[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.

                          ____________________