[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). 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 further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2442.

                              {time} 1036


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 
11, 1994, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
open for amendment at any point. Pending was the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Hefley].
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today will abolish the 
Economic Development Administration.
  I have offered similar amendments to abolish the EDA in the past and, 
I have to say, it is not easy--it is hard on friendships. People say 
mean things about you.
  In the past, my amendments have been opposed by representatives from 
across the political spectrum. Each has his or her own experience of 
how the EDA helped bail out a certain community.
  I do not dispute that. I am certain the EDA has had many successful 
projects.
  I am also certain the EDA has had many failures--in my district and 
elsewhere. Potemkin's villages had a more lasting economic impact that 
some EDA projects.
  The debate today is not about the EDA assistance in rebuilding a 
dock, or revitalizing a neighborhood.
  The debate today is whether, with a Federal debt of $4\1/2\ trillion 
and deficits that are expected to rise through the year 2000, the EDA 
is the best use of the taxpayer's dollar.
  With that in mind, let me make two points about the EDA.
  First, the EDA's influence on the economy is highly overrated.
  On a good month, the U.S. economy will create, all by itself, more 
long-term jobs than the EDA has created in its 28-year history.
  For every EDA project that created jobs at a reasonable cost, there 
is an EDA project that cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands per 
job--or actually eliminated jobs.
  In a $6 trillion economy, the EDA's input does not qualify as a drop 
in the bucket. This year EDA funding under this bill is less than one 
twenty-thousandth of the U.S. economy.
  The best economic performance this country experienced in the last 28 
years coincided with the time when the EDA's budget was the lowest.
  So when I hear supporters tell me how vital the EDA is, I want to 
ask: Vital to whom? I would suggest that the economic future of the 
United States is not tied to the prospects of the EDA.

                          ____________________