer systems, very few jobs. This in unbelievable to me.
Many of these Americans do not even have running water.
To give Members an idea, we spend and give more foreign aid to Israel
in 1 year than we provide for this whole bill for America in 3 years.
Mr. Chairman, we give more foreign aid to Egypt in 1 year than we give
to American communities that need help the most over a 3-year period.
This is unbelievable to me, and unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise], the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York
[Ms. Molinari], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Gonzalez], the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kanjorski and Mr.
Ridge, and everybody responsible for this bill. It is good for the
country. It is not a handout, it is a helping hand. By God, we should
send some of our taxpayer dollars back to America.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who preceded me is accurate. He is very
on target. I noticed the President the other day requested or is going
to request $600 million for South Africa, for building housing and
development in South Africa. That would be twice as much money as we
are requesting in this bill for the poorest parts of this Nation. It
seems to me that if we are going to consider aid for nations such as
South Africa, and I think we should consider it, we should be sure that
we have taken care of at least the poorest parts of this country first.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2442 reauthorizing the
Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional
Commission. I want to commend the authors of this legislation for
working long and hard to craft an important bill which will open up the
door to economic opportunity for the most severely economically
distressed areas of our country.
Mr. Chairman, the EDA and the ARC help those pockets of the Nation
which struggle for economic improvement, but are hindered by much
tougher obstacles to economic self-sufficiency and prosperity. Many of
those pockets are in my district--eastern Kentucky--which remain
economically distressed relative to the rest of the Nation.
While most of the country enjoyed economic prosperity and growth in
the 1980's, much of my district did not. While much of the country is
now recovering from the recent economic downturn, many of my
communities have not been as lucky.
We continue to lose coal jobs in the mines of eastern Kentucky. We
continue to lose textile and apparel jobs as companies flock overseas,
a situation likely to worsen now that we have the North American Free-
Trade Agreement.
These areas are locked in a vicious cycle of endemic unemployment,
poverty far above the national average, and lack a viable
infrastructure and strong industrial base. They want economic growth.
But they remain isolated because they lack the tools which bring
economic development, job creation, and self-sufficiency.
These communities want the seeds so that they can grow private sector
development and economic prosperity for their citizens.
The EDA and the ARC provide those critical seeds for growth. Funded
by an EDA grant, a small water line means hundreds of jobs because it
helped attract a new company. Seed money for revolving loans for small
businesses builds an infrastructure where none previously existed.
Clearly, EDA works.
There can be no economic development if a community lacks access to
markets and opportunities. Better highways mean better access. ARC
funds help create the critical link between isolated, distressed
communities to economic prosperity.
ARC has made a tremendous difference in my district in other efforts
critical to economic development as well. Let me give you an example.
For many years, eastern Kentucky has suffered from one of the lowest
education attainment levels of any area in the country. Lack of
education has been a key hindrance to economic development,
particularly as we all struggle to adapt to an increasing complex
world. With $50,000 in seed money from ARC, and thanks to the
commitment and drive of the local communities, a major education
improvement initiative grew into a self-sufficient, multi-county
organization. That organization, Forward in the Fifth, started less
than 7 years ago, now covers every county in my district. High school
dropout rates have decreased by 50 percent since that time. How, 10
percent more of our young people go on to college than they did 7 years
ago.
EDA and ARC give the most economically distressed areas of our
country a helping hand, not a handout. Thanks to EDA and ARC,
communities can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, saving the
Federal Government millions in future years. In the process, these two
programs have made, and will continue to make, an incredible difference
in the lives of the most severely distressed areas of our country.
Critics of these two programs argue that they do not work. I would
invite those skeptics to visit my district. I invite them to talk to
the 175 people now employed because EDA provided a small amount of
funding for infrastructure to build a new prison facility.
Mr. Chairman, EDA and ARC mean jobs, they mean economic development,
and prosperity. The bill before us will produce many more
opportunities. I urge members to vote for H.R. 2442.
{time} 1520
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], chairman of the Jobs Task Force.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kanjorski-
Ridge amendment and the EDA reauthorization before us today. We must
come to understand a fact which our Nation's competitors have long
known--that the speed with which we incorporate technological
advancements in products and manufacturing is the key to long-term
economic success.
Make no mistake. We are unparalleled in our ability to uncover
scientific and technological innovations. But we have been slow in
bringing those innovations to the marketplace. Yet that process, the
transfer of technology from the laboratory to the production line, is
the key to effective economic competition.
The Kanjorski-Ridge amendment would give the EDA the ability to help
small businesses hit hard by the downsizing of our defense industry get
access to technology that will give them a competitive edge. It
provides small businesses with one-stop access to federally funded new
technologies--allowing them to incorporate these innovations into their
manufacturing processes and products.
We know that many defense dependent businesses have highly skilled
workers and other valuable resources we cannot lose. We understand what
it takes to help them be competitive. We know what to do. This
amendment, and this bill, will put critical new technologies developed
by the Federal Government in the hands of these small American
businesses, where they belong. It will give them a competitive edge
previously reserved for large multinationals and foreign competitors.
It will help create new jobs and make us more competitive.
We have an administration and a Secretary of Commerce who understand
this, and who are committed to reinvigorating the EDA and to assuring
that it meets its mission of helping communities and businesses like
those in my State of Connecticut which have borne the brunt of the
rapid changes in our defense budget.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kanjorski-Ridge amendment and the
EDA reauthorization. Cutbacks in defense spending will cost this
country some 2\1/2\ millions jobs by the year 2001. We need to make
sure that those skilled workers can bring their talents to bear in the
private sector. Support these workers. Support giving our defense
dependent communities the help they need, and giving our small
businesses access to the next generation of high-technology products
and processes. Support the creation of new jobs. Support a strong and
vibrant economic future. Vote for this amendment and for the
reauthorization of the EDA.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
note some of the improvements in the EDA bill and to note, for
instance, that in those areas that we talked about, the formula and
what is eligible, these criteria have to be met:
Per capita income must be 80 percent or less of the national average,
Unemployment must be 1 percentage point above the national average for
the previous 2-year period, or there must be a sudden or anticipated
job loss due to plant closings or other major economic dislocation.
Additionally, while pockets of poverty may be isolated by the
Secretary, no more than 35 percent of the amounts appropriated each
year for the EDA may go to these.
Mr. Chairman, these are significant changes and a significant
narrowing of the eligibility criteria from the present EDA program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Rahall], a tireless advocate of both the EDA and the Appalachian
Regional Commission in both our State and nationally, and the
subcommittee chair of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia,
the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development,
for yielding me the time and applaud his dedication and leadership in
bringing this legislation to the floor today, a bill which should
deserve the strong support of every Member of this body. It is long
overdue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2442, the reauthorization
legislation for the Economic Development Administration and the
Appalachian Regional Commission.
The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] was formed in 1965 to
promote the region's economic development, and ``to develop
comprehensive and coordinated plans and establish planning priorities
for the region.'' For more than a quarter century, it has been a unique
Federal-State-local planning effort. Regrettably, despite its quarter
century of successful operation, its continuation has never been
secure.
The reauthorization of both the ARC and the EDA before us today is
yet another reauthorization bill similar to other bills reported by the
Public Works and Transportation Committee since 1982--none of which
were ever enacted. These two vital programs have been continued through
the appropriations process--not through reauthorization legislation. We
hope that this year, with the support of our President and this
Congress, both will see enactment into law.
With respect to the ARC, these programs have made a significant
contribution to the region. A study, entitled ``The Economic Effects of
the Appalachian Regional Commission: An Empirical Assessment of 27
Years of Regional Development Policy,'' was recently released. I
encourage my colleagues to read a summary of the report, which I will
submit for inclusion in the Record at the end of my statement.
In brief, the report concluded that from 1969 to 1991, the 397
Appalachian counties in 13 States grew significantly faster than the
non-Appalachian counties in income, earnings, population, and per
capita income. Further, they concluded that the evidence indicates
``that the ARC programs helped them to do so.'' These conclusions hold
true for all subregions, including central Appalachia, and they were
reached by comparing the 397 Appalachian counties with non-Appalachian
twin counties having similar economic and locational characteristics.
If you wondered whether the ARC needs to be reauthorized, its
programs continued throughout the region, I strongly recommend that you
read the report captioned above.
With respect to the EDA reauthorization--the same conclusions can be
reached, I believe. Funds from this program are used to help ensure
improved and enhanced economic development opportunities to distressed
areas, such as in Appalachia, but with a difference--for EDA project
funds are spent throughout the Nation, rather than regionally as they
are spent under ARC.
Funds expended by the Economic Development Administration go to
successfully help many of the Nation's most economically distressed
areas revitalize their physical and social structure and provide
incentives to small and medium-size businesses to grow and to generate
long-term jobs.
The committee and subcommittee have received testimony during
hearings that has given us countless examples on the success of, as
well as the need for, EDA and ARC. Over the years, modest funding of
each has leveraged billions of dollars in local government and private
capital for projects that generated billions more in tax revenues. It
also generated countless jobs for the unemployed.
The times may be changing quickly, but economic development needs
have not. To keep our industries competitive in a global market, and to
maintain our quality of life, we must take every opportunity open to us
to strengthen the productive potential of all our Nation--its various
regions, industries, and population groups.
That is what EDA and ARC projects do. To do less is to perpetuate the
trend already emerging in the United States of creating an unemployed
and underemployed underclass of citizens, who live in distressed areas,
barely above poverty income levels--many more below poverty incomes--
who if they work at all, work in minimum wage jobs with no benefits and
no chance of lifting themselves out of poverty. Programs funded by ARC
and EDA allow these populations to join the mainstream of economic
recovery that is beginning to make America grow and become stable for
the first time in decades.
The reauthorization of the ARC will, among other things, help
complete the 3,025 miles of highways to help the region overcome
geographic isolation and to develop new business and industry. ARC's
nonhighway program funding will assist in the continuation of on-going
social, education, and community development programs, and permit
assistance to highly distressed areas and counties to enable them to
pursue innovative ideas and strategies for economic development and job
creation. The amended ARC authorization will help improve the Region's
manpower skills and to apply new technologies to assist businesses. By
increasing the Federal maximum share from 70 to 80 percent to reimburse
States' prefinanced highway construction projects approved after March
31, 1979, Appalachia will finally become less isolated and its people
better able to commute to jobs outside rural areas, and to access other
social and education programs to help lift them out of poverty,
including access to better health care.
Mr. Chairman, I will not go into further details with respect to the
improvements made to both EDA and ARC authorizations except to say that
the funding is for multiyears to assure continuity. Increases in annual
funding levels are modest but vitally necessary, and our support for
this bill will help our people living in poverty-prone, distressed
areas of this great Nation to find jobs, and a dignity of life that a
paycheck brings with it.
I commend the able Chair of the Public Works Committee, Mr. Mineta,
and the Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Wise, and the respective ranking
Republican members, Mr. Shuster and Ms. Molanari, for bringing this
essential legislation to the floor of the House. Their concerted
efforts have been invaluable in permitting us to write a bipartisan
bill to reauthorize the Economic Development and Appalachian Regional
Commission programs.
Passage today of H.R. 2442 will permit the Federal Government to
assist urban and rural areas promote economic growth, and deal with one
of the most critical matters facing America today--namely, helping the
private sector generate new businesses and new jobs.
Given the present slow growth of our economy and uncertainty about
the future, the need is greater than ever for the assistance we can
assure to distressed areas and distressed populations, by enacting the
EDA and ARC reauthorization bill.
Summary
methodology
The research presented in this paper uses a control group
of counties outside Appalachia that are similar to the
Appalachian counties. By matching the Appalachian counties to
others with similar economic structures, growth patterns,
etc., the analysis controls for macoeconomic events,
industrial restructuring, and other external factors in a way
that a comparison to national indicators cannot do.
Thus, the evaluation measures how the Appalachia counties
changed in comparison to other lagging places that did not
receive comparable federal attention. Furthermore, basing the
study on comparisons of groups of counties corrects for any
random or unpredictable occurrence in a particular county or
counties.
results
Three empirical analysis are presented in the study. The
first compares the Appalachian and control county growth
rates. The main finding is that the Appalachian counties grew
significantly faster than their twins. Between 1969 and 1991
total personal income and earnings grew 48% faster in the
Appalachian counties than in their twins, population grew 5%
faster, and per capita income grew 17% faster.
The second analysis examines the spatial pattern of these
growth rate differences. It concludes that the overall result
does not stem from southern growth or some other geographical
pattern and that all parts of Appalachia generally grew
faster than their twins.
The third analysis examines the variance in the growth rate
differences. The main finding is that the growth rate
differentials do not vary significantly with metropolitan
status, growth center designation, Appalachian highway
presence, distressed county status, subregion, coal county,
and other variables. Thus, the observed Appalachian growth
effect is not the result of certain types of counties having
large growth differentials.
The attached table shows the mean growth rate difference
for each of 20 variables for each year from 1969 to 1990.
TABLE 4. MEAN GROWTH RATE DIFFERENTIALS (PERCENT OF 1969 LEVELS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1969 to--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total personal income...... 0.9 1.0 2.2 0.4 4.3 8.1 10.3 13.6 16.7 18.0 28.1 24.7 28.9 28.6 26.6 27.7 31.9 32.1 35.0 34.1 43.0 48.0
Population................. -0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.7
Per capita personal income. 0.9 0.5 1.1 -1.5 1.7 4.2 4.2 5.5 7.0 6.5 13.8 8.7 11.5 9.8 6.4 6.8 10.0 9.4 10.3 8.7 15.8 17.4
Earnings by place of work.. 0.0 -0.2 0.9 -1.8 4.0 9.3 11.8 16.3 21.5 21.1 34.7 32.8 39.2 38.5 35.5 37.4 39.1 36.7 39.4 35.1 45.6 48.3
Residence adjustment....... 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.5 -0.2 -0.1 -1.0 -1.7 -1.8 -4.9 -5.0 -5.7 -7.5 -4.9 -5.6 -4.4 -4.4 -4.8 -3.6 -4.3 -5.0
Dividends, interest, rent.. 2.2 3.6 5.0 9.0 13.5 16.2 18.0 19.2 23.7 28.4 41.2 54.9 76.8 81.4 100.3 113.5 134.9 141.4 162.8 183.8 208.5 218.1
Transfer payments.......... 2.2 3.6 5.5 7.2 6.6 8.1 11.3 12.6 13.7 21.3 19.6 21.5 25.0 32.7 33.7 35.2 40.3 41.3 43.2 44.2 51.2 60.5
Farming.................... -6.6 -20.4 -14.8 -54.9 -50.7 -46.1 -23.8 -35.9 -26.3 -41.4 31.8 -21.0 1.3 48.6 19.3 -5.2 26.1 7.3 8.3 -44.7 8.1 11.1
Ag. serv., forestry,
fisheries................. -0.8 0.2 -2.0 -1.4 -9.3 -9.7 -6.3 -3.6 -4.1 -8.1 -7.3 13.1 32.4 54.3 59.4 61.8 28.7 5.1 26.9 40.8 61.9 81.3
Mining..................... 14.2 32.0 26.3 36.9 88.6 166.2 163.5 227.2 287.1 274.1 322.3 325.2 350.0 218.1 219.5 234.4 313.1 156.8 112.2 121.8 236.6 115.1
Construction............... -0.2 15.4 23.2 34.5 25.6 14.2 -4.8 12.1 27.0 6.4 -77.1 -103.3 -114.2 -153.9 -168.7 -116.2 -20.4 4.9 20.0 13.9 39.3 37.7
Manufacturing.............. -2.1 -1.6 -2.4 3.2 2.3 7.6 10.1 12.6 14.0 17.2 27.5 25.4 17.9 19.0 19.1 32.2 35.6 58.3 79.3 84.3 89.1 87.3
Transportation utilities... 0.1 8.1 13.6 20.8 20.8 20.6 21.6 25.5 33.8 34.8 30.7 22.1 29.6 26.6 18.4 18.7 29.7 22.6 19.4 15.2 11.1 14.1
Wholesale trade............ 2.7 4.0 2.6 3.2 -0.1 -12.9 -19.5 -24.5 -35.0 -36.7 -53.1 -57.9 -60.5 -54.1 -40.0 -50.5 -23.1 -2.8 36.9 62.3 119.2 126.0
Retail trade............... 0.2 1.9 3.6 5.3 4.4 7.7 10.6 11.1 15.1 17.8 19.9 22.2 25.0 27.7 35.5 39.5 47.4 48.3 56.3 63.5 65.2 67.2
Finance, insurance, real
est....................... -0.2 3.8 5.0 11.0 14.5 20.6 27.8 31.3 40.0 44.5 48.1 48.3 51.4 56.7 70.6 72.3 84.7 110.4 117.0 125.6 137.3 135.2
Services................... 0.2 0.3 1.9 3.7 4.2 8.9 11.4 12.2 17.0 23.0 26.8 34.1 40.4 44.7 58.2 66.4 75.4 87.2 96.2 108.5 117.9 137.7
Federal civilian government -0.7 -1.0 2.6 6.0 7.5 10.8 -10.3 -91.0 -141.6 -162.4 162.9 -153.5 -31.9 13.5 13.6 17.2 11.6 14.6 14.7 7.1 18.8 19.8
Federal military........... 1.3 -0.5 3.7 2.9 -1.0 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.4 2.3 5.0 9.0 13.9 20.9 25.1 24.9 20.2 17.8 23.1 26.2 31.2
State and local government. -0.8 -2.4 -2.6 -1.5 -1.2 -0.3 2.0 4.8 7.5 8.6 9.2 10.7 7.2 5.0 6.6 9.6 8.3 8.5 5.1 2.0 2.7 8.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{time} 1530
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], a very active member of our subcommittee.
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize the outstanding achievements of the Economic Development
Administration [EDA] and to reaffirm the importance of EDA in helping
communities throughout the country overcome severe economic
difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Economic Development Subcommittee, I
would like to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise], and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New
York [Ms. Molinari], for their hard work on this piece of legislation,
and to say that I have taken a long, hard look into the mission of the
EDA and how effective it has been in promoting and assisting in the
economic development of our Nation's cities. And having reviewed the
programs and operations of the EDA, I have been continuously impressed
with the breadth and scope of those programs and the professionalism
and quality of EDA's personnel who assist in administering them.
In the city of Worcester, MA, in my own district, EDA--and in
particular the northeast regional office--has played a critical
supporting role in a broad State and local effort to revitalize the
downtown area of the second largest city in all of New England. The
challenge continues to be an enormous one.
In recent years, Worcester has suffered from many of the problems
associated with large urban areas, including crime, poverty, and high
unemployment. Recent trends have seen businesses and revenues desert
the downtown area of Worcester, for safer, more accessible suburban
areas. Urban flight has had a devastating effect on Worcester and many
other cities across the country and made it even more difficult for
these areas to meet their own infrastructure, crime prevention, and job
creation needs.
Through the guidance and partnership of EDA, however, and the active
involvement of State and local participants, the city of Worcester
continues to receive a necessary boost that is helping to achieve
lasting improvements in the local economy. Such assistance by EDA is
allowing the city to help itself improve its condition by stabilizing
and diversifying its economic base and improving local living
conditions for those who need it most.
The city of Worcester is only one of many communities throughout the
Nation that EDA assists on a daily basis. The good work of the EDA is
evident in every single State in the Nation, and is contributing to a
much-needed economic revitalization in our urban areas. They should be
allowed to continue.
I am confident that the tremendous scrutiny that EDA has undergone
over the years has improved the way in which it makes its decisions and
administers its programs. At a time when cities and States are
struggling to comply with massive unfunded mandates and more burdensome
and costly regulations, they should know that they can still get some
help from the Federal Government for economic development initiatives
through the EDA.
For the good of cities like Worcester, Attleboro, Fall River and
other communities in my district, I will be voting for this bill today,
and I urge all of my colleagues to help their cities by doing the same.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], but before he takes the minute, I want to
say it just shows how complicated this legislation has been that over
the past several weeks, as we have negotiated this between the various
committees, there have been significant changes in the legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2442, the
reauthorization legislation for the Economic Development Administration
and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
For 27 years, these two highly successful programs have established
unique Federal-State-local planning efforts that have leveraged,
through modest Federal funding, billions of dollars in local and
private capital, and generated billions of dollars in new revenues.
By passing H.R. 2442 we will have kept our industries competitive in
a global market, improved and increased our manpower skills, and
provided economic development opportunities for existing and new
businesses.
Times may be changing quickly, but economic development needs have
not. New technologies are emerging, and we need them in order to
rebuild our Nation's infrastructure. Through application of the modest
funding in the bill, H.R. 2442 will help us achieve that goal.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the full committee chair of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. I greatly appreciate his
cooperation and assistance and encouragement in getting this bill to
the floor.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the compromise
substitute to H.R. 2442, as provided for in the rule. In doing so, I
want to take this opportunity not to explain the specifics of that
substitute--I will defer to others to do that, specifically Congressman
Wise, chair of our Subcommittee on Economic Development--but to put
into perspective exactly what we're doing today.
As most Members know, it has been 12 years since the Economic
Development Administration and Appalachian Regional Commission programs
have been authorized. During that time, there have been a number of
critics who have come forth and raised various concerns about these
programs, primarily the EDA program.
These critics--and it's mostly been Members on the other side of the
aisle--have questioned the basic worth and success of these programs.
Are these programs really needed? Are they a legitimate function of the
Federal Government? What has their track record been? What kinds of
projects have they funded? How much have they cost the General
Treasury?
To those critics let me say that as far as this Member is concerned,
much of what you have said in the past makes a great deal of sense.
There is no doubt that the EDA and ARC Programs could stand
improvement. There is no doubt that at times they have not performed to
their potential or to our expectation. There is no doubt that their
track record in certain areas is suspect, and there is no doubt that
there's room for reform.
In that regard, I want to also say to the critics of these programs
that you have performed, in my opinion, a valuable service in helping
us come to the point today where we now are about to embark on a new
beginning for the EDA and ARC Programs.
Gone in this bill are the programs and approaches of old. Gone are
the inefficient bureaucracies; gone are the archaic eligibility
requirements; gone are the time-consuming and cumbersome approval
processes; and gone are the exorbitant authorization levels.
H.R. 2442 and the bipartisan compromise launch EDA and ARC on a new
effort founded on reform, responsibility, efficiency, and
accountability.
To the critics of old, I say forget the past concerns and past
problems. Join with this Member in a collective effort to make EDA and
ARC the best agencies and programs they can be.
And, likewise to those who at this time want to be bold and creative
and launch these agencies, again particularly EDA, into new areas and
new directions, I again say that much of what you propose makes sense.
If any agency is going to do the job it's supposed to do, it should
have the best tools at its disposal. For EDA, maybe that means certain
financing techniques which are new, innovative, and responsive to our
Nation's changing economy. Maybe it means radical program restructuring
to enhance flexibility.
These issues and suggestions are not in and of themselves wrong.
However, I would simply urge those innovators that this is not the
right time. These things will come in time.
Right now, I believe Congress' number one objective should be to
reauthorize these programs; to get them back on track; to concentrate
on addressing the problems of old; to give these agencies time to prove
the critics wrong; to build a track record; and then to come back to
Congress and say with pride we're now ready for more.
Mr. Chairman, I challenge all Members today--including both the
critics and the innovators--to take a serious look at the compromise
bill. It addresses both the concerns of the past and the challenges of
the future. It strikes a balance between these and, more than anything
else, provides an opportunity to forge a partnership to insure that our
Nation's economic development program is second to none.
I wish, again, to thank Mr. Wise, the Chair of the Economic
Development Subcommittee, and Ms. Molinari, the ranking Republican of
that subcommittee, for their hard work on this legislation. I would
also like to commend Carl Lorenz, the staff director of this
subcommittee who will be retiring in the near future, for his many
years of devoted service to our Public Works and Transportation
Committee and wish him good health, Godspeed, and the best of wishes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the bipartisan compromise.
{time} 1540
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn].
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the
reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration of the
Department of Commerce. Funding EDA is renewing America. Each Federal
program should be analyzed on the basis of whether or not it improves
the lives of ordinary citizens at a reasonable cost. A good program
should do just that.
The Economic Development Administration is one such successful
Government program. In the past, EDA has done much good for the
district I represent. I strongly support its reauthorization.
In the mid-1970's, Long Beach, CA, developed plans to renovate its
depressed downtown area. Public and private financing was arranged. But
after 1978 the local and State public financing available was severely
reduced after the passage of Proposition 13, which rolled back property
taxes and thus public revenues.
Shortly thereafter, a multiagency funding agreement was achieved with
the Economic Development Administration as the lead agency and partners
in the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department
of Transportation. These agencies provided $40 million in grants. That
was leveraged with commitments from businesses and further municipal
public financing, for a total investment of approximately $3 billion.
$40 million was leveraged to $3 billion.
Today, downtown Long Beach is becoming an excellent place to do
business. There is a major world trade center, other downtown office
buildings, hotels, parking structures, theaters, restaurants, a
shopping mall, and other conveniences. This redevelopment transformed
downtown Long Beach into a first-class commercial conventional
entertainment area. This would not have occurred without an initial
grant from EDA. EDA can also help distressed communities suffering from
defense cutbacks. The Federal Government has a duty to help mitigate
the pain experienced by local communities whose economy was based, in
large part, on providing for the Nation's defense.
Reaping the peace dividend will be a slow and sometimes painful
process. The California economy is undergoing dramatic changes that may
be painful in the short run. EDA should act as the lead agency in
focusing its energies on defense conversion. Facilitating the
redeployment of assets formerly deployed by the defense establishment
will have a positive economic impact in the long run.
Let us support the reauthorization of the Economic Development
Administration. Funding EDA is renewing America.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Bevill], a Member who is well known in this institution
for his work in infrastructure development, and who chairs the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations.
(Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEVILL Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2442, a measure authorizing
the Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional
Commission.
Chairman Wise is to be commended for his efforts in bringing this
bill to the floor. Both EDA and ARC have had an enormous impact in my
district in Alabama and throughout this Nation. Rural and
underdeveloped areas have benefited from the programs administered by
EDA and ARC.
Since ARC's inception in 1965, its programs have contributed greatly
to the economic revitalization of the region. Two million private
sector jobs have been created. The percentage of people living in
poverty has decreased. The outward migration from the region has
decreased. More people are remaining in the region because, quite
simply, the quality of life is better.
The long term goal of both of these agencies is to promote economic
self-sufficiency for the areas they serve. Until this goal is reached,
I strongly support the continuation of both these programs. I urge your
support for this important legislation.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of a colloquy, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from West Virginia for
his diligence in getting the EDA reauthorization to the floor. During
committee consideration of this bill, there was a great deal of
discussion about the revolving loan fund program; and I am very pleased
with the revisions we made to it. These changes do not in any way
lessen accountability. The committee has been clear on that fact.
However, as we discussed the program, we saw a need for further review
of the regulations which govern the RLF. There must be a fine balance
between accountability and micromanagement, and this does not currently
exist.
I had considered offering an amendment today addressing the EDA's
regulation which requires 75 percent of revolving loan funds to be
loaned out at any given time. That is just poor business, and could
force loans that may not be wise investments.
I am also concerned over EDA's regulations which prohibit
refinancing. Good business practices dictate restructuring when it is
necessary to assist the borrower's cash flow situation.
I am not going to offer amendments, but I would like the gentleman's
assurance that we will look into these regulations further in the
committee. Some of these issues came to my attention too late to give
sufficient time for committee deliberation, but I hope we will take the
opportunity over the coming months to thoroughly review this program,
to insure the regulations maintain complete accountability, but are not
overly burdensome or counterproductive.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Georgia that indeed
the subcommittee will be delighted to do that. The gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Collins] has been the one who has been tireless in his
effort to make the fund more realistic. It is his language that is
included in the bill. The gentleman has been the driving force behind
it, and the subcommittee will continue to review this.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
(Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud today to be a
member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development of the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation because I think we have a very
meaningful initiative and a very important bill that we bring before
the Congress today. In my judgment this is an important initiative
because it helps our economic development efforts in very important
ways to help to create jobs, to upgrade smaller communities
economically and to provide opportunities for workers. The Economic
Development Administration has had its share of administrative problems
in the past, and hopefully some of the provisions in this bill will
help to correct that, and they should be aware that we will hold them
accountable and that we will have very high expectations for their
work. But this is very needed assistance, and it is focused on the
right activities, on research and development, on infrastructure,
improvements and upgrades, and on adjustment assistance, and I am very
pleased and proud to add my support to it today.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca] and his work on the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Poshard].
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2442, the
Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 1994.
The Economic Development Administration is actively involved in
water, sewer and road projects in a number of locations across my
district, putting in place the basis public facilities which are
necessary to attract new jobs.
Attracting investment and creating jobs in rural areas is a
challenge, but working closely with the EDA we have been able to use a
modest Federal investment to leverage substantial private economic
activity. There are families in my district whose kids are in college
today thanks to the paycheck from a job an EDA grant created. There are
towns and village across this country where people finally have decent
water and sewer systems thanks to an EDA investment.
My colleagues, I have a strong record on cutting costs and reducing
the deficit. I believe we must take a look at every agency and function
of the Government to determine if our money is well-spent. I would
argue strongly that the modest helping hand provided by the EDA in
bringing economic growth to our rural communities is a valid and
worthwhile function of the Federal Government.
I commend the authors of the bill, the EDA and most importantly, the
planners, developers and municipal officials in my district and across
the country who are working with these funds to make life better in
their hometowns.
I urge support of the bill.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to join with my colleagues
from the Comittee on Public Works and Transportation in strongly
supporting H.R. 2442. This legislation does indeed address many of the
concerns expressed by the people who have worked closely with the EDA
and who have spoken previously this afternoon. It is truly a bipartisan
effort, and I must at this point thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Mineta], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the
ranking member, and of course the Subcommittee on Economic Development
chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] for his
leadership on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2442 represents an opportunity to finally, after
12 years, reauthorize the EDA and ARC to improve and upgrade these
programs. One example of the importance of the EDA is its role in
helping communities to adjust to base closures and defense cutbacks.
Mr. Chairman, the 1993 Base Closure Commission closed 130 military
installations and realigned 45 others. This was in addition to over 200
closures and realignments resulting from the 1988 and 1991 rounds of
base closures. In my own district the closing of Naval Station New York
will have an enormous economic impact. In 1992 alone it was estimated
that the base generated more than $89 million in annual direct economic
impact with a combined payroll of over $50 million and an operating
budget of $30 million. As a result of the base's closure it is
estimated that between 4,000 and 5,000 jobs, both direct and indirect,
will be lost in a city that can scarcely afford it.Mr. Chairman, under
the authorizations provided in H.R. 2442 the EDA has a wide range of
tools to help communities adjust to these base closures and to find
replacement jobs. Under title IX of EDA's reauthorization, Mr.
Chairman, the EDA can and will make grants to communities for planning,
public works construction, revolving loan fund assistance and training.
The authorization is flexible enough for EDA to tailor the adjustment
package to each community's specific needs, and I suggest to my
colleagues in the Chamber that there is no other example of that
ability to provide and respond to a State's, and municipality's and
locality's particular problems particularly as it comes to base closure
than that provided under title IX of EDA's reauthorization. it has been
12 years, and significant changes have been made to streamline these
organizations and to recreate their responsiveness to ever-changing
economies.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2442 refocuses EDA and ARC on to
programs that work, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
Let me just state in closing that it has been a tremendous opportunity
to work, particularly with the minority staff, and certainly with the
majority staff, and I say to Carl Lorenz, ``You will be dearly missed,
and I hope this bill will serve as a remembrance of all the work and
dedication you have given to this full committee and to this
subcommittee in particular.''
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2442, the
Economic Development Administration authorization bill. I would like to
commend our chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development of the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] for all the work he has put into this
legislation. I had the privilege of working closely with Mr. Kanjorski
on this bill, and he certainly deserves a lot of credit for his
thoughtful and speedy work to bring the legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2442 is long overdue. After 12 years trying to
eliminate the EDA, we have leadership which finally understands the job
creation, and economic development and communities revitalization
potential of the EDA. It seemed the Federal Government abandoned
Federal programs that could have generated jobs and caused community-
based development in the 1980's, and this shortsightedness is clearly
demonstrated by the continued efforts to eliminate the EDA.
Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, enough Members of Congress on both sides
of the aisle recognized the importance of EDA to prevent its outright
abolition. However, the program underwent severe budget reductions. In
real dollars, EDA is now only one-fifth of its 1980 budget. This bill
begins to rebuild the EDA.
I remember the useful economic development projects the EDA funded
when I was a state legislator in California. EDA programs leverage
several times their allocation in private sector funds. The impact of
EDA programs was far greater than their actual funding. That seems to
be the model of public-private development that this country strives
for.
We should support this bill, and work to enhance and broaden the EDA
mission. I urge support for H.R. 2442.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler] who has been very active in the formation of this
bill.
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2442 and urge all
my colleagues to vote in favor of this first reauthorization bill in
more than a decade and to oppose all amendments to cut funding for
these two important agencies or compromise the important work that they
do.
I would also like to commend Chairman Wise and my fellow New Yorker,
ranking member Susan Molinari, for the dedicated and cooperative
bipartisan spirit in which they have crafted and moved this important
legislation.
As a member of the historic freshman class of the 103d Congress, I
think it is important to remember what was on our constituents' minds
as they went to the polls in 1992 and changed the face of our national
Government.
Do you remember? It was ``the economy, stupid!'' Our constituents
were fed up because they couldn't get their children to a doctor, they
couldn't hold on to their jobs or make ends meet no matter how hard
they worked, and they couldn't even take comfort in the confidence that
the many sacrifices they have made have been worthwhile because, in
America, the next generation always does better. For too many of our
neighbors, the promise of the American dream, that through hard work
and perseverance, you can make it and your children will do better, was
a broken promise.
Well, people were right to be angry in 1992. That is why we got a new
President and a turnover rate in this House of 25 percent.
Does anyone think the voters have forgotten why we were sent here in
1992? Have any of us forgotten? Does anyone here think that we've
gotten everyone a job or rebuilt our infrastructure or finished the
work of aiding small business and small communities? I do not think so.
We have made progress, but if we are to finish the job--to do what we
were elected to do--to bring back the promise of the American dream, we
must provide the assistance that our communities and businesses need to
succeed. The EDA and the ARC provide assistance in communities across
this country with skill and with success. Ask your local business and
civic leaders.
Where would America be if the Federal Government had not acted to
electrify the sparsely populated areas of this country, to build the
canals and highways, to promote the key industries that contributed to
our economic growth over the years? How can we, as a Congress, decide
to put the brakes on this necessary support for our businesses and our
communities, now when it is more needed than ever?
I can tell you, as a Representative of an urban district in New York
City, I was surprised to discover that small and rural communities face
many of the same economic challenges as do urban areas. The urban-rural
partnership for a stronger America, putting our people back to work in
jobs with dignity and a future, is reflected in this bill.
We need the EDA and we need the ARC. Let us not put the brakes on the
recovery now. Vote yes.
{time} 1600
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, what is the distribution
of time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 1
minute remaining, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] has 12
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] has
3 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to
something that happened last week. When we were fashioning this bill
between the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, there was a very
important meeting here in Washington with some of the employees from my
district in Pennsylvania that had just been notified that a major
textile company was closing down. Fifteen hundred people were notified
that they would shortly lose their jobs.
This last weekend I had occasion to visit with some union members who
told me that as a result of the passage of NAFTA last year a very large
manufacturing company had announced that rather than doing some of the
manufacturing they had intended to do in my district to keep some very
highly skilled workers working, they were going to move that operation
to Mexico.
Last year, or 18 months ago, the President ran, and during the
Presidential election this President had a motto, ``It's the economy,
Stupid.'' I think the American people responded to that motto and
understood what he meant, what his campaign meant, and what we should
mean today. If I were to have a motto today, it would be ``It's the
jobs, Stupid.''
We have now passed NAFTA as national policy. We know we will take
some jobs away from the American people. We are looking forward to
reforming welfare, and yet the big question when you reform welfare is
``Mister, where do I get the job you're going to train me for?''
I think it is up to us who will be voting on these substantive issues
in this session to search our minds and our hearts with the reality
that we come up with the idea of where these jobs will be.
The EDA and the Appalachian Regional Commission are part of the
civilian tools of this Government to create those jobs. In some
instances they have done it very well, in some instances they have done
it not too well, and we are trying to correct that.
An amendment that I will offer when we close general debate goes to
the thrust of the matter of how we will create jobs. What we are
suggesting is that we have to look into the inventory of technologies,
patents, and research and development of the Federal Government and
make sure they get out to the small districts of America that suffer
the loss of jobs as a result of NAFTA and welfare reform.
My district does not get the research and development grants that go
to MIT or to Stanford or some of the major research universities, but
that money that goes to those grants comes from my taxpayers. What we
are trying to do with this amendment is to level that playing field and
say that we cannot put the grants for research and development into the
small backwater districts of the United States, but we can offer the
technologies as future job creation opportunities for these people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, when we take up this amendment,
to realize that really ``It's the jobs, Stupid.'' That is what we hear
now, and that is what it is all about.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, if you have a base closing that you just found out
about, who are you going to call? If you are trying to put a water
system into an industrial park because you can get a client that will
provide 200 jobs but it has got to be done quickly, who are you going
to call? Or if you have suffered, as too many people have in too many
parts of the country, from the kind of economic dislocation that comes
from physical devastation, be it earthquake, be it flood, be it tsunami
or whatever it is, who are you going to call?
You are going to call the EDA, and in 13 States you are going to call
the ARC.
Mr. Chairman, that is the best reason why this has got to be
reauthorized. Who are you going to call? We have got to make sure they
are still there to be called.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Economic
Development Reauthorization Act. I know firsthand that the Economic
Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission are
proven programs that work.
These programs have been key factors in helping bring jobs and better
economic opportunity to our rural communities. The grants and technical
assistance provided by EDA and ARC have enabled many of our local
communities in Mississippi to develop water and sewer systems, roads
and other facilities that would not have been possible otherwise. As a
result, these communities have been able to develop industrial parks
and set up other attractive opportunities for business and industry to
locate there. That means jobs and an increased tax base.
Much progress has been made, but I strongly support efforts to
continue this process to allow ARC and EDA to further develop
infrastructure such as roads and highways and to provide important
technical assistance to help businesses in rural areas like Mississippi
survive and grow.
I know the Applachian Regional Commission is responsible for nearly
1,000 new job opportunities in Mississippi in 1993 alone. Without ARC
support, many of these projects and jobs would not have gone forward.
And I hear only good things from economic development officials in my
district about what an important factors EDA has been in bringing jobs
to Mississippi over the years.
We need to keep these programs working to stimulate economic
opportunities in Mississippi and throughout the country. I urge
continued support for EDA and ARC.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2442, the Economic
Development Authorization Act. I must first commend the excellent work
of the Public Works and Banking Committees that has made it possible to
bring this vital economic development legislation to the floor. It has
been 14 years since the EDA was reauthorized, and I applaud the
Committees' members for working together on this bill to give this
important program the attention and support it deserves.
In my district in northern California, the EDA has made a tremendous
impact on the economic development of the region. Over the past few
weeks, I have received numerous calls and letters from local officials
and business leaders to tell me their first-hand experience with the
local initiatives that are made possible with the help of EDA funds. I
have been impressed with the broad support the EDA enjoys from the
people who are on the front-lines of economic development in the
communities in my district.
I myself have worked closely with the Tri-County Economic Development
Committee [TCEDC] the federally recognized Economic Development
District which serves Glenn, Tehama and Butte Counties in my district,
and I know the difference these programs have made in these
economically distressed areas. TCEDC provides the cities and counties
in this region with a wide variety of economic development services,
including economic development planning, grant writing, administration
of public works and technical assistance projects, management of local,
State, and federally funded revolving loan funds [RLF's] and small
business financing.
Since 1989, TCEDC has completed 64 successful economic development
programs which have created or retained 718 local jobs. For example, 72
jobs were saved in Glenn county alone through the assistance of an EDA
public works grant. In 1992, The city of Orland was in danger of being
forced to shut down their municipal brine ponds because the aging ponds
were in desperate need of retrofitting. The waste water that results
from local olive processing is transferred to the municipal brine ponds
so the salt can safely evaporate. These ponds are critical to food
processing and the many jobs associated with this process. The TCEDC
was able to help secure a $500,000 EDA public works grant to help the
financially strapped city retrofit the brine ponds and save the 72
olive processing jobs in the area.
Another TCEDC success was assistance they provided the Glenn Chamber
of Commerce in obtaining a CDBG grant to provide a loan to a small
local business, Applied Sewing Resources. Three years ago, Applied
Sewing Resources, a small manufacturer of outdoor recreational
equipment, employed three people in Orland, CA. With a $215,000
business loan obtained by the city of Orland with the assistance of
TCEDC, Applied Resources was able to purchase new equipment and expand
their operations. Today, Applied Sewing Resources employs almost 75
employees in Orland.
The number of jobs saved or created by EDA assistance may not sound
like big numbers to some folks in Washington, but let me tell you that
in my District--where unemployment rates are running as high as 15 to
20 percent--these jobs have a real impact. In these continuing tough
economic times, the Economic Development Administration is a small
investment that yields abundant returns.
I strongly support the Economic Development Authorization Act, and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in part 1 of House Report 103-495 shall be considered as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 2442
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Economic
Development Reauthorization Act of 1994''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Sec. 101. Grants for public works and development facilities.
Sec. 102. Projects constructed under projected cost.
Sec. 103. Changed project circumstances.
Sec. 104. Other financial assistance.
Sec. 105. Technical assistance, research, and information.
Sec. 106. Business outreach center demonstration project.
Sec. 107. Office of Strategic Economic Development Planning and Policy.
Sec. 108. Office of Economic Development Information.
Sec. 109. Area eligibility.
Sec. 110. Investment strategy.
Sec. 111. Economic development districts.
Sec. 112. Administration.
Sec. 113. Expedited processing of applications.
Sec. 114. Uniform application form.
Sec. 115. Study of grant selection criteria.
Sec. 116. Performance evaluations of grant recipients.
Sec. 117. Study of guaranteed loan program.
Sec. 118. Miscellaneous.
Sec. 119. Acceptance of applicants' certifications.
Sec. 120. Supervision of regional counsels.
Sec. 121. Economic recovery for disaster areas.
Sec. 122. Special economic development and adjustment assistance.
Sec. 123. Treatment of revolving loan funds.
Sec. 124. Outreach to communities adversely affected by defense base
closures.
Sec. 125. Sale of financial instruments in revolving loan funds.
Sec. 126. Economic development challenge grants demonstration project.
Sec. 127. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 128. References to the Secretary.
Sec. 129. Compliance with Buy American Act.
TITLE II--APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 201. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 202. Meetings.
Sec. 203. Authorizations for administrative expenses.
Sec. 204. Extension of lease terms.
Sec. 205. Highway system.
Sec. 206. Supplements to Federal grant-in-aid programs.
Sec. 207. Program development criteria.
Sec. 208. Grants for administrative expenses and demonstration
projects.
Sec. 209. Authorization of appropriations for general program.
Sec. 210. Definition of Appalachian region.
Sec. 211. Extension of termination date.
Sec. 212. Regional development task force.
Sec. 213. Compliance with Buy American Act.
TITLE I--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
SEC. 101. GRANTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES.
(a) Direct and Supplementary Grants.--
(1) Eligible applicants.--Section 101(a) of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3131(a)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by
striking ``representing any redevelopment area or part
thereof'' and inserting ``acting in cooperation with
officials of local governments''.
(2) Direct grants.--Section 101(a)(1) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 3131(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting
``design and engineering,'' after ``acquisition,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``or otherwise
substantially further the objectives of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964''.
(b) Amount of Supplemental Grants.--The last sentence of
section 101(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3131(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``area,'' and inserting ``area and''; and
(2) by striking ``, and the amount of'' and all that
follows before the period.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 105 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 3135) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title $160,000,000 for fiscal year 1994 and
$175,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1995
and 1996. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
``(b) Limitation on Expenditures in Certain Areas.--Not
more than 35 percent of the amounts appropriated pursuant to
subsection (a) in a fiscal year may be expended for projects
located in areas described in section 401(a)(4).
``(c) Limitation on Expenditures for Design and
Engineering.--Not more than 20 percent of the amounts
appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) in a fiscal year may
be expended for design and engineering.''.
(d) Sewer Facilities.--Title I of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3131-
3137) is amended by striking section 106 and redesignating
section 107 as section 106.
(e) Construction Cost Increases.--Section 106 of such Act,
as redesignated by subsection (d) of this section, is amended
by inserting a period after ``such costs'' and striking all
that follows.
SEC. 102. PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED UNDER PROJECTED COST.
Title I of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3131-3137) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 107. USE OF FUNDS IN PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED UNDER
PROJECTED COST.
``In any case where a grant (including a supplemental
grant) has been made under this title for a project, and
after such grant has been made but before completion of the
project the cost of such project based upon the designs and
specifications which were the basis of the grant has
decreased because of decreases in costs, such underrun funds
may be used to improve the project either directly or
indirectly as determined by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 103. CHANGED PROJECT CIRCUMSTANCES.
Title I of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3131-3137) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 108. CHANGED PROJECT CIRCUMSTANCES.
``In any case where a grant (including a supplemental
grant) has been made under this title for a project, and
after such grant has been made but before completion of the
project the purpose or scope of such project based upon the
designs and specifications which were the basis of the grant
has changed, the Secretary may approve the use of grant funds
on such changed project if the Secretary determines that such
changed project meets the requirements of this title and that
such changes are necessary to enhance economic development in
the area.''.
SEC. 104. OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Public Works and Development Facility Loans.--
(1) Eligible applicants.--Section 201(a) of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3141(a)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by
striking ``representing any redevelopment area or part
thereof'' and inserting ``acting in cooperation with
officials of local governments''.
(2) Criteria.--Section 201(a)(1)(C) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
3141(a)(1)(C)) is amended by striking ``or otherwise
substantially further the objectives of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964''.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--Section 202(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 3142(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6) by striking ``it is determined'' and
inserting ``the Secretary determines''; and
(2) in paragraph (7) by striking ``hereunder for a period''
and all that follows through ``the foregoing restrictions on
maturities'' and inserting ``under this section for a term of
maturity of more than 25 years and no evidences of
indebtedness which matures more than 25 years after the date
of purchase may be purchased under this section; except that
this paragraph''.
(c) Redevelopment Area Loan Program.--Title II of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 3141-3144) is amended by striking section 204.
SEC. 105. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION.
(a) Technical Assistance.--
(1) Urban areas with populations of 400,000 or less.--
Section 301(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3151(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ``In providing assistance under this
subsection, the Secretary shall take into consideration the
unique development needs of urban areas with populations of
400,000 or less.''.
(2) Grants for administrative expenses.--The last sentence
of section 301(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3151(b)) is amended
by striking ``urban planning grants, authorized under the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended,'' and inserting ``planning
activities described in section 105(a)(13) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974''.
(3) Repeals.--Section 301 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3151) is
amended by striking subsections (c), (e), and (f) and
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
(b) Economic Development Planning.--
(1) Direct grants.--The 7th sentence of section 302(a) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 3151a(a)) is amended by striking ``and
shall be available'' and all that follows before the period
at the end.
(2) Technical assistance.--Section 302 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 3151a) is amended by striking subsection (b) and
redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).
(3) Use of other planning assistance.--Section 302(b) of
such Act, as redesignated by paragraph (2) of this
subsection, is amended by striking ``shall be used in
accordance with the review procedure required pursuant to
title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968
and''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 303 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 3152) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $37,100,000 for fiscal year 1994 and $50,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.''.
(d) Supplemental and Basic Grants.--Title III of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 3151-3153) is amended by striking section 304.
SEC. 106. BUSINESS OUTREACH CENTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
Title III of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3151-3153) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 304. BUSINESS OUTREACH CENTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a project in
each of fiscal years 1994 through 1996 with funds made
available under this title for the purpose of demonstrating
methods of assisting isolated small businesses to access
small business services provided by Federal, State, and local
governments.
``(b) Establishment of Centers.--In conducting the
demonstration project under this section, the Secretary shall
establish 3 business outreach centers. At least 1 of the
centers shall be located in a rural area.
``(c) Purpose of Centers.--It shall be the purpose of each
business outreach center established under this section--
``(1) to provide a one-stop clearinghouse to assist
isolated small businesses in accessing small business
services provided by Federal, State, and local governments;
and
``(2) to improve efficiency in the delivery of such
services.
``(d) Services To Be Provided.--Each business outreach
center established under this section shall provide the
following services:
``(1) Outreach to isolated small businesses.
``(2) Assessment of the need of isolated small businesses
for assistance services.
``(3) Referral of isolated small businesses to small
business assistance agencies.
``(4) Preparation of materials required by isolated small
businesses for participation in small business assistance
programs.
``(5) Case management to assure follow-up and quality
control of business services.
``(6) Coordination of networking among isolated small
businesses.
``(7) Quality control of small business assistance
services.
``(e) Isolated Small Business Defined.--For the purposes of
this section, the term `isolated small business' means a
small business that is unable to effectively access small
business services provided by Federal, State, and local
governments due to linguistic, cultural, or geographic
barriers.''.
SEC. 107. OFFICE OF STRATEGIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
AND POLICY.
Title III of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3151-3153) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 305. OFFICE OF STRATEGIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
AND POLICY.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
Office of Strategic Economic Development Planning and Policy
(hereafter in this section referred to as `the Office').
``(b) Duties.--The duties of the head of the Office are as
follows:
``(1) Research, evaluation, and demonstration.--To support
research, evaluation, and demonstration projects to study and
assess best practices in economic development and to examine
trends and changes in economic conditions that affect
regional development.
``(2) Policy development.--To develop recommendations on
both short- and long-term policies regarding economic
development issues and programs, to help foster the diffusion
of innovative, best practices in economic development
throughout the Department of Commerce.
``(3) Coordination.--To take a leading role in developing
and promoting means for greater coordination among States,
regions, and local communities in the design and
implementation of economic development strategies, and to
work in conjunction with Federal agencies on developing and
implementing means for reducing fragmentation and increase
coordination among Federal programs that provide economic
development assistance.
``(c) Research in Causes of Long-Term Economic
Deterioration.--
``(1) In general.--To assist in the long-range
accomplishment of the purposes of this Act, the Secretary, in
cooperation with other agencies having similar functions,
shall establish and conduct a continuing program of study,
training, and research--
``(A) to assist in determining the causes of unemployment,
underemployment, underdevelopment, and chronic
depression in the various areas and regions of the Nation;
``(B) to assist in the formulation and implementation of
national, State, and local programs which will raise income
levels and otherwise produce solutions to the problems
resulting from these conditions; and
``(C) to assist in providing the personnel needed to
conduct such programs.
``(2) Manner of providing study, assistance.--The program
of study, training, and research may be conducted by the
Secretary through--
``(A) members of the Secretary's staff;
``(B) the payment of funds authorized for this section to
other departments or agencies of the Federal Government;
``(C) the employment of private individuals, partnerships,
firms, corporations, or suitable institutions;
``(D) contracts entered into for such purposes;
``(E) grants to such individuals, organizations, or
institutions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate;
or
``(F) conferences and similar meetings organized for such
purposes.
``(3) Availability of results of research.--The Secretary
shall make available to interested individuals and
organizations the results of such research.
``(4) Annual report of secretary.--The Secretary shall
include in the annual report under section 705 a detailed
statement concerning the study and research conducted under
this section, together with the Secretary's findings and
conclusions and such recommendations for legislative and
other action as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
``(d) Geographic Analysis Tool.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, in cooperation with
other appropriate Federal agencies develop a computerized
geographic analysis tool that all Federal departments and
agencies and grant recipients may use to evaluate the success
of these programs.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of the Economic Development Reauthorization Act
of 1994, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on
use of the computerized geographic analysis tool developed
pursuant to paragraph (1) by Federal departments and
agencies.
``(e) Independent Advisory Committee.--The Secretary shall
establish an advisory committee made up of representatives
from major State, local, and nonprofit economic development
organizations as well as nationally recognized experts on
innovative approaches to economic development to advise and
make recommendations to the Office.
``(f) Federal Coordinating Council for Economic
Development.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Federal
Coordinating Council for Economic Development (hereafter in
this section referred to as the `Council').
``(2) Composition of council.--The Council shall be
composed of representatives from Federal agencies involved in
matters that affect regional economic development.
``(3) Duties.--The Council shall assist in providing a
unifying framework for economic and regional development
efforts and develop a governmentwide strategic plan for
economic development.
``(g) Grants and Contracts for Demonstration Projects;
Purposes.--The Secretary may make grants, enter into
contracts, or otherwise provide funds for any demonstration
project in an eligible area which the Secretary determines is
designed to foster regional productivity and growth, prevent
outmigration, and otherwise carry out the purposes of this
Act.''.
SEC. 108. OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION.
Title III of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3151-3153) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 306. OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish the
Office of Economic Development Information (hereafter in this
section referred to as the `Office') within the Office of
Strategic Economic Development Planning and Policy.
``(b) Duties.--The duties of the head of the Office shall
be--
``(1) to serve as a central information clearinghouse on
matters relating to economic development, economic
adjustment, industrial retention, disaster recovery, and
defense conversion programs and activities of the Federal and
State governments, including political subdivisions of the
States; and
``(2) to help potential and actual applicants for economic
development, economic adjustment, disaster recovery,
industrial retention, and defense conversion assistance under
Federal, State, and local laws in locating and applying for
such assistance, including financial and technical
assistance.
``(c) Information Data Bases.--
``(1) Uses.--The Office shall develop information data
bases for use by Federal departments and agencies, State and
local governmental agencies, public and private entities, and
individuals to assist such agencies, entities, and
individuals in the process of identifying and applying for
assistance and resources under economic development, economic
adjustment, disaster recovery, industrial retention, and
defense conversion programs and activities of the Federal,
State, and local governments.
``(2) Specific kinds of information required to be
included.--The data bases shall include the following kinds
of information:
``(A) A comprehensive compilation of all relevant
information concerning available economic development,
economic adjustment, disaster recovery, industrial retention,
and defense conversion programs of the Federal Government,
including key contact people, descriptions of the application
process, eligibility requirements and criteria, selection and
followup procedures, and other such relevant information.
``(B) A compilation of major State and local governmental
economic development, economic adjustment, disaster relief,
industrial retention, and defense conversion assistance
programs, including lists of appropriate offices, officers,
and contact personnel connected with, or involved in, such
programs.
``(C) A compilation of relevant and available economic data
and trends, including information about the national,
regional, and local impacts of trade agreements, defense
spending and downsizing, technological change, and other
sources of substantial economic dislocation.
``(D) A compilation of case studies and `best practices' in
economic development, adjustment, and conversion.
``(E) A compilation of technology utilization programs,
assistance, and resources.
``(F) A compilation of published works (books, reports,
articles, videos, and tapes), and selected texts of such
works, related to all facets of economic development,
economic adjustment, and defense conversion.
``(G) A compilation of information on case studies on early
warning and intervention efforts.
``(3) Points of public access.--
``(A) In general.--The Office shall establish several
mechanisms to assure easy access by the public and others to
such data bases, and to assure that the data bases be as
accessible, user-friendly, culturally neutral, and affordable
as possible.
``(B) Means of access.--Access to the Office's data
services shall include the following means:
``(i) A toll-free nationwide telephone number to provide
direct phone access to the public.
``(ii) On-line electronic access through existing computer
network services and publicly available computer data base
access facilities, such as at repository libraries and by
direct call-in via modem.
``(iii) Printed manuals and orientation materials.
``(iv) Periodic orientation workshops available to the
public.
``(v) On-call information specialists to address special
problems requiring person-to-person assistance.
``(d) Interagency Coordination.--The Secretary shall enter
into such agreements and understandings as may be necessary
with other Federal departments and agencies to coordinate the
accomplishment of the objectives of this section.''.
SEC. 109. AREA ELIGIBILITY.
(a) In General.--Title IV of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3161-3173) is amended by
striking the heading to such title and all that follows
through section 401 and inserting the following:
``TITLE IV--ELIGIBILITY AND INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
``PART A--ELIGIBILITY
``SEC. 401. AREA ELIGIBILITY.
``(a) Certification.--In order to be eligible for
assistance under title I or II, an applicant seeking
assistance to undertake a project in an area shall certify,
as part of an application for such assistance, that the area
on the date of submission of such application meets 1 or more
of the following criteria:
``(1) The area has a per capita income of 80 percent or
less of the national average.
``(2) The area has an unemployment rate 1 percent above the
national average percentage for the most recent 24-month
period for which statistics are available.
``(3) The area has experienced or is about to experience a
sudden economic dislocation resulting in job loss that is
significant both in terms of the number of jobs eliminated
and the effect upon the employment rate of the area.
``(4) The area is a community or neighborhood (defined
without regard to political or other subdivisions or
boundaries) which the Secretary determines has 1 or more of
the following conditions:
``(A) A large concentration of low-income persons.
``(B) Rural areas having substantial outmigration or
substantial economic deterioration and unemployment.
``(C) Substantial unemployment.
``(b) Documentation.--A certification made under subsection
(a) shall be supported by Federal data, when available, and
in other cases by data available through the State
government. Such documentation shall be accepted by the
Secretary unless it is determined to be inaccurate. The most
recent statistics available shall be used.
``(c) Special Rule.--An area which the Secretary determines
has 1 or more of the conditions described in subsection
(a)(4)--
``(1) shall not be subject to the requirements of
subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 101(a)(1); and
``(2) shall not be eligible to meet the requirements of
section 403(a)(1)(B).
``(d) Prior Designations.--Any designation of a
redevelopment area under this title made before the date of
the enactment of the Economic Development Reauthorization Act
of 1994 shall not be effective after such date of enactment.
``(e) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term
`large concentration of low-income persons' means an area
with a median family income of not more than 80 percent of
the national median family income.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Title I.--Title I of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3131-3137) is
amended--
(A) in section 101(a)(1) in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) by striking ``within a redevelopment area''
and inserting ``within an area described in section 401(a)'';
(B) in section 101(a)(1)(D) by striking ``a redevelopment
area so designated under section 401(a)(6)'' and inserting
``an area described in section 401(a)(4)'';
(C) in section 101(a)(2) by striking ``within redevelopment
areas'' and inserting ``within areas described in section
401(a)'';
(D) in each of the 2d and 3d sentences of section 101(c) by
striking ``a redevelopment area designated as such under
section 401(a)(6) of this Act'' and inserting ``an area
described in section 401(a)(4)''; and
(E) in the 5th sentence of section 101(c) by striking
``redevelopment areas'' and inserting ``areas described in
section 401(a)''.
(2) Title II.--Title II of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3141-3144)
is amended--
(A) in section 201(a) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)
by striking ``within a redevelopment area'' and inserting
``within an area described in section 401(a)'';
(B) in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 202(a) by
striking ``within a redevelopment area'' and inserting
``within an area described in section 401(a)''; and
(C) in section 202(b)(3) by striking ``redevelopment''.
(3) Title III.--Title III of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3151-3153)
is amended--
(A) in section 301(a) by striking ``(1) to areas which he
has designated as redevelopment areas under this Act, and (2)
to other areas which he finds'' and inserting ``(1) to areas
which the Secretary determines are areas described in section
401(a), and (2) to other areas which the Secretary finds'';
(B) in section 301(c), as redesignated by section 105(a) of
this Act, by striking ``redevelopment areas'' both places it
appears and inserting ``areas described in section 401(a)'';
(C) in the 1st sentence of section 302(a) by striking ``a
redevelopment area'' and inserting ``an area described in
section 401(a)''; and
(D) in the 2d sentence of section 302(a) by striking
``redevelopment areas'' and inserting ``areas described in
section 401(a)''.
(4) Title IV.--Title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3161-3173)
is amended--
(A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
403(a)(1) by striking ``redevelopment area'' and inserting
``area described in section 401(a)'';
(B) in section 403(a)(1)(C) by striking ``redevelopment
areas'' and inserting ``areas described in section 401(a)'';
(C) in section 403(a)(4) in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) by striking ``redevelopment areas
(designated under section 401)'' and inserting ``areas
described in section 401(a)'';
(D) in section 403(a)(4)(A) by striking ``redevelopment
area'' and inserting ``area described in section 401(a)'';
and
(E) in section 403(h), as redesignated by section 111(c) of
this Act, by striking ``a redevelopment area'' each place it
appears and inserting ``an area described in section
401(a)''.
(5) Title IX.--Section 902 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3242) is
amended by striking ``a redevelopment area or economic
development district established under title IV of this Act''
and inserting ``an area described in section 401(a) or an
economic development district designated under section 403''.
SEC. 110. INVESTMENT STRATEGY.
(a) In General.--Section 402 of the Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3162) is amended
to read as follows:
``SEC. 402. INVESTMENT STRATEGY.
``The Secretary may provide assistance under title I or II
to an applicant for a project to be undertaken in an area
described in section 401(a) only if the applicant submits to
the Secretary, as part of an application for such assistance,
and the Secretary approves an investment strategy which--
``(1) identifies the economic development problems to be
addressed using such assistance;
``(2) identifies past, present, and projected future
economic development investments in such area and public and
private participants and sources of funding for such
investments;
``(3) sets forth a strategy for addressing the economic
problems identified pursuant to paragraph (1) and describes
how the strategy will solve such problems;
``(4) provides a description of the project necessary to
implement the strategy, estimates of costs, and timetables;
and
``(5) provides a summary of public and private resources
expected to be available for the project.''.
(b) Elimination of Overall Economic Development Program.--
Section 202(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3142(b)) is amended by
striking paragraph (10).
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Title I.--Subparagraph (C) of section 101(a)(1) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 3131(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) the area for which the project is to be undertaken
has an approved investment strategy as provided by section
402 and such project is consistent with such strategy; and''.
(2) Title II.--Paragraph (5) of section 201(a) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 3141(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(5) such area has an approved investment strategy as
provided by section 402 and the project for which financial
assistance is sought is consistent with such strategy.''.
(3) Title III.--Section 302(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
3151a(a)) is amended--
(A) in the 4th sentence by striking ``overall State
economic development plan'' and inserting ``State investment
strategy'';
(B) in the 5th sentence--
(i) by striking ``plan'' each place it appears and
inserting ``strategy''; and
(ii) by striking ``plans'' each place it appears and
inserting ``strategies''; and
(C) in the 6th sentence by striking ``Any overall State
economic development planning'' and inserting ``Development
of any State investment strategy''.
(4) Title IV.--Section 403 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3171) is
amended--
(A) in each of subsections (a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(D), (a)(2)(A),
(a)(3)(A), (a)(4)(B), and (e) by striking ``overall economic
development program'' and inserting ``investment strategy'';
(B) in subsection (a)(1)(D) by striking ``program'' the
second place it appears and inserting ``strategy''; and
(C) in each of subsections (b) and (b)(2)(B) by striking
``overall economic development programs'' and inserting
``investment strategies''.
SEC. 111. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
(a) Economic Development District Defined.--Section 403(d)
of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3171(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Such term includes any economic development
district designated by the Secretary under this section
before the date of the enactment of the Economic Development
Reauthorization Act of 1994.''.
(b) Funding.--Section 403(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
3171(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Funding.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated under
other sections of this Act shall be available for purposes of
carrying out subsections (a)(3) and (a)(4).''.
(c) Repeal.--Section 403 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3162) is
amended by striking subsections (h) and (i) and redesignating
subsection (j) as subsection (h).
(d) Unemployment Rate Determinations.--Title IV of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 3161-3173) is amended by striking part D.
SEC. 112. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Section 601 of the Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3201) is amended
to read as follows:
``SEC. 601. APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; COMPENSATION.
``(a) Administration of Act.--The Secretary shall, with the
assistance of an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, administer
this Act.
``(b) Appointment of Assistant Secretary.--
``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary whose position
is established under subsection (a) shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
``(2) Duties.--The Assistant Secretary appointed under
paragraph (1) shall perform such functions as the Secretary
may prescribe.''.
(b) Advisory Committee on Regional Economic Development.--
Title VI of such Act (33 U.S.C. 3201-3204) is amended by
striking section 602 and redesignating sections 603 and 604
as sections 602 and 603, respectively.
SEC. 113. EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS.
Title VI of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3201-3204) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 604. EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS.
``(a) Guidelines.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development shall--
``(1) publish guidelines to expedite the processing of
applications for assistance under this Act; and
``(2) transmit to Congress a report containing such
guidelines.
``(b) Contents.--Guidelines to be published under
subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, provide for the
following:
``(1) Increased reliance on self-certification by
applicants to establish compliance with other Federal laws.
``(2) Greater use of uniform application forms and
procedures.
``(3) Delegation of decisionmaking authority to regional
offices.
``(4) Reduction in the time and number of reviews conducted
by other offices of the Department of Commerce.''.
SEC. 114. UNIFORM APPLICATION FORM.
Title VI of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3201-3204) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 605. UNIFORM APPLICATION FORM.
``(a) Development.--The Secretary shall, in cooperation
with the heads of appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, develop a general, simplified application form for
grant assistance under this Act which may be used by all
Federal departments and agencies which provide grant
assistance.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report on use of the form developed pursuant to
subsection (a) by Federal departments and agencies.''.
SEC. 115. STUDY OF GRANT SELECTION CRITERIA.
Title VI of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3201-3204) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 606. STUDY OF GRANT SELECTION CRITERIA.
``(a) Development of Method.--The Secretary shall develop
recommendations for prioritizing applications and awarding
funding for projects under this Act based on the relative
needs of eligible areas and the capacity of an applicant to
carry out a project, including the ability of the applicant
to leverage or attract funding from the private sector and to
coordinate or create partnerships with other eligible
recipients.
``(b) Consideration.--In developing a method under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the different
objectives of each title of this Act.
``(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
transmit to Congress a report containing recommendations
developed under subsection (a).''.
SEC. 116. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF GRANT RECIPIENTS.
Title VI of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3201-3204) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 607. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF GRANT RECIPIENTS.
``(a) In General.--At least once every 2 years, the
Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of each university
center and economic development district receiving grant
assistance under this Act to assess the recipient's
performance and contribution toward job creation.
``(b) Criteria.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
criteria for use in conducting evaluations under subsection
(a).
``(2) Criteria for university centers.--The criteria for
evaluation of a university center shall, at a minimum,
provide for an assessment of the center's contribution to
providing technical assistance, conducting applied research,
and disseminating results of the center's activities.
``(3) Criteria for economic development districts.--The
criteria for evaluation of an economic development district
shall, at a minimum, provide for an assessment of management
standards, financial accountability, and program performance.
``(c) Peer Review.--In conducting an evaluation of a
university center under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
provide for the participation of at least one other
university center on a cost-reimbursement basis.''.
SEC. 117. STUDY OF GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM.
Title VI of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3241-3245) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 608. STUDY OF INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FINANCING TOOLS.
``(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of
innovative economic development financing tools, including a
guaranteed loan program and an equity financing program.
``(b) Conduct.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall identify the credit gap which would
be addressed by the programs referred to in subsection (a),
methods to avoid the mistakes of previous guaranteed loan
programs carried out by the Economic Development
Administration, and an expected subsidy rate to be
implemented under such programs.
``(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study
conducted under this section, together with recommendations
on whether the programs referred to in subsection (a) should
be authorized as part of this Act.''.
SEC. 118. MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) Powers of the Secretary.--Section 701 of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3211)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``loans'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``grants or loans''; and
(B) by striking ``loans'' the second place it appears and
inserting ``grants, loans,'';
(2) in paragraph (6) by striking ``loans'' and inserting
``grants or loans'';
(3) in paragraph (7) by striking ``loans'' each place it
appears and inserting ``grants or loans''; and
(4) in paragraph (10)--
(A) by striking ``section 15 of the Administrative Expenses
Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a),'' and inserting ``section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code,''; and
(B) by striking ``section 5 of such Act (5 U.S.C. 73b-2)''
and inserting ``section 5703 of title 5, United States
Code,''.
(b) Unfair Competition; Savings Provisions.--Title VII of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 3211-3225) is amended by striking
sections 702 and 703 and redesignating sections 704 through
714 as sections 702 through 712, respectively.
(c) Transfer of Functions.--Section 702 of such Act, as
redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, is amended--
(1) in the heading to such section by striking ``,
EFFECTIVE DATE, AND LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE'' and inserting
``OF AREA REDEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION'';
(2) by striking ``(a) The'' and inserting ``The''; and
(3) by striking subsections (b) through (e).
(d) Use of Other Facilities.--Section 706 of such Act, as
redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Funds Transferred From Other Departments and
Agencies.--In order to carry out the objectives of this Act,
the Secretary may accept transfers of funds from other
departments and agencies of the Federal Government if the
funds are used for the purposes for which (and in accordance
with the terms under which) the funds are specifically
authorized and appropriated. Such transferred funds shall
remain available until expended and may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriations under the heading `salaries
and expenses' by the Secretary to the extent necessary to
administer the program.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 707 of such
Act, as redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, is
amended by striking ``$25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1982'' and inserting ``$36,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995''.
(g) Penalties.--Section 708 of such Act, as redesignated by
subsection (b) of this section, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``himself'' and inserting ``such person'';
and
(B) by striking ``shall be punished by'' and all that
follows before the period and inserting ``shall be fined
under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more
than 5 years, or both''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``him'' both places it appears and
inserting ``such person''; and
(B) by striking ``shall be punished by'' and all that
follows before the period and inserting ``shall be fined
under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more
than 5 years, or both''.
(h) Rate of Wages.--Section 710 of such Act, as
redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, is amended--
(1) in the 1st sentence by striking ``the Davis-Bacon Act,
as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5)'' and inserting ``the Act
of March 3, 1931, known as the Davis-Bacon Act''; and
(2) in the 3d sentence by striking ``Reorganization Plan''
and all that follows before the period and inserting
``Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 and section 2 of
the Act of June 13, 1934 (Chapter 482; 48 Stat. 948)''.
(i) Area Redevelopment Act.--Title VII of such Act (42
U.S.C. 3211-3225) is amended by striking section 715 and
redesignating section 716 as section 713.
SEC. 119. ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICANTS' CERTIFICATIONS.
Title VII of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3211-3226) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 714. ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICANTS' CERTIFICATIONS.
``The Secretary may accept, when deemed appropriate, the
applicants' certifications to meet the requirements of this
Act.''.
SEC. 120. SUPERVISION OF REGIONAL COUNSELS.
Title VII of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3211-3226) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 715. SUPERVISION OF REGIONAL COUNSELS.
``The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary
to ensure that individuals serving as Regional Counsels of
the Economic Development Administration report directly to
their respective Regional Director.''.
SEC. 121. ECONOMIC RECOVERY FOR DISASTER AREAS.
Title VIII of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3231-3236) is repealed.
SEC. 122. SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADJUSTMENT
ASSISTANCE.
(a) Eligible Recipient Defined.--Section 902 of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3242)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``, or'' and inserting ``or''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, or at the discretion of the Secretary a public
or private nonprofit organization or association''.
(b) Grant Authority.--Section 903(a)(1) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 3243(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``unemployment
compensation (in accordance with subsection (d) of this
section), rent supplements, mortgage payment assistance,
research, technical assistance,'' and inserting
``administrative expenses, industrial retention,''.
(c) Grants for Unemployment Compensation.--Section
903(a)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3243(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2)(A) Such grants'' and inserting ``(2)
Such grants''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B).
(d) Coordination of Activities.--Section 903(c) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 3243(c)) is amended by striking ``regional
commissions'' and inserting ``other Federal programs''.
(e) Transfer of Funds to Secretary of Labor.--Section 903
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3243) is amended by striking
subsection (d).
(f) Base Closings and Realignments.--Section 903 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 3243) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Base Closings and Realignments.--
``(1) Location of projects.--In any case in which the
Secretary determines a need for assistance under subsection
(a) due to the closure or realignment of a military
installation, the Secretary may make such assistance
available for projects to be carried out on the military
installation and for projects to be carried out in
communities adversely affected by the closure or realignment.
``(2) Interest in property.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may provide to an eligible
recipient any assistance available under this Act for a
project to be carried out on a military installation that is
closed or scheduled for closure or realignment without
requiring that the eligible recipient have title to the
property or a leasehold interest in the property for any
specified term.''.
SEC. 123. TREATMENT OF REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.
Title IX of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3241-3245) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 905 as section 909; and
(2) by inserting after section 904 the following:
``SEC. 905. TREATMENT OF REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.
``(a) In General.--Amounts from grants under this title
which are used by an eligible recipient to establish a
revolving loan fund shall not be treated, except as provided
by subsection (b), as amounts derived from Federal funds for
the purposes of any Federal law after such amounts are loaned
from the fund to a borrower and repaid to the fund.
``(b) Exceptions.--Amounts described in subsection (a)
which are loaned from a revolving loan fund to a borrower and
repaid to the fund--
``(1) may only be used for projects which are consistent
with the purposes of this title; and
``(2) shall be subject to the financial management,
accounting, reporting, and auditing standards which were
originally applicable to such amounts.
``(c) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue
regulations to carry out subsection (a).
``(d) Public Review and Comment.--Before issuing any final
guidelines or administrative manuals governing the operation
of revolving loan funds established using amounts from grants
under this title, the Secretary shall provide reasonable
opportunity for public review of and comment on such
guidelines and administrative manuals.''.
SEC. 124. OUTREACH TO COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
DEFENSE BASE CLOSURES.
Title IX of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3241-3245) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 906. OUTREACH TO COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
DEFENSE BASE CLOSURES.
``(a) Designation of Agency Representatives.--The Assistant
Secretary for Economic Development shall designate for each
State in which communities are adversely affected by defense
base closures an individual to serve as a representative of
the Economic Development Administration. Such individual may
be the State Economic Development Agency Representative or
another qualified individual.
``(b) Responsibilities.--Individuals appointed as agency
representatives under subsection (a) shall provide outreach
and technical assistance to communities adversely affected by
defense base closures on obtaining assistance from the
Economic Development Administration.''.
SEC. 125. SALE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS IN REVOLVING LOAN
FUNDS.
Title IX of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3241-3245) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 907. SALE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS IN REVOLVING LOAN
FUNDS.
``Any loan, loan guarantee, equity, or other financial
instrument in the portfolio of a Revolving Loan Fund may be
sold, at the discretion of the grantee of the Fund, to a
third party provided that the proceeds of the sale--
``(1) shall be deposited in the Fund and only used for
projects which are consistent with the purposes of this
title, and
``(2) shall be subject to the financial management,
accounting, reporting, and auditing standards which were
originally applicable to the financial instrument.''.
SEC. 126. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE GRANTS DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT.
Title IX of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3241-3245) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 908. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE GRANTS
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--In order to study the feasibility and
desirability of using challenge grants to generate new pools
of investment capital in areas suffering from long-term
economic deterioration, the Secretary shall establish a 2-
year demonstration project under which the Secretary shall
provide grants to selected recipients, to be matched by the
recipients 1 dollar for every 2 Federal dollars, for the
purpose of establishing substantially leveraged financing for
business development and other innovative economic
development efforts.
``(b) Federal and Community Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall grant 2 dollars for
every 1 dollar raised by each selected recipient, up to
$10,000,000 per year per selected recipient.
``(2) Use of other federal funds in conjunction with
challenge grant.--Funds from other Federal programs may be
used in conjunction or merged with the challenge grant and
matching funds to form a larger investment fund.
``(c) Establishment and Use of Funds.--
``(1) Establishment.--For purposes of this Act, an
investment fund established by a selected recipient consists
of--
``(A) the economic development challenge grant received by
the selected recipient;
``(B) the matching funds required under subsection (b); and
``(C) any such other funds that may be derived from other
sources, including other Federal funds.
``(2) Use.--An investment fund shall be used by the
selected recipients for the purposes of generating long-term
sustainable economic development and job growth in areas
identified by the selected recipients, pursuant to the
requirements and limitations of eligibility and performance
in subsections (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h).
``(d) Eligible Recipients.--The Secretary shall make grants
to any eligible recipients for use in an area which must meet
1 or more of the following criteria:
``(1) The area has a per capita income of 80 percent or
less of the national average.
``(2) The area has an unemployment rate 1 percent above the
national average percentage for the more recent 24-month
period for which statistics are available.
``(3) The area has been determined by the Secretary to have
at least 1 of the following conditions:
``(A) A large concentration of low-income persons (as
defined in section 401(e)).
``(B) Areas having substantial outmigration.
``(C) Substantial underemployment or unemployment.
An eligible recipient may include any local government or
group of local governments, economic development district,
Indian tribe, public or private nonprofit organization or
association, community-based organization, business or worker
organization, or any consortium of such entities, that is
able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that
they can carry out the objectives of this program pursuant to
the criteria and requirements established in this section.
``(e) Selection of Demonstration Projects.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to
selected recipients from 3 areas suffering from long-term
economic distress.
``(2) Distribution.--One selected recipient shall be from a
rural area which has been subjected to long-term economic
distress as a result of a major decline in the region's key
industries, 1 from an area that is a combination of rural,
small metropolitan, and suburban communities, and 1 from an
urban area with excessive unemployment, concentrated poverty,
and high crime.
``(3) Industrial retention strategy requirement.--Of the 3
recipients described in paragraph (2), at least 1 of the
projects selected shall include an industrial retention
strategy. The selected recipient from a rural area shall not
be required to have an industrial retention strategy.
``(f) Grant Selection Process.--
``(1) National competition.--The Secretary shall select
recipients of the challenge grants through a nationally
competitive process.
``(2) Eligibility requirement.--Each selected recipient
must submit a comprehensive strategy for generating
sustained, long-term economic growth and for both preserving
and creating high-quality jobs.
``(3) Preference for certain projects.--The Secretary shall
give preference to eligible recipients which--
``(A) utilize the Federal grant plus matching funds to
further leverage private and public capital to create an even
larger economic development investment fund;
``(B) represent consortia or partnerships comprised of at
least 2 or more of the groups identified in subsection (d);
or
``(C) intend to use their investment funds to finance or
leverage financing for new business development and startups,
industrial services, industrial modernization of local-based
firms or industrial retention (including employee stock
ownership plans and worker or management buyouts), or other
economic development strategies that illustrate `best
practices' in economic development.
``(4) Broad-based participation to be encouraged.--The
Secretary shall strongly encourage broad-based participation
of public and private entities within an area in the
development and implementation of the challenge grant
proposals submitted by eligible recipients.
``(g) Limitations.--The investment funds established by the
selected recipients shall--
``(1) not be used to permit units of State and local
government to offer tax inducements to attract businesses to
locate in the area; and
``(2) be subject to the same conditions described in
section 202(b)(1).
No area may receive an economic development challenge grant
if it has been designated an empowerment or enterprise
community under section 13301 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993.
``(h) Performance Evaluations; Report to Congress.--
``(1) Evaluation of effectiveness.--The Secretary shall
conduct performance evaluations of the demonstration
challenge grant project to assess the effectiveness of this
kind of program in generating sustained economic growth and
job creation in areas of the Nation experiencing long-term
economic distress.
``(2) Report.--Based on the evaluations conducted pursuant
to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit an annual report
to Congress with recommendations for expansion, modification
or termination of the program.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the funds
authorized to be appropriated under section 909, there are
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 per fiscal year for
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 to carry out this section. Such
sums shall remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 127. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 909 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965, as redesignated by section 122 of this Act, is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 909. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title $115,542,000 for fiscal year 1994 and
$81,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1995 and
1996. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
``(b) Set-Aside for Defense Conversion Activities.--Of
amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for fiscal
year 1994, not less than $80,000,000 shall be available for
purposes of assisting eligible recipients in activities
related to defense conversion.
``(c) Additional Amounts.--In addition to the
appropriations authorized by subsection (a), there are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title such
sums as may be necessary to provide assistance for defense
conversion activities and to provide assistance in the case
of a natural disaster. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.''.
SEC. 128. REFERENCES TO THE SECRETARY.
(a) References to ``He''.--The Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.) is amended
by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the Secretary'' in each of
the following:
(1) Section 101(a)(1).
(2) The 4th sentence of section 101(c).
(3) Section 201(a).
(4) Section 202(b)(5).
(5) Section 202(b)(9)(B).
(6) The 1st sentence of section 301(b).
(7) Section 602(b), as redesignated by section 112(b) of
this Act.
(8) Section 701(2).
(9) Section 701(4).
(10) Section 701(12)
(11) Section 706, as redesignated by section 117(b) of this
Act.
(b) References to ``His''.--Such Act is further amended by
striking ``his'' and inserting ``the Secretary's'' in each of
the following:
(1) The 3d and 4th sentences of section 301(a).
(2) Section 701(4).
(3) Section 705, as redesignated by section 117(b) of this
Act.
(4) Section 903(c).
(c) References to ``Him''.--Such Act is further amended
striking ``him'' and inserting ``the Secretary'' in each of
the following:
(1) Section 602(b), as redesignated by section 112(b) of
this Act.
(2) Section 701(4) each place it appears.
(3) Section 701(6).
(4) Section 701(7) both places it appears.
(5) Section 701(9) both places it appears.
(d) Other References.--Such Act is further amended--
(1) in section 701 in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by
striking ``his duties'' and inserting ``the duties of the
Secretary'';
(2) in section 701(4) by striking ``he shall determine''
and inserting ``the Secretary determines'';
(3) in section 701(6) by striking ``he shall determine''
and inserting ``the Secretary shall determine''; and
(4) in section 701(11) by striking ``his property'' and all
that follows before the semicolon and inserting ``the
Secretary's property''.
SEC. 129. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.
None of the funds made available under this title, or any
amendment made by this title, may be expended in violation of
sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C.
10a-10c; popularly known as the ``Buy American Act''), which
are applicable to those funds.
TITLE II--APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
Section 2 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking the period at the end of
the 6th sentence and inserting ``and in severely distressed
and underdeveloped counties and areas lacking resources for
basic services.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) The Congress further finds and declares that, while
substantial progress has been made in fulfilling many of the
objectives of this Act, rapidly changing national and global
economics over the past decade have created new problems and
challenges for rural areas throughout the Nation and
especially for the Appalachian region. Thus, the problems of
the region are not only to provide the infrastructure
necessary to economic and human resource development, to
develop its industry, and to generate a diversified regional
economy, but to make the region's industrial and commercial
resources more competitive in national and world markets. It
is, therefore, also the purpose of this Act to provide a
framework for coordinating Federal, State, and local
initiatives to respond to the economic competitive challenge
through improving the skills of the region's manpower,
adapting and applying new technologies for the region's
businesses, and improving the access of the region's
businesses to the technical and financial resources necessary
to their development while continuing to address the need to
provide basic services for the more disadvantaged areas of
the region so as to provide a fairer opportunity for the
people of the region to share the quality of life generally
enjoyed by citizens across this Nation.''.
SEC. 202. MEETINGS.
Section 101 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 101) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the following:
``The Commission shall conduct at least one meeting each year
with the presence of the Federal Cochairman and at least a
majority of the State members. The Commission may conduct
such additional meetings by electronic means as the
Commission considers advisable.'';
(2) at the end of the third sentence of subsection (b) by
striking ``present''; and
(3) at the end of the fourth sentence of subsection (c) by
striking ``to be present''.
SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
Section 105(b) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act
of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 105(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $3,400,000 for fiscal year 1994 and
$3,600,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1995 and
1996. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
``(2) Expenses of federal cochairman.--Of amounts
appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1), not to exceed
$1,102,000 for fiscal year 1994 and not to exceed $1,500,000
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996 shall
be available for expenses of the Federal Cochairman, the
Federal Cochairman's alternate, and the Federal Cochairman's
staff.''.
SEC. 204. EXTENSION OF LEASE TERMS.
Section 106(7) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act
of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 106(7)) is amended by striking
``1982'' and inserting ``1996''.
SEC. 205. HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 201(g) of the
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App.
201(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $160,000,000 for
fiscal year 1994, $125,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and such additional sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Such
sums shall remain available until expended.''.
(b) Federal Share.--
(1) General rule.--Section 201(h)(1) of such Act (40 U.S.C.
App. 201(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``70 per centum'' and
inserting ``80 percent''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to projects approved after March 31, 1979.
SEC. 206. SUPPLEMENTS TO FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS.
(a) Availability of Amounts.--The first sentence of section
214(a) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965
(40 U.S.C. App. 214(a)) is amended by striking ``the
President is authorized to provide funds to the Federal
Cochairman to be used'' and inserting ``the Federal
Cochairman may use amounts made available under this
section''.
(b) Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs Defined.--The first
sentence of section 214(c) of such Act (40 U.S.C. App.
214(c)) is amended by striking ``on or before December 31,
1980,''.
(c) Limitation on Covered Road Projects.--The second
sentence of section 214(c) of such Act is amended by
inserting ``authorized by title 23, United States Code''
after ``road construction''.
SEC. 207. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
(a) Considerations.--Section 224(a) of the Appalachian
Regional Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 224(a)) is
amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (1) the following: ``or in a severely distressed
and underdeveloped county or area lacking resources for basic
services''.
(b) Removal of Limitations.--Section 224(b) of such Act (40
U.S.C. App. 224(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Limitation.--No financial assistance shall be
authorized under this Act to be used to assist establishments
relocating from one area to another.''.
SEC. 208. GRANTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
(a) Availability of Amounts.--Section 302(a) of the
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App.
302(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The President'' and inserting ``The
Commission''; and
(2) in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) by striking ``to the
Commission'' each place it appears.
(b) Research and Demonstration Projects.--Section 302(a)(3)
of such Act (40 U.S.C. App. 302(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``technical assistance'' the
following: ``(including technical assistance for business
development and stabilization and application of technologies
(including telecommunication technologies) and productivity
improvement)'';
(2) by inserting after ``training programs'' the following:
``(including on-site employee training and programs to
upgrade employability of the region's people)''; and
(3) by inserting after ``demonstrations'' the following:
``(including demonstrations of service consolidations and
other methods of increasing efficiency of local governments,
the establishment and operation by States, public agencies,
or nonprofit development organizations of revolving funds for
business assistance loans, the establishment and operation of
business incubators and the provision of industrial
facilities and equipment by public agencies and nonprofit
organizations on such terms (including terms of reasonable
recovery of grant funds upon resale) as are approved by the
Commission, and the acquisition and development of land)''.
(c) Solid Waste Disposal Demonstration Projects.--Section
302(b) of such Act (40 U.S.C. App. 302(b)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) The Commission shall carry out projects at not less
than 2 sites in the Appalachian region for the purpose of
demonstrating solid waste disposal techniques in rural
areas.''.
(d) Repeal of Provision on Use of Information From Research
and Development Activities.--Section 302(e) of such Act (40
U.S.C. 302(e)) is repealed.
SEC. 209. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GENERAL
PROGRAM.
Section 401 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 401) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``In addition to the appropriations authorized in section
105 for administrative expenses and in section 201(g) for the
Appalachian development highway system and local access
roads, there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Commission to carry out this Act $85,600,000 per fiscal year
for each of fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 210. DEFINITION OF APPALACHIAN REGION.
Section 403 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 403) is amended--
(1) in the 1st undesignated paragraph (relating to Alabama)
by inserting ``Hale,'' after ``Franklin,''; and
(2) in the 12th undesignated paragraph (relating to
Virginia)--
(A) by inserting ``Montgomery,'' after ``Lee,''; and
(B) by inserting ``Roanoke, Rockbridge,'' after
``Pulaski,''.
SEC. 211. EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE.
Section 405 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 405) is amended by striking ``1982'' and
inserting ``1996''.
SEC. 212. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a Regional
Development Task Force (hereinafter in this section referred
to as the ``Task Force'').
(b) Duties.--It shall be the duty of the Task Force to
conduct a study on--
(1) the extent to which the unique characteristics of the
Appalachian Regional Commission (including the Commission's
Federal-State partnership, program flexibility, and regional
approach) have contributed to the achievement of the
Commission's goals; and
(2) whether or not such characteristics may be used to
address needs which may exist in other rural areas suffering
from economic distress, including the Lower Mississippi
delta, Mexican border, and Ozark areas.
(c) Membership.--
(1) Voting members.--The Task Force shall be composed of 9
voting members appointed, not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, as follows:
(A) Three members appointed by the President.
(B) Three members appointed by the President pro tempore of
the Senate.
(C) Three members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Ex officio members.--The Federal and State Cochairmen
of the Appalachian Regional Commission shall serve as ex
officio, nonvoting members of the Task Force.
(d) Facilities, Supplies, and Personnel.--Upon the request
of the Task Force, the Appalachian Regional Commission shall
provide to the Task Force any facilities, supplies, and
personnel necessary for the Task Force to carry out its
responsibilities under this Act; except that the total cost
of such facilities, supplies, and personnel shall not exceed
$500,000.
(e) Use of Other Studies.--In conducting the study under
subsection (b), the Commission shall incorporate the results
of other studies on the needs of rural areas described in
subsection (b) and shall not duplicate such studies.
(f) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the
first meeting of the Task Force, the Task Force shall
transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study
conducted under subsection (b).
(g) Termination.--The Task Force shall terminate on the
date of transmittal of the report under subsection (f).
SEC. 213. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.
None of the funds made available under this title, or any
amendment made by this title, may be expended in violation of
sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C.
10a-10c; popularly known as the ``Buy American Act''), which
are applicable to those funds.
The CHAIRMAN. Before consideration of any other amendment, it is in
order to consider the amendment printed in part 2 of the report.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski]
rise?
amendment offered by mr. kanjorski
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the amendment printed in
part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kanjorski:
At the end of the bill add the following new title:
TITLE III--BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Economic Growth and
Technology Commercialization Act of 1994''.
SEC. 302. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND DEFINITIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress hereby finds the following:
(1) Through its support and funding of research and
development in this Nation's Federal agencies, laboratories,
and educational institutions, the Federal Government has
fostered the creation of thousands of technologies,
processes, and other proprietary rights owned, or held in
whole or part, by the Federal Government.
(2) If commercialized, these technologies, processes, and
other proprietary rights owned, or held in whole or part, by
the Federal Government hold the potential to be a significant
tool to foster economic growth and to create significant
numbers of new jobs at good wages for American workers.
(3) Throughout the Federal Government, there is no single
inventory or source of information on technologies,
processes, and other proprietary rights owned, or held in
whole or part, by the Federal Government.
(4) Information on technologies, processes, and other
proprietary rights owned, or held in whole or part, by the
Federal Government is not standardized in form or content, is
separately maintained by numerous Federal agencies and
departments, and is not easily accessible by the public.
(5) Businesses and entrepreneurs in areas in need of
economic growth and revitalization are largely unaware of the
existence of these technologies, processes, and other
proprietary rights and largely unaware of the possibilities
for obtaining the rights to these technologies, processes,
and other proprietary rights for the purpose of
commercialization.
(6) It is in the economic interest of the United States to
facilitate the private sector commercialization of
technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights by
United States businesses located in areas in need of economic
growth and revitalization.
(7) Greater effectiveness may be achieved through the
utilization of the private sector corporate structure and
profit incentives in facilitating the commercialization of
technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights than
can reasonably be expected by the Federal Government
performing this function.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are as follows:
(1) To provide assistance to private-sector United States
businesses, located in areas in need of economic
stabilization and revitalization, to commercialize
technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights owned,
or held in whole or part, by the Federal Government.
(2) To create new employment opportunities by facilitating
the commercialization of technologies, processes, and other
proprietary rights by United States businesses and
entrepreneurs in areas in need of economic growth and
revitalization.
(3) To develop a single, comprehensive data base of
information on technologies, processes, and other proprietary
rights owned, or held in whole or part, by the Federal
Government, which is standardized and easily accessible.
(4) To heighten the awareness of United States businesses
and entrepreneurs of the availability for commercialization
of technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights
owned, or held in whole or part, by the Federal Government.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this title, the following
definitions shall apply:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce.
(2) Corporation.--The term ``Corporation'' means the
Business Development and Technology Commercialization
Corporation established under this title.
(3) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Business Development and Technology Commercialization
Corporation.
(4) Qualified Concern.--The term ``qualified concern''
means a United States-based consortium, a private United
States business, or an educational institution participating
in a joint project with 1 or more private United States
businesses, for the development and commercialization of
technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights--
(A) owned or held in whole or part by Federal departments,
agencies, or government-controlled corporations;
(B) developed in Federal laboratories;
(C) arising in the course of federally funded research at
educational institutions, other units of government, or with
private concerns; or
(D) which are made available to the Federal Government by
private concerns.
SEC. 303. CONSOLIDATION OF INFORMATION ON TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) Establishment of Data.--The Secretary shall establish
and maintain an integrated, comprehensive data base
describing all technologies, processes, and other proprietary
rights owned, or held in whole or part, by the Federal
Government, or which originated in the course of federally
funded research in which the Federal Government has an
interest.
(b) Standardization and Accessibility of Information.--The
Secretary shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure
that the information contained in the data base established
under subsection (a) is in a standardized form, is accessible
and usable in a manner as simple and easy to use as possible,
recognizing the needs of small and medium-sized businesses.
(c) Responsibilities.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall--
(1) consult with and, to the extent practicable, utilize
the capabilities of other executive agencies, as appropriate,
to ensure the efficient and effective implementation of this
section; and
(2) explore, with other executive agencies, ways to avoid
duplication of effort by consolidating the administration of
the program established by this section with any other
similar Federal program, and as part of such consolidation
may delegate administrative functions, as necessary and
appropriate, to another executive agency.
(d) Other Federal Agencies.--Other executive agencies shall
provide such information, and in such form, as determined by
the Secretary and shall cooperate with the Secretary in
carrying out this section.
(e) Access to the Data Base.--
(1) Access to the data base by the corporation.--Except as
provided in paragraph (3), the Secretary shall provide
unlimited access to the data base established under this
section to the Business Development and Technology
Commercialization Corporation established under this part,
without fee, to assist the Corporation in meeting its
responsibilities under this part.
(2) Access to the data base by the public.--Except as
provided in paragraph (3), the Secretary shall, by
regulation, develop and implement procedures providing for
access to the data base established under this section to
members of the general public.
(3) Restrictions.--If, in consultation with the heads of
other executive agencies, the Secretary determines that
access by the Corporation or any other person to information
contained in the data base established under this section
would--
(A) threaten national security;
(B) violate the proprietary rights of any private interest;
or
(C) be otherwise inappropriate,
the Secretary shall take such steps as the Secretary may
determine to be appropriate to limit access to the
information in the data base described in subparagraph (A),
(B), or (C) to the Corporation or any other person.
(f) GAO Review of Current Federal Technology Utilization
and Commercialization Efforts.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a review of all technology utilization
and commercialization activities within all Federal
departments, agencies, and laboratories, or which are
otherwise supported by Federal funds. This review shall
identify those activities which may overlap or duplicate the
technology utilization and commercialization activities
provided for under this title.
(2) Reports.--Before the end of the 1-year period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General shall issue a report to the Congress describing in
detail--
(A) the findings of the review directed under paragraph
(1),
(B) the funding levels of each existing Federal technology
utilization and commercialization activities, and
(C) recommendations for the modification or elimination of
any existing Federal technology utilization and
commercialization activities which the Comptroller General
finds to be duplicative of the activities provided for under
this title.
SEC. 304. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMERCIALIZATION CORPORATION.
(a) Assessment of Technology Utilization and
Commercialization Programs of the Federal Government.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President
shall--
(A) assess the performance of technology utilization and
commercialization programs of the Federal Government as of
the date of the enactment of this Act;
(B) evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a
centralized as opposed to a decentralized approach to
technology utilization and commercialization; and
(C) develop recommendations on ways to improve the
technology utilization and commercialization efforts of the
Federal Government.
(2) Report.--The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy shall submit a report containing the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Director
pursuant to paragraph (1) to the President, the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(3) Consultation.--In carrying out the duties of the
Director under paragraph (1), the Director shall consult with
interested agencies and department of the Federal Government.
(b) Improved Integration of Technology Commercialization
Programs and Federal Programs to Assist Economically
Distressed Communities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall identify ways to
promote more effective integration of Federal policies and
programs relating to technology utilization and
commercialization with Federal policies and programs for
assisting economically distressed communities establish
stable and diversified local economies.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report containing
any findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1) to the President, the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(c) Establishment of Corporation.--
(1) In General.--Not later than the earlier of--
(A) the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act; or
(B) the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date the
report of the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy is submitted to the President pursuant to
subsection (a)(2),
the President shall provide for the establishment of a
corporation to be known as the ``Business Development and
Technology Commercialization Corporation'' (hereafter in this
title referred to as the ``Corporation''), unless the
President, after consideration of such report, makes a
finding that the establishment of the Corporation would
impair the operation of the Federal policies and programs
relating to technology utilization and commercialization.
(2) Report to congress.--If the President makes a finding
described in paragraph (1) with respect to the establishment
of the Corporation, the President shall transmit a report
describing the basis for the finding to the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(3) Purpose.--The Corporation shall be operated for the
purpose of fostering economic growth, assisting in the
creation of new employment opportunities, and strengthening
the industrial base of the United States by facilitating the
utilization and commercialization of technologies, processes,
and other proprietary rights--
(A) owned or held in whole or part by Federal departments,
agencies, or government-controlled corporations;
(B) developed in Federal laboratories;
(C) arising in the course of federally funded research at
educational institutions, other units of government, or with
private concerns; and
(D) which are made available by private concerns.
(4) Corporation not an establishment of the united
states.--The Corporation shall not be an agency or
establishment of the United States.
(d) Process of Organization.--
(1) Incorporation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary, the Secretary of Labor, and
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration
shall--
(i) provide for the establishment of the Corporation under
the business corporation laws of such State as the President
determines to be appropriate; and
(ii) serve as the incorporators of the Corporation and as
the initial members of the board of directors of the
Corporation until their successors are elected and qualified.
(B) Necessary action authorized.--The incorporators
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall take such other actions
as may be necessary to establish the Corporation.
(C) Review of proposed organization of corporation.--The
President shall request the National Academy of Public
Administration to--
(i) review the proposed organization of the Corporation to
ensure that the organization plan conforms with sound
principles of administration; and
(ii) submit a report to the President in a timely manner
with the Academy's such findings, conclusions, and
recommendations the Academy may determine to be appropriate.
(2) Privatization of the corporation.--
(A) In general.--Following the establishment of the
Corporation, the Corporation shall be converted to private
ownership and management in such form and manner as the
President determines to be appropriate, after consulting with
the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(B) Solicitation of proposals for conversion.--The
President shall solicit proposals for the conversion of the
Corporation to private ownership and management.
(3) Selection criteria and procedures.--
(A) In general.--The President, in consultation with the
Secretary, shall make the final selection of a proposal for
the conversion of the Corporation to private ownership and
management.
(B) Criteria for selecting a proposal to recommend to the
president.--In selecting a proposal to recommend to the
President for the conversion of the Corporation, as described
in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall take into
consideration the following factors--
(i) the quality of the operational plan;
(ii) the soundness of the financing of the organization and
of the operational plan;
(iii) the qualifications of, and the diversity of talents
and skills represented by, the submitters of the proposal,
including the extent to which a combination of organizations
is submitting a joint proposal;
(iv) whether a State government, or unit of a State
government, is participating financially with the
organization submitting a proposal;
(v) the intentions of the submitters of the proposal to
locate the headquarters of the Corporation in an area which
is not located in the 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, based on the 1990 Census; and
(vi) such other factors as the incorporators determine to
be appropriate in meeting the purposes of this title.
(C) Procedures for selecting a proposal to recommend to the
president.--In selecting a proposal to recommend to the
President for the for the conversion of the Corporation, as
described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall ensure
that in the selection process--
(i) not less than 3 proposals are identified as proposals
to receive further consideration, as provided in clauses (ii)
and (iii), except that, if fewer than 3 proposals are
received, each of them shall receive further consideration;
(ii) a review procedure is implemented under which the
sponsors of the proposals identified in clause (i) are
provided an opportunity to make personal presentations of
their proposals to the Secretary or the Secretary's designee;
and
(iii) individual negotiations for the revision of proposals
identified in clause (i) may be entered into.
(4) Warrants for participation in gains.--The President
may, in connection with any contract or agreement for
converting the Corporation to private ownership and
contingent on the financial success of the Corporation,
retain the right to participate in the financial gains of the
Corporation in such amounts as the President may determine to
be appropriate, after consulting with the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(e) Prohibition on Conflicts of Interest.--
(1) In general.--An officer or employee of the Corporation
may not participate in a matter regarding an application,
claim, or other matter pending before the Corporation if, to
such person's knowledge, the person, the person's spouse,
minor child, parent, sibling, or partner, or an organization,
other than the Corporation, in which the person is serving as
an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee, or any
person with whom the person is negotiating or has any
arrangement concerning perspective employment, has a
financial interest in the matter.
(2) Consequence of violation.--An officer or employee who
violates this subsection shall be subject to termination, but
such a violation shall not impair, nullify, or otherwise
affect the validity of any otherwise lawful action by the
Corporation in which such officer or employee participated.
(f) General Powers.--In addition to the usual powers
conferred upon a corporation under the business corporation
laws of the State in which the Corporation is incorporated,
the Corporation shall have such other incidental powers not
inconsistent with this section that are necessary or
appropriate to carry out the purposes and functions of the
Corporation.
(g) Promotion of Technologies.--
(1) Marketing of technologies.--The Corporation shall
undertake an aggressive, multifaceted outreach program to
increase awareness of the availability of technologies,
processes, and other proprietary rights to qualified concerns
under this title. This program shall emphasize the use of new
information technologies, including the utilization of cable
television and the modern electronic media, and the data base
established under this title.
(2) Utilization of cable television.--
(A) In general.--In implementing the outreach program
provided under paragraph (1), the Corporation shall enter
into negotiations for the utilization of cable television for
marketing efforts for the commercialization of technologies,
processes, and other proprietary rights--
(i) owned or held in whole or part by Federal departments,
agencies, or government controlled corporations,
(ii) developed in Federal laboratories,
(iii) arising in the course of federally funded research at
educational institutions, other units of government or with
private concerns; and
(iv) which are otherwise made available to the government
by private concerns.
(B) Promotional fees.--Under terms negotiated between the
Secretary and the Corporation, the Secretary is authorized to
make payments to the Corporation for promotional fees for the
production of segments for broadcast over cable television,
or other appropriate media, which identify--
(i) the technologies described in paragraph (A);
(ii) their potential commercial applications; and
(iii) methods available for obtaining additional
information on the technologies.
(3) Technical assistance.--The Corporation shall, upon
request, provide technical assistance and services, as
appropriate and needed, to qualified concerns under this
title.
(4) Outreach to specific areas and small businesses.--The
Corporation shall seek to ensure that qualified concerns and
small businesses located in areas determined by the Secretary
to have a depressed economy or chronically high unemployment
are notified of the availability of assistance through the
program established under this section and, to the extent
practicable, to encourage and facilitate the participation of
such qualified concerns and small businesses in such program.
(h) Authority to Represent the Government.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary, the Corporation shall act as an agent, and
represent the interests, of the Federal Government in
facilitating the utilization of technologies, processes, and
other proprietary rights by qualified concerns under this
title.
(2) Rights of qualified concerns.--In accordance with
regulations promulgated by the Secretary, the Corporation may
convey, to qualified concerns, under terms and conditions to
be negotiated between the Corporations and qualified
concerns, such rights which may be necessary and appropriate
to facilitate the utilization and commercialization of
technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights as
provided under this title.
(3) Minimum rights of the federal government.--In the
conveyance of rights to qualified concerns as provided for
under paragraph (2), the Corporation shall ensure the
following:
(A) The conveyance agreement contains language providing
for the right of the Corporation to revoke the rights
provided under paragraph (2) if--
(i) the qualified concern does not demonstrate that it is
undertaking a good faith effort to achieve the utilization
and commercialization of the technology, process, or other
proprietary right; or
(ii) the Secretary certifies that the interests of national
security or the general welfare of the American people
necessitates the revocation of such rights.
(B) The Federal Government retains a license to such
technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights for the
Government's own use.
(C) The Federal Government receives in compensation for the
conveyance of such rights--
(i) royalties;
(ii) the right to share in the earnings of the qualified
entity proportionate to the value of the rights so conveyed;
or
(iii) a sum of money or other compensation that the
Corporation determines to be appropriate.
(4) Agent's fees.--Under such terms as the Secretary and
the Corporation may negotiate, after consulting with the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, the Corporation may retain a
percentage of any royalties or other compensation accruing to
the Federal Government in connection with any licensing
agreement entered into by the Corporation on behalf of the
Federal Government.
(i) Consultation With Federal Agencies, and With Private
Parties.--
(1) Consultation with federal agencies.--In carrying out
this title, the Board and the Corporation shall consult
frequently with the Secretary, and such Federal agencies and
departments as is appropriate, to ensure coordination and the
maximum utilization of all related Federal resources to
promote technology utilization and commercialization.
(2) Consultation with private parties.--In carrying out
this title, the Board and the Corporation shall solicit
comments from private parties, including representatives of
finance, industry, and organized labor on the role of the
Corporation and the needs of private parties.
(j) Audit by Comptroller General.--The Comptroller General
of the United States may audit the financial transactions of
the Corporation. For the purposes of carrying out such an
audit, the Comptroller General shall have access to all
books, records, and property belonging to, or in the
possession of, the Corporation. In the case of a person or
entity which has entered into a financial relationship with
the Corporation, the Comptroller General shall have access
only to those books, records, and property belonging to, or
in the possession of, the person or entity which pertain to
the Corporation and which are necessary to carry out the
audit. The Comptroller General shall make a report of each
such audit to the Congress and the President.
(k) Information and Other Assistance From Federal
Agencies.--Upon the request of the Corporation, the head of a
Federal department or agency is authorized to--
(1) furnish to the Corporation such information which is
available to the agency as the Board deems necessary for
carrying out its functions; and
(2) detail for temporary duty, on a reimbursable basis,
such personnel as the Corporations determines to be necessary
to carry out its functions.
(l) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
(1) Jurisdiction.--
(A) In general.--Whenever the Corporation is a party to any
civil action under this title, such action shall be deemed to
arise under the laws of the United States. No attachment or
execution may be issued against the Corporation, or any
property thereof, prior to entry of final judgment.
(B) Citizenship of corporation.--The Corporation shall be
deemed to be a citizen of the District of Columbia for the
purpose of determining the original jurisdiction of the
district courts of the United States in civil actions to
which the Corporation is a party.
(2) Business activity and qualification.--The Corporation
shall be deemed to be qualified to do business in each State
in which it performs any activity authorized under this
title.
(m) Utilization of Corporation.--It is the sense of the
Congress that all Federal departments, agencies, institutions
of higher education, and laboratories, and all institutions
of higher education and laboratories which are otherwise
supported by Federal funds, should use the services of the
Corporation to the maximum extent possible.
SEC. 305. ASSISTANCE TO BUSINESSES IN SECURING FINANCING.
(a) Information Clearinghouse.--The Corporation established
under this title shall act as a one-stop clearinghouse for
information to assist qualified concerns identify sources of
business development and technology commercialization
financing available through the Federal Government as well as
through applicable State and local government programs and
through private sources.
(b) Agent of the Federal Government.--The Corporation may
act as an agent of the Federal Government for purposes of
accepting applications for financial assistance and their
submission to the appropriate Federal agency on behalf of a
qualified concern.
(c) Technical Assistance for Lenders and Borrowers.--The
Corporation shall, upon request, provide technical assistance
and services, as appropriate and needed, to lenders and
borrowers under this title, and shall ensure that such
lenders and borrowers have ready access to appropriate
assistance in order to aid such lenders and borrowers in
achieving the purposes of this title.
SEC. 306. SAVINGS PROVISION.
It is the intent of the Congress that this title shall be
construed as complementing any other provision of Federal law
relating to the licensing, utilization, or commercialization
of the use of technology and shall not be construed as
superseding any such provision, except as otherwise provided
in this title.
SEC. 307. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act or this title shall be construed by the
President, the Secretary of Commerce, the Corporation, any
Federal agency or department, or any court to affect, alter,
amend, modify, or change, or apply to, any program or
activity (or any technology developed, derived, or provided
through or under such program or activity by any means of any
kind) of the Department of Energy, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services,
or the Environmental Protection Agency or any office, bureau,
commission, laboratory or facility of such agencies or
departments.
Mr. KANJORSKI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
(Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, the Kanjorski-Ridge amendment embodies a
revised version of this language adopted by the Banking Committee to
utilize the fruits of this Nation's research as an engine for creating
significant numbers of new jobs in private sector businesses.
This is accomplished by enhancing the ability of United States 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
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.
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. Chairman, 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
agreement [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 diffuse. 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 United States
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 financing
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. Chairman, 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. I urge the
adoption of the amendment.
{time} 1610
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the debate about technology transfer is as old as
Government technology and inventiveness itself. Over the years we have
learned a few lessons about this often misunderstood and of necessity
complicated process, and what we are hearing today is another committee
that has come up with their version of it, that obviously has not
looked at the kind of success stories and lack of success stories that
are really out there in the country.
In thousands of hours of testimony before the House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, witness after witness has told us that
the prime mission of Government laboratories has not been to invent
better materials for filling teeth with cavities, or an orange drink
which is a cheap substitute for orange juice, or a pen that can write
upside down. Yet these are all commercial products which have come to
the market place from the Federal laboratories.
What we have also learned is that it takes time and money to take
what are normally processes or inventions not commercially ready
products from the lab to the shelves of your retail store. This is
because the mission of the labs is to support the needs of the
Government. Tech transfer takes place when one of those Government
needs can be transformed through engineering, time, and money, to a
product which is consumer usable.
Throughout the years we have discovered that successful technology
transfer is brought about when the following elements are in place.
First, involvement of the lab scientist who developed the invention.
Second, encouragement from the lab director to work with industry to
commercialize the invention.
Third, incentives for all parties concerned to work together to
commercialize the invention.
Fourth, decentralized and hopefully local economic interests who will
take the time and invest the money necessary to bring an idea to
production.
Such a system was put in place 14 years ago when Congressman
Thornton, among others, proposed with Senators Birch Bayh and Bob Dole
what has become known as the Bayh-Dole Act. This allowed universities
and small businesses the right to own the inventions which were funded
with Government resources. It has been through the experience of this
act that when the inventors of a product or process own the fruits of
their genius that it is more likely to provide the economic incentive
to commercialize an invention or, as Lincoln once said of the patent
system, that it combined the leverage of incentive with the fire of
genius.
Because of the Bayh-Dole Act, universities and small business have
brought billions of dollars of federally-funded technology to the
marketplace. The system was so successful that it was applied to
Government operated and then federally-owned laboratories through the
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the National
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989.
According to GAO, since the passage of the Federal Technology
Transfer Act, the number of inventions licensed by the Federal
Government has increased by 27 percent.
Mr. Kanjorski's bill, I know, is well motivated. But it does not
comport with experience. It would potentially take away the incentives
of entrepreneurs, both Federal and non-Federal, to work together. It
would do so by recentralizing tech transfer, a system which was a
failure before we started our reforms in 1980.
The Kanjorski bill would create a home shopping network for
technology transfer. This is misguided because the National Technical
Information Service, which has an annual operating budget of over $30
million dollars, has been developing data bases for both domestic and
foreign government technologies since the late 1940's. The National
Technology Transfer Center in West Virginia, which does much of what is
proposed in the Kanjorski bill, has a Federal appropriation of $2
million for this fiscal year. Kanjorski is trying to recreate what
already exists.
As Forbes magazine said about the Kanjorski bill:
The British press has long had a superb word for partly
private, partly public organizations--``quango'' for quasi-
autonomous-national-governmental-organization. As the sound
of the word suggests, quangos generally turn out to be
quagmires of bureaucratic ineptitude.
Fortunately, Americans never took to quangos the way the Brits did.
But now Representative Paul Kanjorski, Democrat of Pennsylvania, wants
to create a dandy of a quango. Kanjorski's bill would bring bureaucrats
back into technology transfer if and when they deem the universities
are not doing a good job. The bill would centralize the licensing of
all federally funded research by creating a gargantuan quango called
the Technology Transfer and Commercialization Financing Corporation--
let's call it Tetracofico. The Government would own a nonvoting 60
percent stake in Tetracofico; the other 40 percent would be sold to a
private entity.
Also the bill would establish a massive database of all patents in
which the Federal Government has an interest, many of which have never
found a home, and create a 24-hour cable network to alert the public to
the patents. Lita Nelson, director of MIT's technology licensing
office, has experimented with such data and concludes that they produce
mostly time-wasting nuisance industries. ``Databases are a classic
shotgun technique,'' says Nelson. ``We feel that rifle-shot marketing
directed at carefully chosen targets is a lot more effective. This year
MIT will tally $7.5 million in royalty revenues, up from $2.5 million
in 1986.'' Sighs the Farber Cancer Institute's Ashley Stevens: ``Here--
in the existing Bayh-Dole Act--you have a Government program that's
worked in spades. Now Congress is trying to screw it up.''
{time} 1620
That is exactly the point, colleagues. What we are doing here is
screwing up something that is working.
Let me tell Members, there are some other dangers, too, that we need
to understand. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] put up a
much fancier chart of his than I have here. I have the smaller version.
But it does tell us something very disturbing.
Because by his own chart, what we notice is that everything coming
out of the Federal agencies, coming out of the Federal labs, coming out
of the universities, not just Federal agencies and Federal
laboratories, out of the universities themselves, by his own chart all
the arrows point to a centralized collection point. Then it goes to
another centralized bureaucracy.
What is interesting about the centralized bureaucracy is that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] has that this amendment
includes the marketing, the information, and the licensing portion of
it. But he includes this big guidance with a big bag of dollars on it.
That has been dropped out of the amendment that we have before us
today, because it became apparent that that costs $12 billion by the
original estimates. So that is not there anymore. Yet when we see the
chart that was presented here on the floor, the chart still includes
that. That is where they are headed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WALKER. The point is that here we have this Tetracofico that
includes these four items, including the giant money bag that we know
from the original bill was a $12 billion item. It is not here, but
guess what is coming, folks. Guess what is just around the corner. You
create this quango, and this quango is going to end up being a
gargantuan quango with a lot of real big dollars connected with it.
Then and only then, after everything is passed through this centralized
marketing, does it get out here to the new businesses.
The fact is the way the system now works is, these universities,
these Federal agencies, these Federal labs can work directly with the
new businesses right in their own communities or within their own
States or nationally. They do not need to go through this centralized
mechanism. They do not need a quango to deal with each other.
What is happening right now under the law, under the procedures in
place, is that these agencies, these Federal labs and these
universities are working with new businesses. We are creating
technology transfer that is increasing on a regular basis. As I said,
GAO says that under this act, it is up 27 percent. That is exactly the
direction we ought to continue to go. To create the Tetracofico, to
create this giant quango, this gargantuan new centralized bureaucracy,
that is exactly what we do not need to do. I would urge that we defeat
this amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most challenging and important tasks for the
103d Congress is to create meaningful jobs for the 8\1/2\ million
Americans who are currently unemployed and a similar number of people
who are currently underemployed. That is what the amendment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] is all about.
It would set up a process whereby for the first time we can
effectively take advantage of the enormous amount of the money that the
U.S. Government has spent on research and development both at Federal
agencies and in universities and research centers across the country.
This activity has been going on for decades. Much fruit has been
borne in terms of research based upon the money that has been spent.
However, the information in many cases is lying fallow. It is not
getting out to entrepreneurs. It is not getting out to American
businesses.
Other people in other parts of the world are sending research experts
here on a regular basis to look into the research that is being done in
American institutions. They are taking advantage of this information.
We have not yet fully taken such advantage.
The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski]
allows us to do that in a comprehensive way and for the first time. It
allows that information which is lying fallow to be used, to be
developed.
It will create tens of thousands of new jobs for Americans. It will
also allow entrepreneurs and American businesses to reach out to that
technology and to use it creatively and intelligently for the creation
of new industrial enterprises, the creation of new wealth, and the
creation of new employment opportunities for those Americans who so
desperately need it.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It goes a long way in
unleashing the intellectual creativity of this Nation, which has not
yet been tapped adequately. Under the amendment of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] that intellectual activity will be
released, and we will have the opportunity to put it into practical,
every day practice.
I encourage this amendment, and I hope that the Members of this body
will endorse it enthusiastically.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working very
closely in the establishment of this amendment.
I want to respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker]. I notice that he talked about the Forbes magazine
article.
Unfortunately, this amendment and the article that the bill, that
that amendment addressed were quite different or quite uniquely
changed. But above and beyond that, I would ask my fellow Members to
think about their districts and identify in their particular districts
what new industries and what new jobs have been created over the last
10 years, for instance, as a result of expenditure of American research
and development money.
I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker ] comes from a
very profitable and very economically sound district in southern
Pennsylvania around the Lancaster area of Pennsylvania.
But I can speak for many of my colleagues in the 21-Member districts
in Pennsylvania, and they have not been as fortunate as the district of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] in getting new research
and development jobs coming into their districts.
I can look across the Ohio and New York and Michigan and Wisconsin
and what has been referred to very often as the rust belt of America. I
can assure my fellow Members that many of these jobs that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] talks about are not coming out, because
the average entrepreneur, small and middle-sized businessman does not
have the opportunity to know what is in the Federal inventory and
certainly does not have the wherewithal to come down to Washington to
cap it like the giant, gigantic corporations of America and the foreign
corporations of the world that do take advantage of our research and
development.
I guess we could argue that philosophical point all night. All I
would like my colleagues to understand is that we do not change the
laws that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] referred to. All
we do is supplement those laws, and all we primarily do is create a
vehicle so average American businessmen of small- and medium-size
companies and average American entrepreneurs can partake in the
research and development inventory of America on an equal, level
playing field. And we do it by using good old private sector
technology, American technology, and take the job out of bureaucracy
and out of government and put it into the hands of private enterprise
to market, to assist, and to get this technology into small businesses.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MOLINARI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
My colleague from Pennsylvania explained to the House that the
amendment that we have before us is substantially changed from the bill
which the Forbes article found as so onerous.
The gentleman is correct. I pointed out in my speech that there is a
difference. The difference is that he has taken out the $12 billion of
guidance money that was in his original bill.
The point is, however, that he is still promoting, in a ``Dear
Colleague'' letter that was sent around today and in a chart that was
used on the floor, the Tetracofico that has the money bag still in it.
So when Members buy into this concept, understand, it has changed in
the amendment. But the future holds the idea that we are going to spend
$12 billion for this gargantuan quango at some point in the future.
The other thing that I think we need to understand is that this
monument to private enterprise that the gentleman talks about is, in
fact, 60-percent owned by the Government.
{time} 1630
I do not know too many entrepreneurs out there who regard companies
owned 60 percent by the Government as private enterprises. This is a
Government bureaucracy. It is a little like when President Clinton runs
around the country telling everybody that this huge health bureaucracy
that he is setting up is really private enterprise in action. Nobody in
the country believes that. No one in the country should believe that
this is anything other than a brand new gargantuan Government
bureaucracy being interposed in the middle of what needs to be done in
terms of technology transfer.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with everybody who has spoken about the need to
make certain that the high technology that we are developing gets spun
off into businesses so they can create jobs in this country. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania somewhat depreciates my district for the
fact that we have been successful in many high-tech industries in my
district doing this. Yes, he is right, and we ought to have that model
and we ought to be using it around the country. We ought to be making
certain that other places also get the opportunities that are now
available.
The fact is it does work. High tech can produce jobs, and we can put
together a system that allows technology to be transferred into the
private sector, but the system is not some huge new centralized
bureaucracy. That did not work before 1980. We found it was an absolute
unmitigated failure. What we are doing here is failing to learn from
history. We are going here is failing to learn from history. We are
going back to exactly what we were doing prior to 1980, and we are now
going to wade in 15 years later into the brave new world of back to the
future.
Mr. Chairman, I have to say that this is not the right way to get the
tech transfer we want done. This is going to get in the way of tech
transfer, it is going to be a disaster, and in my view we ought to
stick with what we have now shown works. Let us get tech transfer
producing new jobs, but let us do it in a way that we know actually
works.
Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Ridge], my neighbor from across the border.
I would like to focus at the moment on one aspect of this program,
the Economic Development Administration, which is not a new program and
not an addition, but something that has been in existence for a number
of years, but which has from time to time been threatened by budgetary
proposals by the administration.
One program that has been administered by the EDA is called the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program for firms whose central missions have
been threatened by foreign competition. We have administered this
program through a series of 12 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers,
including a Great Lakes Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, which is
based in Ann Arbor, MI and which serves the area in my congressional
district.
This is a program which, unlike all the other programs out there
which we only hear about through the agencies themselves and through
the committees, this is a program that I can say to my colleagues that
I know specifically has provided support to specific firms in my
district who are going out of business, who needed help to retool, to
respond to the competition. This program, the trade adjustment
assistance center, has come in. They have provided that technological
assistance with a very minimal investment, and they have been able to
turn their business around.
One business in my district, Thompson Aluminum Castings, has called
this in their opinion the only Federal program that really works. The
problem has been that over the years, in the search for funds for other
programs, the administration has proposed now twice that this program
be eliminated. It was reauthorized in the budget, the 5-year budget
resolution which we passed last summer.
It is my understanding as a result of the hearings held by the
subcommittee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], on
which I am privileged to serve, that the EDA will under the provisions
of this bill continue to administer the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Centers, unless and until such time that these centers are found to
have another place within the Federal budget.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski] whether my understanding is correct, that the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Centers, which have been so beneficial to the
firms in my district, are indeed authorized and will continue to be
administered by the EDA under the terms of this amendment and this
bill.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FINGERHUT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman, as we had at the
committee level, that his inquiry is absolutely correct, and that his
understanding is absolutely correct, that this will be continued, this
program will be continued to be administered by the Economic
Development Administration.
Of course, it is the policy of our subcommittee and the subcommittee
of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] to see that that
continues, because you know we are all involved, particularly now since
the passage of NAFTA, with the important of what this means. I thank
the gentleman from Ohio, and I thank him for the assistance in drafting
the amendment we have presently before the floor.
Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response.
I further yield to the gentleman during the time that I have
remaining in my 5 minutes.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding time to
me.
I want to respond to some of the things my colleague, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has said.
I do not believe the gentleman understands the impact of the present
amendment before the floor. I way that with all due respect, insofar as
this amendment did go through some significant change in working its
process with his committee and with other committees in the Congress so
there would not be a conflict on the floor here today.
I want to assure the gentleman that there is nothing in this
amendment that establishes a 60-40 percent of anything. The corporation
involved is 100 percent private. Further, there is absolutely no
assistance or funds authorized in this bill of any amount, certainly
not $12 billion, but of no amount, and the only financial assistance
offered in the Department of Agriculture or in this amendment as it is
presently offered is to direct those individuals that will be using the
technology to the existing sources of financing today in the Federal
Government.
I do not know whether he gets that inquiry, but I can tell the
Speaker that in my office I keep maybe half of a staff member busy full
time just helping people find out where to go in the Federal Government
and in the state government to get assistance to help create jobs and
to build industry.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that as he has described
my bill, it is not correct. We intend to work with him, as we intend to
work with the other committees, as this goes through the process, but I
do tell the Members very seriously that if the gentleman is fortunate
enough in this district not to need this type of bill and that the
present status quo is operating, it is not sufficiently operating in my
part of Pennsylvania.
Mr ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat reluctant to get involved in this fight,
because it is almost like a family feud. We have all Pennsylvania
Congressmen on the floor on this issue.
I thought it was interesting, Mr. Chairman, to point out just a
couple of short paragraphs in testimony before the committee on this
particular legislation, or the concept of it.
The testimony was this, and this comes from the Office of Technology
Assessment. These are people who are unbiased and who come before the
Congress to give us their unbiased professional opinion. Here is what
he said. Mr. Chairman this comes from the senior analyst.
He said, ``There are many barriers that get in the way of moving this
technology out to the private sector for commercialization. Often
technology in the Federal laboratory is just sitting there. No one in
the lab will do the work, since it is not related to their mission, to
move it to the next step. The private sector is not willing to take it
to the next step, and therefore, nothing happens.''
He also noted that, ``There is relatively little awareness in the
private sector, particularly among small and medium size firms, of the
potential of Federal technology.''
I know this to be very true, because Mr. Chairman, every year I have
an export conference in Wisconsin. We have as many as 950 to 1,000
people. I have been doing this for the last 12 years now. The one thing
that always strikes me is that these small companies do not have the
vaguest idea that the Federal Government spends billions of dollars on
research and development that is just sitting there and they could use
it, do not even know it is there.
Do the Members know who does know it is there? All these foreign
companies. They are all over the place. Foreign companies spend a
million dollars just to have people looking around for American
research and development. The Japanese a couple of years ago, I do not
know how many they have now, but the Japanese 2 years ago had 22 people
full time right in this city looking for our research and development.
That is why this amendment is so important, but the problem is that
we always have these turf battles. Some guy said, ``Hey, it should have
been before my committee.'' Another guy said, ``It should have been
before my committee.'' Some gentlewoman says, ``It should have been
before my committee.''
I am not interested in whose committee it should have been before. I
am interested in getting this on the floor, looking at this issue,
voting on it, so all our small entrepreneurs, our small business
people, could use the research and development that the taxpayers, that
you and I and everyone else represent, have paid millions and millions
of dollars for.
That is what I am looking at here today. That is why this amendment
is so important. I hope the people in the House vote for this amendment
today for the good of jobs, for the good of our economy, so we can have
this research and development help our entrepreneurs and our small
business people.
{time} 1640
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Wisconsin yield?
Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree with the gentleman
from Wisconsin and the testimony cited was testimony by impartial
people before our committee on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the gentleman and
my colleague to one thing: Does the gentleman recall that one of the
witnesses testified that the 1992 committee report of the Japanese
Government set out where their research and development future lies or
where they were intending to get their future research and development,
and the line set out in the Government Report Committee was the United
States Government as the major supplier of research and development to
the Japanese industry?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, just as an aside, I want to say this is not
only a problem here but we have a thing called the Export
Administration Act. Do my colleagues know because of all the
regulations, of all the licenses that our companies have to obtain to
sell products overseas that we are stifling our companies from
exporting by $30 billion a year? That is 600,000 jobs in America.
Mr. Chairman, that is what we have to change. These foreign companies
and foreign countries are over here at the Commerce Department finding
out what kind of licenses our American companies need, what company is
looking for what license. Then they quickly run to the other company
and say, ``Hey, you don't have to wait for 3 months or 6 months for the
Americans to license a product to sell it here. Why, we can sell it to
you overnight.''
Mr. Chairman, that is why business, industry and labor have to start
working together in America so we can have the jobs and the economy our
people need.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor, I rise today in support of H.R. 2442,
the EDA and ARC authorization bill and in strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I believe that
H.R. 2442 will address many of the serious economic problems facing our
local communities and that the Kanjorski amendment will enhance our
efforts to rebuild our economy and ensure that emerging technology
companies can access vital federally supported research and
development.
The Kanjorski amendment is a bipartisan amendment which simply builds
on our current technology transfer structure. It improves the structure
and seeks to make it stronger and more efficient. It does not call for
a centralized system, nor would it prohibit universities from filing
patents, issuing licenses, receive royalties from the private sector
commercialization of technologies and patents development through
federally funded research. What the Kanjorski amendment seeks to
accomplish, is to make it easier for businesses to have direct access
to new technologies developed with Federal funds. We are simply trying
to get a better return on our R&D investment dollars.
Perhaps the greatest strength of this amendment is the implementation
of a nationwide data base of information on federally funded new
technologies. A comprehensive data base on federally funded new
technologies would end the practice of reinventing the wheel in the
public and private sector. Access to this data base would give small
and medium size businesses the same competitive edge as large
multinational corporations or major research institutions.
The amendment will create real jobs and expand thousands of
businesses by simply increasing access to federally funded technologies
and establishing a clearinghouse of information for U.S. businesses on
financing assistance available though Federal programs, through State
and local governments, or through the private sector. How many of my
colleagues have been contacted by local businesses and constituents to
inquire about the availability of Federal assistance for emerging
technology companies? The Kanjorski amendment would create a source of
critical information for them.
I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his amendment and ask
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important effort to ensure
that federally funded research and development dollars result in real
job creation and truly assist small and medium size businesses to
compete in our rapidly advancing technical world. Our ability to
compete in a global economy will be seriously jeopardized if we are
unable to transfer critical technology from the public to the private
sector.
amendment offered by mr. walker to the amendment offered by mr.
kanjorski
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walker to the amendment offered by
Mr. Kanjorski. After section 307, insert the following new
section:
SEC. 308. EXEMPTION.
Any agency or department of the Federal Government, and any
office, bureau, commission, laboratory, or facility thereof,
and any entity that receives funding from the Federal
Government, whose technology transfer activities are subject
to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C.
3701 et seq.), chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code
(popularly known as the Bayh-Dole Act), the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-418), or the National
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-
189) shall be exempt from the requirements of this title.
Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, it is rather clear that to some extent the
fix is in here, and I am a little concerned about that because the
bottom line is that we are going to do real damage if we allow this to
go ahead in its present form.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] has
told us that what he intends his new program to be, this new quango, he
intends to be complementary to what is already in place. That is what
this amendment does. This amendment says that it has to be
complementary, that those agencies and departments, universities and so
on who are working under the present technology transfer programs,
whether it be the National Technology Center in West Virginia, whether
it be the National Technology Information System, whatever it is, if
they are working under those programs, they would be exempt from having
to participate in this program.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that at the very least, those people out
there who think they have a program that is working and is transferring
technology and is doing the right kind of job for the country ought to
be able to go ahead and do all of that without being forced into the
new regime that is anticipated by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, all my amendment does, it is a very simple kind of
thing. It just says that they are going to be exempt from the
requirements of the title if, in fact, they are already participating
under that which we have in place and which is now working. I would
hope that at the very least, that if we are going to go ahead and do
this thing, which I happen to think is wrong, that we will not have an
adverse impact on the things that are already in place and that we will
allow those institutions that are presently doing a good job of
technical transfer through the established mechanisms to keep in place
that which is working.
Mr. Chairman, that is all my amendment does. I would urge its
approval as an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay this. I know what my friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, wants to accomplish. I want to assure him
that in the amendment as published in section 306, the savings
provision covers exactly what he should worry about, in that we do not
interfere or supersede with any existing law operation. As a matter of
fact, in setting this up, I worked a great deal with my friend, the
gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan's transfer center in West
Virginia. It is an ideal type of operation. We want to encourage that
type of operation.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this law that interferes with or
supplements existing law. What it does is allows us to cover the
loopholes in the law.
Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest as to why we cannot accept the
amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is that the
gentleman's amendment prevents the labs from using the services.
Mr. Chairman, let me explain what that means. There are 1,600
colleges and universities in the United States. Several hundred of
them, 200, 400, 600, do a great job, but there are also a lot of
colleges and universities in America that do not have a vice president
in charge of marketing, do not have an entire financial operation to
market their technology because they are not in that business and as a
result they are not having a great deal of success in using it.
Mr. Chairman, what this amendment allows is that they could use the
services of this corporation if they see fit. The same thing applies to
the national laboratories, to the bureaus, to the agencies, to the
departments of the U.S. Government. They are not compelled to use it in
any stretch of the imagination but they are allowed to use it if they
do not feel they are doing an adequate job or the job they are doing is
too expensive.
Mr. Chairman, what the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
[Mr. Walker] would do is to disallow them the opportunity to use this
corporation or this marketing technique, and if we were to approve
that, we would have gone to ground zero because we would be right back,
that there is no one here that under existing law could come and make
arrangements with this new entity to disperse and market their
technology or their research and development.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I have a very limited amount of time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should pursue it. I think we have
given the answer to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I am
telling the gentleman there is a savings provision here that we do not
interfere with any existing law, the current law. What we do is create
a supplement to those entities that need further marketing, and the
testimony before the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs
was, there is a great deal of that need in this country today.
(On request of Mr. Walker and by unanimous consent Mr. Kanjorski was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am acting here in large part on the advice of
counsel. There is a feeling that the protection that the gentleman says
is there does not really exist with regard to the section and also that
at the very least, then, if what the gentleman is saying is right, this
amendment is duplicative.
Mr. KANJORSKI. No.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, there is no harm in
passing it and it does correct a fault in the bill that we believe is
there.
{time} 1650
I am not trying to be malicious with this. I am trying to correct
something which I think needs to be corrected, and it is an attempt.
I will tell the gentleman that all those thousands of universities
that you have out there, they are not participating under the Federal
Technology Transfer Act. They are not research universities. They would
still be eligible to participate under this amendment. We would assure
those who are doing a good job under the present circumstance could
continue to do so.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Under our savings provision, they are allowed to do
so, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and I assure
the gentleman as this process goes on, we want to make sure we talk
with you and the interests of these research universities to make sure
we do not interfere with their rights. If they are doing a good job,
and many of them are, I have nothing against MIT, Stanford, Harvard,
Caltech. They are doing fantastic jobs.
Mr. WALKER. What about Penn State and the University of Pennsylvania?
Mr. KANJORSKI. There are those universities and colleges throughout
America that do not have the marketing ability.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman would yield further, then why not take
this amendment? All this amendment does is corrects for exactly what
you just said you want to do. I do not understand why you will not take
this amendment that just makes certain that we can continue to have the
pattern in place that is presently working.
Mr. KANJORSKI. As I read the gentleman's amendment, it runs the risk
of exempting the authorizations and the abilities of my amendment to go
into operation.
Mr. WALKER. No.
Mr. KANJORSKI. We will be very happy, I say to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], when we get an opportunity, as you know, we
have not had a chance to pass this through counsel. We have not had a
chance to work with it. As I understand it, it was drafted on the floor
this afternoon. I do not know the ramifications of it. I am telling you
it is the intent of my committee, and as myself, the drafter of this
amendment, it is my intent that we require no one to perform or operate
with this marketing operation that they do not desire to do so, and we
have no intention of interfering in the present and current law.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield further, my concern on that
is there was no attempt to work with me at my committee when this
measure was coming through. The gentleman is wrong. This was not
drafted on the floor this afternoon. It was, in fact, drafted, and as
you can see, it is in print. So it had to be drafted long before we
came to the floor.
But the fact is that there was no attempt to work with us. Some of
these things could have been worked out early if there had been any
attempt to work with us at all. So I am not very much swayed by the
idea that at some point in the future we are now going to work together
on this. It seems to me it is important what we do is pass some
corrective language now.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I rise against the Walker
amendment, and I rise to speak in favor of this bill.
As I understand it, the Walker amendment would make it impossible to
go forward with the intent of their bill and, therefore, I would hope
that we would not go along with that amendment.
If there are legitimate concerns, I think as the author of the bill
has said, those concerns can be worked on, but I want to spend my time
today talking about what I think the Kanjorski-Ridge amendment is
really about.
In its simplest form, it is about jobs. It is about our willingness
as a Government and as a people to really help small, struggling
businesses and ultimately, I think, it is about our very ability to
compete with foreign nations that, quite frankly, up until now have
given their small business people much more help than our Government
has been willing to do.
Now, right now, the American taxpayer is spending millions and, in
fact, billions of dollars for research in our labs, in our colleges, in
our universities, and in the private sector, and a lot of that research
could be brought to bear in our small businesses. It could help to
modernize, stay competitive, and, frankly, innovate an entire industry.
But the fact is too often this good work gathers dust on a Government
shelf. We are not doing enough to share the fruits of our research, and
a lot of it is simply going to waste.
If we look at the competition overseas, the question is not whether
we can afford to do a better job of this. The question is whether we
can afford not to do a better job of this.
That is why I think this approach is so important, and I commend the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Republican gentleman from
Pennsylvania for bringing this amendment forward. I will put Government
innovation and technology at the fingertips of even the smallest
business, and it serves as a clearinghouse of information that is now
scattered across a maze of labs and agencies.
Best of all, it breaks down the bureaucracy, shreds the red tape, so
you do not need a high-powered lobbyist, which is the gentleman's
point, or a handful of Government contacts to get access to this
information.
At the same time we launch a special study to see if we need a
business development and technology commercialization corporation. This
kind of public-private partnership would help our agencies license and
market their research, and it would spread the word about the resources
we have available.
Now, of course, we would not force Federal agencies and labs to take
part in the new program. The idea is not to replace today's technology-
transfer programs, but to add to them.
I think all of us could agree that we have got to do much more to
help small business, and this is a place to start. The amendment will
not affect licensing or transfer agreements that are already in place.
It will not tie the hands of researchers who want to file patents and
earn royalties for their work, and it will not bargain away the rights
of our agencies or leak out sensitive information. But it will help
bring American businesses into the information age. It will jump-start
a bureaucracy that can do a lot more to help small business, if just we
can focus our research and our resources to get the job done.
So I urge Members today to reject the Walker amendment, to stay with
the Kanjorski-Ridge amendment, to say to all of American business that
American business, that America's Government, mean business.
In my opinion, there is no more important measure in front of this
Congress to help small business, to rejuvenate our economy, and to get
Government, as it always should, to help and support our small
businesses across this country.
I commend the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, both of them, and urge
Members to vote against the Walker amendment and for the Kanjorski-
Ridge amendment.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I never like to argue with my friend, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], because I know that when he drafts an
amendment it is always well drafted. I just have a question. I wondered
if the gentleman from Pennsylvania would answer a question for me.
I have read this amendment, and the reason I like the Kanjorski-Ridge
amendment is because it sets up this clearinghouse where my small-
business people from Wisconsin can come and find out if there is
something available in R&D or entrepreneurs, something available for
them to use.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, let me say to
the gentleman that they can already do that through the NTIS.
Mr. ROTH. Let me pose my question. As I read your amendment, if I
interpret your amendment correctly, in other words, what I am saying, I
say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], is that when our
people come, it is one-stop shopping for them. They can come here and
they find out if there is something available in their area. But as I
read your amendment, especially the last sentence, ``shall be exempt
from the requirements of this title,'' it means we would basically be
doing away with that clearinghouse, as I interpret your amendment.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield further, under the present
system, under the NTIS, the National Technology Information System,
right now, your businesses and so on can come to them and get that
information right now. It is available to them through that particular
entity right now.
Mr. ROTH. But they have to shop all over.
Mr. WALKER. No. This is a one-stop shopping center. NTIS is a one-
stop shopping center for exactly the information you are talking about.
What we are doing is creating a brandnew system.
All I am saying is if somebody has been dealing with NTIS or dealing
with the National Technology Center, the fact is I just would like to
see them exempt from having to deal with this.
Let me make one other point. What I am wondering is, there are a
certain number of groups that have already been exempted. In a deal
made with Chairman Dingell, we already exempted a bunch of people from
this, and now what we are doing is bogging down and saying, ``Well, we
made our deal with Chairman Dingell so he would not oppose this on the
floor.'' But all these other people out there who were not a part of
Chairman Dingell's deal are now going to be covered by this thing.
{time} 1700
If in fact Chairman Dingell would exempt his people, there are some
others you should exempt also.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I am trying to get at the substance or the truth of exactly what this
amendment would do because I want to cast an informed vote here. This
is very important.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], he
indicated this one-stop shopping is already being done. If that is the
case and--this is nothing against the NTIS--but the Department of
Agriculture and NIH have just opted out of NTIS. Now, we are not
castigating NTIS. What we want to do with our amendment and these
existing entities is to finally get together and say we are all on the
same team, we want to do the most effective job we can to get tax-
payer-funded research and development out there, particularly in the
private sector in the small-business area, and for them to obtain it as
reasonably and as cheaply and as efficiently as they can.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the fact is the Department of Agriculture
and NIH opted out of the licensing procedure at NTIS.
The technologies available are still at NTIS. You can still find out
what the technologies are that can be transferred to you through NTIS.
Those are still available for the Department of Agriculture and NIH,
but they are not participating in the licensing system anymore. So, for
technology transfer, it is exactly as it has always been.
Mr. ROTH. I will take back my time and thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for this explanation.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask my friends and colleagues to vote
against this Walker amendment because I do feel it would gut this
provision of the clearinghouse and it would hurt small business and
entrepreneurs. That is precisely what I am trying to do with this
legislation, to help our entrepreneurs so that this one-stop shopping
for research and development, which all American taxpayers have paid
for, is available.
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kanjorski-Ridge amendment to
the EDA Reauthorization Act.
First of all, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from the
eastern half of the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, [Mr.
Kanjorski], for his determination in crafting the tools this Nation so
gravely needs to spur economic development and job creation.
History has shown us that it is the small- and medium-sized
businesses in this Nation that must thrive in order for new jobs to be
created.
This amendment gives small- and medium-sized companies--especially
those just starting out or restructuring--much needed access to
information and technologies that they commonly cannot use due their
limited size and resources.
The information and technologies that we are talking about have been
funded by the American taxpayer and should be available to growing
American companies to benefit American workers.
For just defense research and development, in fiscal year 1994 alone,
U.S. taxpayers have invested $35 billion.
And the staggering taxpayer investment for all research and
development is $70 billion.
Through research in Federal laboratories and universities, tens of
thousands of patents and technologies have been produced.
Unfortunately, American businesses have not had access to nor benefited
from these technologies. They are either collecting dust or, even
worse, they are being used by our foreign competitors.
For example, videotape recorders [VTR's]--the predecessor of VCR's,
semiconductor chips, automobile tires, and flat-panel displays were
designed with technologies discovered in this country. Now, our foreign
competitors hold patents and have vastly superior market shares on
these products.
These technologies, ladies and gentlemen, are worth tens of billions
of dollars in assets and will generate millions of new jobs.
The Kanjorski-Ridge amendment would commercialize many of these
technologies for private sector U.S. businesses.
This amendment also creates a comprehensive technology data base.
What an incredible resource for a small-business person embarking on
a new venture--a user-friendly, standardized list of all patents,
licenses, technologies, and processes held by the Federal Government
that anyone can tap into to revitalize his company.
Mr. Chairman, our economy has been undergoing a transition, from
defense-related industries to peacetime manufacturing. The Federal
Government can--and should--be a facilitator in this conversion.
In the role, this amendment establishes a public/private partnership,
which will be called the Business Development and Technology
Commercialization Corporation. This corporation will market Federal
technologies, provide technical assistance to companies utilizing these
technologies, and act as a clearinghouse for information.
Through this amendment, we can provide a temporary means of
stimulating the economy to convert from defense production to peacetime
production. Businesses will be able to hire the workers that have been
and are being displaced as a tragic irony of peace. As we beat our
swords into plowshares. This amendment will establish a partnership
among the Federal Government, the State, and business.
The only way we can truly incite prosperity for our future
generations is to concentrate on employment, education, local and
national infrastructure, and industrial conversion and
commercialization.
As I stated before, the information and technology we are releasing
to American businesses today has been financed by American taxpayers.
The United States needs this amendment to pass so that we can compete
in the global market.
I urge support of the Kanjorski-Ridge amendment. It is a giant step
in the direction of revitalizing the U.S. economy and U.S.
competitiveness.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kanjorski
amendment.
As one of the initial authors of the Federal Technology Transfer Act
back in the mid-1980s, I take a back seat to no one in my support for
getting into the hands of the private sector the various innovations
and technological breakthroughs achieved in the Federal laboratories.
That act contains a number of reforms designed to move research
results from the dusty shelves to businesses that will turn the
research into products enhancing our overall economic development.
Included are incentives for the scientists and labs to actively
participate in this transfer activity. The Kanjorski amendment will
undermine these incentives by centralizing transfer responsibilities in
some kind of a Government-established corporation.
Even the Clinton administration, no shrinking violet when it comes to
Government expansion, is opposed to this idea.
We already have two national centers which coordinate and make
available information on developments taking place in the laboratories.
This new corporation would be duplicative of those activities.
Finally, we have no cost estimate, as I understand it, for the
Kanjorski amendment, but his original bill provides for a $12 billion
authorization. That is way, way beyond what we can afford.
So, for all these reasons, I urge rejection of this amendment.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Representative Paul Kanjorski known as the ``Economic Growth
and Technology Commercialization Act of 1994.'' This amendment would
foster economic growth and assist in creating new employment
opportunities by facilitating the utilization and commercialization of
technologies, processes, and other proprietary rights of the Federal
Government.
A version of this amendment was reported out by the Banking
Committee; however, Chairman Kanjorski of the committee's Economic
Growth and Credit Formation Subcommittee has agreed to offer this
amendment under a compromise reached with several other committees.
The amendment would require the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a
data base regarding all technologies, processes, and other proprietary
rights owned by the Federal Government.
This amendment would also establish a Business Development and
Technology Commercialization Corporation. This corporation would make
information on these federally developed technologies to small- and
medium-size businesses in the United States and assist them in
obtaining licenses to commercialize these technologies. This in turn
will result in the creation of thousands of new jobs across this
country.
I ask that the House pass this amendment in order to provide
additional employment opportunities through the utilization and
commercialization of Federal technologies and processes.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 270,
noes 135, not voting, 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 162]
AYES--270
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Buyer
Byrne
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clement
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
English
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Herger
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Snowe
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--135
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Coppersmith
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lloyd
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Pickle
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Saxton
Schaefer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thornton
Walker
Walsh
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--32
Barrett (NE)
Blackwell
Brown (FL)
Clayton
Clyburn
Cooper
Dellums
Dingell
Engel
Fields (LA)
Flake
Ford (MI)
Frost
Grandy
Hilliard
Houghton
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
McNulty
Miller (CA)
Owens
Ridge
Rostenkowski
Rush
Sanders
Sharp
Stokes
Thompson
Underwood (GU)
Velazquez
Washington
Wilson
{time} 1728
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Dellums for, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska against.
Mr. SPENCE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1730
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, following a short colloquy with the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], I will make a unanimous consent request
with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. Members should be advised
that if we are able to work this out, there will be one more vote,
within half an hour, most likely around 6:15, and that is the purpose
of what we are going through right now.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, is it the Chairman's interpretation that
the EDA is authorized to use defense conversion funds under title 9 of
the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to support
tourism promotion and development programs by entities and communities
which currently qualify for such assistance?
Mr. WISE. That is my interpretation and I believe that if communities
making the transition from defense determine that tourism is an
important economic diversification option, funds under this title
should be available from EDA to support those efforts.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], for his
efforts here today, and his historic efforts in economic development.
amendment offered by mr. goss
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goss:
TITLE II--APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION
SEC. 201. ABOLISHMENT OF APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION AND
ITS PROGRAMS.
(A) Abolishment of Appalachian Regional Commission.--The
Appalachian Regional Commission is hereby abolished.
(b) Repeal of Acts.--The Appalachian Regional Development
Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.) is repealed.
SEC. 202. CONCLUSION OF BUSINESS OF APPALACHIAN REGIONAL
COMMISSION.
(a) Authority of President to Conclude Business and Honor
Contracts.--The President shall provide for the conclusion of
any outstanding affairs of the Appalachian Regional
Commission, including matters affecting the disposition of
personnel. The President may take any action that (if this
title had not been enacted) would have been authorized as of
the effective date of this title under the Act repealed by
section 201(b) and is necessary or appropriate to administer
and fulfill the terms of any grant, contract, loan, or other
obligation made by the Appalachian Regional Commission
pursuant to the Act repealed by section 201(b).
(b) Effect of Abolishment on Expenditure of Funds Already
Received.--Section 201 may not be construed to prevent the
expenditure of any funds received from a grant or loan under
the Act repealed by section 201(b). Any grant or loan made
under such Act before the effective date of this title shall
be subject to any laws and regulations that would have
applied to the grant or loan if this title had not been
enacted.
SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.
SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st
fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Conform the table of contents accordingly.
Mr. GOSS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate be
limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided, 15 minutes on each side.
Mr. Chairman, if I might explain, the goal is, in order to permit
Members to make the ceremony honoring the former First Ladies, that we
be able to be out of the House around 6:30. If this unanimous-consent
request is granted, that will mean there will be a vote at
approximately 6:10 p.m. It is my understanding that the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Grams] has an amendment, which it is my intention and
the Chair's intention to endorse. An amendment will then be offered by
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], at which time the Committee
will rise, and take up that amendment as the first order of business
tomorrow morning.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I ask unanimous consent that debate be
limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided between the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss] and myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Wise]?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] will be
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, we hear over and over on this floor the
importance of deficit reduction and responsible congressional
oversight. Yet time and again this Congress is quick to create massive
new spending programs, and glacially slow to terminate wasteful or
obsolete ones.
During consideration of this year's budget resolution, I put forth a
list of 76 specific spending cuts to save $285 billion over 5 years--
termination of the ARC and the EDA were 2 of these cuts. Since the
majority leadership seems determined to prevent any comprehensive
spending cut package from reaching the floor this year, I am happy to
come here to argue the merits of each specific spending cut on an
individual basis.
The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] was created in 1965 to
address the issue of poverty and economic deterioration in a broad
swath of the Eastern United States known as Appalachia. The region
includes all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other States,
encompassing 195,000 square miles and a population of about 21 million.
The ARC is a joint Federal-State effort, with the majority of the
funding coming from the Federal Government. Cumulative through 1993,
the Federal Government has spent $6.4 billion on ARC development
programs.
Most experts agree that it is impossible to say for certain whether
the ARC has had a real impact. There are signs that conditions in the
Appalachian region have improved. According to a February 1993 ARC
report, since 1965: Per-capita income has risen, the percentage of
people graduating from high school has more than doubled, and the
infant mortality rate is now down to the national average. Perhaps most
tellingly, the percentage of people living below the poverty line is
down from around 30 to 15.2 percent--virtually equal to the national
average of 14.5 percent. It certainly sounds as if the ARC has met its
goal of addressing the disparate poverty levels in this region of the
United States compared to the rest of the nation.
But, Mr. Chairman, within the Federal Government there are numerous
examples of temporary commissions lasting for decades, programs that
have outlived their original purpose but continue to survive for
political reasons, and those that are simply wasteful.
The ARC has not been authorized for over 10 years--since 1982; and
other multi-state regional development agencies were terminated in
1981. But we continue to subvert the budget process by spending
hundreds of millions of tax dollars a year to keep the ARC alive.
I respectfully suggest that it is time to fold the tent at the ARC--
at least the Federal component of it--and move on. The remaining
economic hardship in the Appalachian region is comparable to other
areas of the country that do not receive such targeted assistance. And
in an era where the deficit is hovering around $200 billion and the
debt is $4.3 trillion and climbing, we cannot really afford to continue
funding programs like the ARC.
CBO estimates that eliminating the ARC will save some $1.4 billion in
budget authority and $690 million in outlays over 5 years. The Concord
Coalition, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Heritage Foundation,
and other independent groups all have called for this program's
termination.
While making these cuts alone will not put an end to deficit
spending, it is a positive first step towards fiscal responsibility;
one I urge my colleagues to take today.
{time} 1740
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I
believe the gentleman from Florida is well-intentioned, but I need to
talk a little bit about the Appalachian Regional Commission, the ARC.
The Appalachian Regional Commission has been a unique adventure for
this Government, because what it is is a true joint Federal-State
partnership by which there is a Federal cochair nominated by the
President, confirmed by the Senate. And there is then the 13 governors
create a state cochair.
The result is that the 13 governors have equal say with the Federal
Government in the disposition of these funds. The governors are the 13
governors that participate in the Appalachian Regional Commission. They
make the decisions. So we truly have the local and the State and the
Federal working together.
The gentleman talked about distressed counties. The fact that many of
the counties are doing better, and they are. But that is why over the
many years the Appalachian Regional Commission has targeted more and
more of its money to the truly most distressed. One-third of the
counties, the 400 counties still in the Appalachian region have, for
instance, unemployment that is 150 percent of the national average.
In 1991, the per capita income in Appalachia was $15,816 or 83
percent of the United States per capita income of $19,000. In 7 of our
13 states in the Appalachian region, more than 20 percent of the
children under 18 live in poverty.
So what the ARC was created to do was to create a regional alliance
to work on problems within the region. And indeed, I think it has
worked well. It has worked well, but the job is, as I think I just
illustrated in my statistics, is not done.
I do believe this point has to be made. Does this little extra that
these states are getting over and above mean that they get a
disproportionate share of Federal funding? Absolutely not. In fiscal
year 1992, Appalachia, with 8.3 percent of the United States
population, received, with the ARC monies which are minimal, 7.4
percent of total Federal expenditures. The highway system that was
authorized in 1965 is roughly 3,000 miles. Of that, a little over two-
thirds has been completed. Should the Appalachian Regional Commission
be eliminated at this point, then many of our States that have highway
projects either under construction, on line, engineered, they will not
be able to complete that.
Let me just say, those of my colleagues who are interested in ISTEA,
with the exception of 300 of the 3,000 miles, 2,700 miles of the ARC
system are listed by Members' states as being priority highways for
national highway designation. That is a very, very important factor
that must be considered.
There is some good news about the Appalachian Regional Commission. It
has been partially successful. The gentleman from Florida, I believe,
acknowledged this.
For instance, in a most recent study that was quoted earlier in the
debate, partially funded by the National Science Foundation, it was
found that by matching the 400 ARC counties with 400 similar counties,
similarly situated in terms of poverty, unemployment, and so on, it was
found that the Appalachian counties, because of the ARC, were growing
faster, that their income growth increased 48 percent faster than the
other counties, that they grew, their population grew 5 percent more,
and that the per capita income increase was 17 percent more. That is
good news.
But as I just mentioned, that is because Appalachia has had further
to come, the result being that we still are below the per capita income
in a significant way.
We also suffered many of the reverses that many of my colleagues in
other parts of the country have suffered. The interesting thing is that
in many ways we took it in Appalachia even harder. Technological
changes and adverse economic effects of the early 1980's hit mining and
manufacturing proportionately much harder in the Appalachian region
than it did in other areas.
I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that the job needs to be continued.
Other statistics come forward.
For instance, such as 37 percent of Appalachia's 300 nonmetropolitan
counties are considered severely distressed compared to 19 percent of
the nonmetropolitan counties in the rest of the Nation. Appalachia,
particularly the part encompassed within the 13 counties of the ARC,
Appalachia did not know what it was in the 1980's to participate in the
defense buildup, for instance.
Appalachia did not know what it was to enjoy the gains and the
benefits of some of the economic growth that occurred. I had a friend
of mine talk about defense conversion, which is part of the EDA. And we
will be dealing with that tomorrow.
{time} 1750
A friend of mine pointed out that we have never had anything to worry
about being converted from.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to reject this amendment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are other unique applications, regional
applications, which have survived the test of time. I think many would
say they should not be dismantled.
For instance, there is the TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority. There
is the Bonneville Power Administration. There are other areas where
regions have worked together.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
The ARC funding, and we will be accepting an amendment by the gentleman
from Minnesota shortly, will essentially keep it at the
administration's levels, I believe $214 million, even perhaps less than
that essentially, so there is no great rapid increase of this program.
I would urge rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the Goss amendment to the Economic Development Act to eliminate the
Appalachian Regional Commission. The ARC is another of many archaic
programs in the domestic discretionary budget that has long ago
outlived its usefulness.
I was elected on a promise to fight for real change. But here we are
today, very little having changed. I have spent my first term in
Congress watching a broken budget process continue to generate massive
new taxes, higher spending, and a ballooning Federal debt.
Last year and again this year, proponents of President Clinton's so-
called deficit reduction plan went out of their way to pat themselves
on the back for a job well done. Well, it was taxes well raised. That
plan was primarily a massive tax increase, including higher income
taxes, higher taxes on Social Security, higher gas taxes, and higher
Medicare taxes. Except for national defense, spending was hardly cut at
all, and few programs were eliminated.
As for the Federal budget deficit, a problem supposedly solved by
last year's tax increase, a recent CBO report tells the real story. The
April 1994 report, ``An Analysis of the President's Budgetary
Proposals,'' shows the deficit going up, not down. These numbers,
incidentally, have deteriorated since January.
Mr. Goss' amendment to eliminate ARC represents one step toward
fiscal sanity, saving taxpayers a total of $690 million over the next 5
years. Most important, a vote for this amendment sends an important
message to working Americans that we are willing to protect their
interests over the demands of special interests.
The ARC is a uniquely embarrassing piece of congressional pork, and
has earned the questionable distinction of making Citizens Against
Government Waste's list of prime cuts. According to that report, ``The
ARC, which duplicates 14 other Federal and State programs, is another
well-intended agency that has outlived its usefulness, except to pork
barrel practitioners.
The fiscal insanity has to stop sometime, somehow, somewhere. A vote
for this amendment is a vote against the ARC's pork barrel express. I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this small step
for fiscal sanity by voting yes on the Goss amendment to eliminate the
Appalachian Regional Commission. The American people are counting on
you.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would point
out to the previous speaker that the amendments that the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Grams] will be offering, which it is our intention to
accept, will mean that $62 million less will be spent next year on the
Appalachian Regional Commission, almost a quarter of the program
itself, than is in this year's appropriation, and that will essentially
mean that the President's budget request, which was essentially a
freeze, will be met.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], previous chair of the Subcommittee on
Economic Development of the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, several years ago at hearings on ARC that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and I conducted, a witness from
Sneadville, KY, Mayor Charlie Turner, said:
Before the ARC came along, we was so far down we had to
look up to see bottom.
What the Appalachian Regional Commission did in the years when it was
receiving significant amounts of funding was to lift the level of
poverty from 31 percent in Appalachia, to reduce that level of poverty
down to 14 percent, to lift the per capita income from the mid 40's
percent of national per capita income to 86 percent of national per
capita income. This is a program that works. We created, in 20 years,
1.5 million jobs at an average cost of $2,400 a job, documented,
congressional hearings, GAO study.
In EDA every year we return more money in Federal, State, and local
taxes from jobs created by EDA than the Federal Government invested in
20 years of the EDA programs, $6.5 billion every year in tax dollars
from the 1.4 million jobs created in the EDA program nationwide,
helping out counties and regions of high unemployment and severe
economic distress.
That $4.5 billion of Federal funds leverages an additional $9 billion
in private and local investments in EDA projects nationwide, helping
communities lift themselves up by the bootstraps. That is what happened
in ARC all through this region.
Mr. Chairman, I shall never forget the testimony of Tilda Kemplin,
director of a child development program at Duff, TN, who said:
Gentlemen, when you go back to Washington, remember our
experience and look over the top of the dollar, try not to
see George Washington, but see a child and see the needs and
how this program has helped.''
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise both sides that they have 6\1\/
\2\ minutes remaining of debate.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my
colleague, the gentleman from Florida.
What we have before us today in H.R. 2442 is nothing more than super
pork.
In many ways, the ARC was the centerpiece of President Johnson's so-
called Great Society program. In 1965, Johnson actually launched the
Great Society initiative from the porch of a poor Appalachian resident.
Yet 30 years and billions of dollars later, the Appalachian region is
no better off than it was before.
It is just another example of why big government doesn't work--and
why it cannot work.
Believe it or not, this legislation actually contains language that
would try to expand those areas considered part of the Appalachian
Regional Commission [ARC].
With the level of funding that some Members in this House are likely
to authorize, maybe I should vote `yes', and try extending the ARC to
Michigan.
I would hope that given our country's need for fiscal responsibility
that we would simply eliminate this program and save the taxpayers of
this country valuable dollars.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Goss amendment.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in opposition to this amendment
for a variety of reasons. I think that we should remember the fact that
the Appalachian Regional Commission is one of only two Federal agencies
that exist whose mission is to try to do something about job generation
at the local level and at the rural level. The two programs I am
speaking of are ARC and EDA, and these are the only two programs that
really have a focus on the economic problems, the distress problems
that are peculiar to rural areas.
The focus of the programs has always been in those distressed areas
of rural America. I think that is an important thing to bear in mind on
my side of the aisle, because so many of us represent those kinds of
areas that do have problems that have existed over the years.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that the Appalachian region has enjoyed
some measure of improvement over the period of time, but it is also
true that because of the fact that the economy of that region was
largely built on extractive industries, now because of the
disappearance of those industries we are having a transition problem to
new forms of an economy, and the program is still vital, I think, for
that region.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has already
mentioned some of the statistics, I think, that bear this out. In May
1992, only one-third of Appalachia's 19 metropolitan counties had
unemployment rates of at least 150 percent of the national average, and
37 percent of the Appalachia's 300 nonmetropolitan counties are
considered severely distressed.
{time} 1800
Mr. Chairman, it is not. We have had some success but we have also
started from a much lower base and have only now really gotten to the
point where we have the hope that the synergism that the Appalachian
Regional Commission provides can take us on to the next level. This is
a program that has worked because of the unique character of it. It is
a Federal, State, and local partnership which has worked very well.
This is not something that is imposed from the top down. It is
something that comes up from the bottom, the local region.
Mr. Chairman, I urge as strongly as I can that this is a program that
has worked, that continues to work, but which is still vitally needed
to ensure the economic survival of a region of this country.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goss amendment to terminate
Federal funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.
I had planned to offer sunset amendments to H.R. 2442, which would
have prohibited the Appropriations Committees from circumventing the
will of the authorizing committees--or the will of Congress--and would
have ensured funding for the EDA and the ARC is established under the
legitimate oversight process. But in the interest of time, I will not
offer these amendments today.
I do, however, want to take this opportunity to reemphasize the
importance of sunset amendments. Too often in the past, the
Appropriations Committee has skirted the legislative process by
appropriating funds to unauthorized programs or programs whose
authorizations had expired and not been extended. By abusing this
tactic, the Appropriations Committee has on many occasions cut into the
jurisdiction of many authorizing committees, and violated the rules of
the House.
The programs before us today are perfect examples of this abusive
practice. Both the EDA and the ARC have gone without reauthorization
since September 30, 1982.
That's right, 1982.
Since that time, Congress has appropriated $5.3 billion--$3.4 billion
for the EDA and $1.9 billion for the ARC--for these programs without a
single review. That, my colleagues, is not good government.
Authorizing committees are responsible for ensuring that every tax
dollar spent is used for a legitimate and beneficial purpose.
Appropriating funds from programs without regular review increases the
likelihood that Congress is spending public funds for programs that are
wasteful or have outlived their purpose. We owe it to the American
taxpayer to ensure that their hard-earned dollars are being well spent.
In addition, we owe it to our own authorizing committees to make sure
that their jurisdiction is not being intruded upon by the
Appropriations Committees.
Like the Hefley amendment on EDA to follow, the Goss amendment, if
adopted, would effectively sunset the ARC immediately--and that's a
good idea. If, however, this amendment is not adopted, I would strongly
encourage my colleagues to revisit the merits of both the ARC and the
EDA when this authorization expires in 1996. We can't afford to allow
another 12 years to go by while we continue to appropriate funds for
programs which have outlived their purposes.
I encourage my colleagues to stand for good government and support
the Goss amendment.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and good friend, the
gentleman from West Virginia, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
my colleague, the gentleman from Florida.
The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] was created in 1965 as an
answer to a century of neglect and exploitation in one of the most
economically distressed regions of America.
Since its inception, the ARC has had an extraordinary impact on the
quality of life and economic health of those who live in Appalachia.
By targeting resources through unique Federal, State, and local
partnerships, the ARC has encouraged public and private investments in
the Appalachian region. And it has proved to be a good investment--in
many cases leveraging its dollars at a ratio of better than 6 to 1.
ARC funding has produced measurable results in Appalachia. Living
conditions have improved dramatically since the creation of the
organization. The percentage of people living in poverty has gone down,
while per capita income has gone up. More people are finishing high
school. And infant mortality has fallen.
More specifically, ARC funding has helped to complete more than 2,000
miles of planned highway network, enhance quality job training and
readiness programs, improve access to health care, and create more than
two million new private sector jobs.
But despite this significant progress, much of Appalachia still lags
behind the Nation in key indicators such as per capita market income,
rates of poverty and unemployment, the condition of infrastructure,
levels of literacy, and access to health care. The ARC cannot be
expected to overcome a century of neglect in the course of one
generation. And some of the progress we have made has been negated. For
example, during the 1980's some of the economic gains achieved in
Appalachia were lost as a result of the severe recession, the decline
of basic-industry America, and the low levels of Federal funding
provided for ARC and other domestic programs. Federal spending cuts
that began in 1981 at the EDA, HUD, HHS, EPA, and Farmer's Home have
threatened to reverse the progress in the region.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to continue their support for
this important Agency.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I want to
wrap this up because I think the case has been made.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, am I correct the gentleman from Florida has
the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia would have the right
to close.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, if I have the right, I will wait.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I assumed I had the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has the
right to close.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia for
making a case very well on behalf of his constituency which is exactly
what he should do. I would do the same.
Mr. Chairman, Florida is a mega-donor State. I understand how the
gentleman from West Virginia feels. We get picked on in Florida
unmercifully and one of the reasons we argue so much for fair play for
Florida is that we want to level the playing field. I am simply saying
that you have had a very successful program, it has had great success
in many ways, and it has, in fact, leveled the playing field in
Appalachia to a large degree. Not all the problems are solved any more
than the problems in Florida are solved and I am sorry to report that I
could probably show the gentleman an impoverished area in my district,
even though it does not show up on this county needs area, that is just
as distressed as some of the places in Appalachia and probably just as
distressed as some of them back in 1963 when this program had its
genesis.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the interest here is fair play. I am
appealing to every Member of this body who is outside the Appalachian
belt, who has got a needy county, and we will have the map here, to
consider whether they are getting a fair shake by continuing this
program. In my view, it is duplicative. We have other agencies that are
doing the kinds of things that Appalachia needs and the poverty areas
that are still needed to bring them forward, that 14 or 15 percent that
are below the level, which is true every place else in our country and
most other districts.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask my colleagues to look closely at this
map and find out whether they feel an extra tilt is still needed for
the Appalachian region. I suspect most Members will agree with the NTU
and the citizens against Government waste and so on to say this program
is a job well done, declare victory and now let us deal with the rest
of the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I also need to point out that I think that there is a
duplication going on now with other agencies. The gentleman mentioned
highway funds. I pointed out there are $60 million of nonhighway funds.
There are other problems and other ways of dealing with highways and
roads all across our Nation. I simply want to make the point that this
does not preclude any place in Appalachia from building highways, it
just puts them on the same footing with the rest of us who are also
trying to build highways. Many of us in growth areas feel we are just
as far behind the curve as the people in Appalachia.
Mr. Chairman, I think these are fair arguments and there is no mean-
spiritedness behind this as I am sure the gentleman understands. This
is merely an effort to level the playing field at this time, especially
since this is not an authorized program.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his understanding on that
point.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, before I yield time to the next speaker, I
yield myself 30 seconds simply to reply that the ARC is trying to level
the playing field but is trying to get much of the Appalachian region
on the playing field. It can indeed be a model for many of those areas
that are distressed in other parts of the country.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude debate on our side, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, many of the speakers on this amendment this
afternoon have no idea of the depth of poverty with which we are trying
to deal in most of Appalachia.
Mr. Chairman, I submit to the gentleman from Florida that the
unemployment rate in Naples or Fort Myers, FL, is not 30 or 40 percent
as it is in Letcher County, KY.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
{time} 1810
Mr. GOSS. I would only point out I was not speaking of Fort Myers or
Naples. I was speaking of Immokalee, Tice, and Alva, and places like
that that are just as distressed.
Mr. ROGERS. The poverty rate in those counties is nowhere near what
it is in the Appalachian area. We are making some progress through the
Appalachian Regional Commission, because this is a program used by the
Federal Government to leverage private, local, county, State, and other
funds, and it works.
Let me give you one example. Seven years ago the ARC helped fund a
program in my district that came to be known as Forward in the Fifth,
an effort to try to get kids back in school and get parents involved
with their kids in school. After 7 years now, we are able to say today
that fully 50 percent, we have a better than 50-percent improvement in
the dropout rate, because of that program.
Ten percent of those kids are going to college, more than they were
in the earlier days. So there is some remarkable, remarkable progress
that is taking place.
Do not dump on the poorest part of the country, I urge you.
This is a tiny program. President Clinton is talking about sending
three times this amount of money just for a quick aid for South Africa.
If you can help South Africa, surely you can help the poorest parts of
this country by keeping this modest program in place, encouraging
people to help themselves. That is what the ARC does.
Please, help us with this program. Do not vote for the Goss
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143,
noes 261, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 163]
AYES--143
Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barton
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Boehner
Bonilla
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gingrich
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Huffington
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klein
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Mann
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meehan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moorhead
Nussle
Oxley
Paxon
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Ravenel
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Slattery
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Swett
Talent
Tauzin
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thurman
Torkildsen
Upton
Walker
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--261
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Byrne
Callahan
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clement
Clinger
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Emerson
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hunter
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rogers
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--33
Andrews (NJ)
Barrett (NE)
Berman
Blackwell
Brown (FL)
Clayton
Clyburn
Cooper
Dellums
Dingell
Engel
English
Flake
Frost
Grandy
Hilliard
Houghton
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (FL)
McNulty
Owens
Ridge
Rostenkowski
Rush
Sanders
Schumer
Sharp
Stokes
Thompson
Underwood (GU)
Velazquez
Washington
{time} 1830
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Barrett of Nebraska for, with Mr. Stokes against.
Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Dingell against.
Messrs. LIVINGSTON, HANCOCK, BAKER of California, and HERGER changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent during
rollcall vote No. 163. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
amendment offered by mr. grams
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Grams: In the amendment made by
section 205(a), strike ``$125,000,000 per fiscal year for
each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and insert ``$100,000,000
for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996''.
In the amendment made by section 209, strike
``$85,600,000'' and insert ``$83,400,000''.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment which,
to my understanding, has been accepted on both sides of the aisle. This
amendment would simply reduce the level of funding for the Appalachian
Regional Commission from its current level of $214.2 to $187 million,
the level requested by the Clinton administration.
Given our current fiscal crisis, there is no reason why Congress
should authorize more funds for the ARC than they have requested. At a
time when other Federal programs are facing cuts or total elimination,
it makes no sense for use to be so generous with the taxpayers' money.
This practice is particularly disconcerting considering the fact that
many of the programs supported by the ARC duplicate activities funded
by other Federal agencies, such as the Transportation Department's
federal highway program and HUD's CDBG program. In addition, while the
ARC allocates funds for poor rural communities, these areas are no
worse off today than rural communities in Minnesota or the 35 other
States that do not benefit from this program.
This $27.2 million should be put to other, more constructive
purposes--including deficit reduction or family tax relief. For these
reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand up for what is right by
supporting this amendment today.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAMS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, having reviewed this amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], I strongly believe in the work of
the Appalachian Regional Commission. I believe the results of the last
vote reaffirm the congressional commitment to the people of Appalachia
and to the Commission, but recognizing the tough budgetary times,
appreciating the cooperative spirit in which the gentleman has worked,
I reviewed the amendment and believe it is fiscally responsible.
Mr. Chairman, our side will accept the amendment.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Wise] for his cooperation and his help as well. I say to the
gentleman, ``Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Strike title I and insert
the following new title:
SEC. 101. ABOLISHMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ITS PROGRAMS.
(a) Abolishment of Economic Development Administration.--
The Economic Development Administration is hereby abolished.
(b) Repeal of Acts.--The Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.) and the
Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of
1976 (42 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.) are hereby repealed.
SEC. 102. CONCLUSION OF BUSINESS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Authority of Secretary of Commerce to Conclude Business
and Honor Contracts.--The Secretary of Commerce shall provide
for the conclusion of any outstanding affairs of the Economic
Development Administration, including matters affecting the
disposition of personnel. The Secretary of Commerce may take
any action that (if this Act had not been enacted) would
have been authorized as of of the effective date of this
Act under the Acts repealed by section 101(b) and is
necessary or appropriate to administer and fulfill the
terms of any grant, contract, agreement, loan, obligation,
debenture, or guarantee made by the Secretary pursuant to
the Acts repealed by section 101(b).
(b) Effect of Abolishment on Expenditure of Funds Already
Received.--Section 101 may not be construed to prevent the
expenditure of any funds received from a grant or loan under
the Acts repealed by section 101(b). Any grant or loan made
under such Acts before the effective date of this Act shall
be subject to any laws and regulations that would have
applied to the grant or loan if this Act had not been
enacted.
(c) Continuance of Economic Development Revolving Fund to
Finish Business.--
(1) Authorized purposes.--The Economic Development
Revolving fund established by section 203 of the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3143) shall
continue in existence for the following purposes:
(A) Collections and repayments.--To receive collections and
repayments in connection with assistance extended under the
Acts repealed by section 101(b) that would have been required
under the Acts repealed by section 101(b) to be deposited in
the Economic Development Revolving Fund if this Act had not
been enacted.
(B) Payment of obligations.--To pay obligations and make
expenditures in connection with the Acts repealed by section
101(b) that would have been required under the Acts repealed
by section 101(b) if this Act had not been enacted.
(2) Termination of fund.--
(A) Certification.--When, in the discretion of the
Secretary of Commerce, the Economic Development Revolving
Fund is no longer necessary to carry out the activities under
paragraph (1), the Secretary of Commerce shall certify to the
Secretary of the Treasury that the Economic Development
Revolving Fund is no longer necessary.
(B) Termination.--Upon receipt of the certification under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit
into the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts any moneys remaining in the Economic Development
Revolving Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall take any
action necessary to terminate the Economic Development
Revolving Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit
into the general fund of the Treasury any collections and
repayments made after the termination of the Economic
Development Revolving Fund in connection with the Act
repealed by section 101(b).
SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st fiscal
year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. HEFLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, at this point, since we worked this out in
advance, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Deal) having assumed the chair, Mr. Torres, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________