[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]


                              {time}  1040
 
  My second point is: We've been down this road before.
  The pending bill represents a 180 degree change in our policy towards 
the EDA. Instead of fighting for its life, the EDA will become a bigger 
player in the Clinton administration's domestic agenda.
  Here's an excerpt from the National Journal regarding the EDA's 
expanding role:

       The strategy calls for investment of small amounts of 
     public money to leverage large amounts of private money to 
     create jobs that will alleviate underemployment, increase the 
     local tax base and thus revitalize the local economy.

  Commenting on the strategy, a prominent Congressman says, ``All the 
lastest buzzwords--targeting, leveraging, public-private 
partnership--point to economic development as the most popular and 
logical strategy for attacking (economic) distress.''
  The article even mentions the creation of a national development bank 
and the pending jurisdiction dispute between the Public Works and 
Banking Committees.
  Just another plug for Bill Clinton's ambitious expansion of 
Government?
  Nope. This National Journal article was written in 1979--15 years 
ago. At the time, Jimmy Carter planned to take the EDA, fund it with 
billions of taxpayer dollars, and target the funding at needy 
communities across the country.
  Four years later, the National Journal ran another article, this time 
entitled, ``EDA on Death Row.''
  At the time of the second article, 40 percent of the loans in the 
EDA's portfolio were in default, anecdotes about the EDA's misfires 
filled the news, and even the EDA's supporters were conceding that the 
EDA was the ``last of the pork barrel programs.''
  Today, we have another former governor from a small southern State 
pushing public-private partnerships, leveraging Federal funds, and 
targeting distressed communities.
  We should learn from history.
  The EDA has survived 12 years of purgatory for the simple reason that 
it makes Representatives and Senators look good.
  Unlike other assistance programs, the EDA picks and chooses its own 
projects. This makes it highly susceptible to pressure from Capitol 
Hill.
  As my colleagues might expect, this is an inefficient means for 
providing assistance to local communities. Admittedly the bill before 
us today addresses some of those problems. It tightens the eligibility 
requirements so that the affluent communities will not qualify as 
easily for assistance.
  I support those changes. On the other hand, I am skeptical that these 
changes will solve the problem of undue congressional influence. Unlike 
the leopard, I do not think the EDA is about to change its spots, which 
is why I am offering the amendemnt today.
  Mr. Chairman, the EDA has a history of waste, failure, and abuse. It 
wasted Federal dollars, it failed to create jobs at a reasonable cost, 
and it has abused the good will of the American taxpayer.
  Let us do the fiscally responsible thing today and put EDA to rest.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment to eliminate the Economic Development Administration offered 
by our friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. Frankly I am 
astounded that the gentleman could offer this amendment again this 
year, particularly after the compelling discussion we have had on this 
floor and the number of hearings in all the subcommittees and the 
committees of the House that have jurisdiction over the Economic 
Development Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had the occasion over the last years to travel 
to Florida to look over the disaster of Hurricane Andrew, to look at 
the destruction in the Hawaiian Islands as a result of Hurricane Iniki, 
to go through the Midwest and see the flood devastation, but I want to 
tell my colleagues from personal experience my congressional district 
is the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania. It is the only valley that 
spurred a name for one of our States. It is famous for the Yankee, 
Connecticut Yankee, Indian wars of the Revolution, and back in 1972 
massive waters of the Susquehanna River flooded that magnificent valley 
27,000 homes and 1,600 businesses were inundated and destroyed. I can 
tell my colleagues as a practicing attorney at that time, and 
representing the flood victims, that the response of the U.S. 
Government was made from many agencies with many letters. But the one 
agency of the U.S. Government that showed ability of leadership, fast 
executive decisionmaking, and coordination with local decisions was the 
Economic Development Administration. Within 30 days tens of millions of 
dollars of special grant money and relief processes were put into place 
that literally saved the economic future of the heart of my 
congressional district and the largest national disaster at that time 
in American history.
  Mr. Chairman, anyone who argues to me or the House of Representatives 
that the Economic Development Administration should die or should be 
put to death only misses the point of where we are in the world today. 
If anything, those of us that represent the less-than-affluent 
districts of this country that are anemic economically and need to move 
on, need the advantage and the ability on the civilian side of this 
Government to strike and perform the functions that the Economic 
Development Administration has done so well prior to 1980; I know there 
was a concerted effort in the last 12 years to put this great agency to 
death, and it has created some very deep wounds and effects on that 
agency, but I believe the Committee on Public Works of the House and 
the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House are 
going to do everything they can with this new President and his new 
economic philosophy to breathe the type of energy into this new agency 
that it needs to carry on the mandate of the American people who are 
more disadvantaged.
  I want to compliment my coleader, the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise]. He has succeeded to dequalify 80 percent of the districts 
in this country from the use of the Economic Development Administration 
and target it down to 45 percent. These are the type of structural 
improvements that have been necessary over all these years, but for 
anyone to suggest that the U.S. Government no longer has a need for 
economic development is to miss the point of where we are competitively 
in the world market and particularly where our less fortunate 
congressional districts are in terms of competitiveness in this 
national economy
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues of the House to stand tall 
and stand proudly, that this President and this Congress is going to 
breathe new life and new leadership into an agency known as the 
Economic Development Administration of the United States, and it will 
go on to spur the type of economic development the districts of this 
country that are anemic and depressed need, and it is going to be done 
with the assistance of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment to 
eliminate the Economic Development Administration. Frankly, it is 
astounding that the gentleman could offer this amendment, particularly 
after the compelling discussion we have had on this floor on the need 
for, not just the EDA in its current form, but for an expanded and 
strengthened EDA.
  In the struggle to rebuild their economies after the devastation from 
Hurricane Andrew, the people of Florida and Louisiana have turned to 
the EDA for its vital assistance.
  The same is true for the people of Hawaii following Hurricane Iniki's 
destruction.
  As we speak here this morning, the EDA is in communities throughout 
the Midwest helping them rebuild their lives after last year's 
devastating floods; and the EDA is deployed right now in southern 
California providing vital assistance in recovering from this year's 
major earthquake.
  Military bases across this country are in the process of closing down 
and disrupting the economies of hundreds of communities, and hundreds 
more will face serious problems when the new list of base closures is 
announced. It is the EDA to which these communities turn for help to 
build a new and better future.
  And, it is not just the closure of military bases which result in the 
loss of thousands of local jobs. Our colleague from New York, Mr. 
Hinchey, with the massive layoffs from the downsizing at IBM, is 
acutely aware of the crippling blow the loss of huge numbers of jobs 
can have on a region's economy. Once again, the EDA is the primary 
source of Federal assistance.
  How many of us worry that the passage of NAFTA will result in the 
loss of significant numbers of jobs in our own districts. Should this 
happen, as it already is in some communities, it is the EDA to which we 
will turn for help.
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, even without natural disasters, military 
base closures, or massive plant layoffs, there remain today in this 
country hundreds of communities which struggle with high levels of 
unemployment, stagnant economies, and deteriorating infrastructure. The 
people in these communities understand all too well the vital need for 
the existence and the expansion of the Economic Development 
Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not only frivolous, it is dangerous 
to the future of this Nation as a whole, and I urge its resounding 
defeat.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words and I rise here today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] to 
abolish the Economic Development Administration. This amendment would 
save American taxpayers $1.1 billion over the next 5 years.
  This is a perfect example of a Federal spending program that has long 
ago outlived its usefulness. But here in Congress, old spending 
programs never die, they just grow and grow and grow. Both the Reagan 
and Bush administrations proposed its elimination again and again, but 
the EDA is still going strong.
  It is time to put a stop to this wasteful pork. In fact, Citizens 
Against Government Waste has designated the EDA on its list of Prime 
Cuts. According to CAGW.

       The only thing EDA has proven itself capable of developing 
     is a constituency of pork barrel enthusiasts in Washington 
     and governors who want the federal government to carry their 
     water for them. EDA grants have gone to cities [with] 
     unemployment rates far below the national average.

  Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of American citizens 
continue to prefer less spending and lower taxes to more of the same. 
The taxpaying public want us to cut spending first.
  The President's so-called deficit reduction agreement last year was 
remarkable because it did exactly the opposite: It increased Government 
spending while enacting the largest tax increase in history. Not just 
higher incomes taxes on the rich, but higher taxes on all Americans. 
This year's budget maintains the status quo of last year's big-
government budget, taxes and all. It is not remarkable for what it 
includes, but for what it lacks--there is no trace of real change or 
fundamental reform.
  What the people in my district want to know is this: How on Earth can 
Congress continue to raise taxes while programs such as the Economic 
Development Administration continue to remain in the Federal budget? Is 
this Congress so out of touch that it can not even eliminate this one 
program?
  Many Members like to talk about making tough choices. Opponents of 
the recently defeated balanced budget amendment argued that we did not 
need a gimmick to balance the budget. We just need to make tough 
choices. And yet we reject virtually every budget reform, 
constitutional control, and almost every specific spending cut offered 
on the floor. Most do not even make it to the floor to be voted on.
  The truth is, this body has a fundamental credibility problem with 
the taxpayers we work for.
  This is a straight-forward vote for fiscal sanity, one of the few 
floor votes we can make against pork barrel politics. The bottom line 
is that this Congress cannot afford not to change its spending ways. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the isle to support this 
commonsense amendment.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Economic Development Administration is a unique 
agency that serves a very useful role, stimulating industrial 
development and improving the quality of life in economically 
distressed areas of the country and helping communities overcome severe 
and sudden economic distress. The role of the agency has expanded in 
recent years to assist communities affected by base closures, which is 
obviously a problem that we are going to have in some degree for the 
next number of years. EDA performs that role very professionally and 
with a great deal of expertise.
  Mr. Chairman, I was frankly disappointed in the two previous 
administrations, my administrations, because of their hostility to the 
Economic Development Administration. I was disappointed because I have 
always felt that EDA espoused some of the unique things the Republican 
Party stands for, using very limited Federal dollars to leverage 
private sector investment in enterprises that create private sector 
jobs, as opposed to public sector or so-called leaf-raking jobs. This 
was a program, it seemed to me, that used a very minimal investment of 
the Federal Government to do the sorts of things that Republicans were 
for, that is, generating new private sector jobs.
  It is not a pork-barrel program, and I know that is a charge that is 
often made about EDA; that we are funding all sorts of useless, 
unnecessary, gold-plated projects.
  I was a former chief counsel for the Economic Development 
Administration, and I can state with great authority, I think, that 
these projects get the most thorough vetting of any projects that are 
approved in the Federal Government. They go through an exhaustive 
review process to assure that, No. 1, there is no job dislocation, that 
we do not move jobs from one area of the country to another. That was a 
charge that David Stockman, the late, lamented head of the OMB, used to 
charge about EDA, that it was a zero-sum game, that you never really 
created any new jobs, you just moved jobs from one area of the country 
to the other. I think it was Mr. Stockman whom we have to thank for 
such strong Republican opposition to this program.
  But he was wrong, because there is a clear directive in EDA that you 
cannot move jobs from one area to another, you have to create jobs. I 
know that in my own district I have seen the benefits of this program, 
where we have created jobs, and it has not been wasteful projects. 
These have been very vital projects.
  EDA has established a network of regional development organizations 
throughout its service area, and I cannot stress too much the 
importance of this fact.
  The other reason I think this is unique and that it should receive 
Republican support is that this is a program that is directed toward 
rural areas of distress, rural communities that are having trouble 
competing in a wide variety of ways. What this program does is provide 
an expertise that would not otherwise be available to these 
communities. Large cities can employ experts, grantsmen, people who 
understand how to package programs and make projects work. Rural areas 
do not have the resources to do that. They do not have the money to do 
that. EDA and ARC provide the kind of experts to assist rural 
communities with their unique problems. They are expert in identifying 
not just Federal resources but private sector resources, State 
resources, and local resources to put together projects that would 
otherwise not occur. In my own district, regional development 
organizations have been instrumental in identifying Federal grants 
programs suited to solve local problems. That is what it is all about. 
They establish information clearinghouses for local businesses 
competing for Federal contracts, and they coordinate these efforts.
  So I think it is not fair to equate the relatively small budgets this 
agency is assigned with the charge that it plays a minor role in the 
communities it serves; to the contrary, I think EDA provides a crucial 
difference in whether a project will go forward or not.
  Over the years in the history of the Economic Development 
Administration, I have seen the very beneficial effects this has 
produced throughout the country, primarily in rural areas, primarily in 
those areas that do not have the resources to do it on their own. The 
agency has a successful proven track record and has generated 
substantial return in payroll taxes, income taxes, and other taxes that 
meets or exceeds the agency's investment. This is a worthwhile 
investment. This agency should be allowed to continue its mission, 
which is to give rural America an opportunity to compete.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hefley amendment to H.R. 
2442, and I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for 
leading the fight for eliminating this agency.
  Despite the optimistic reports from the administration, our deficit 
is still going up. Four hundred billion dollars by the year 2000 is 
projected.
  Congress should be looking for ways to eliminate inefficiency and 
wasteful programs, not reauthorizing them after 10 years. Congress need 
look no further than the EDA to begin to find an appropriate place in 
which to eliminate a few dollars from this budget that we are not going 
to be able to afford in a number of years.
  Let me also add at this time that I support the amendments reducing 
or eliminating the funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. 
This is a good example of why the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] 
and I introduced the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994.
  We can go on and on and on trying to eliminate certain programs to 
try to cut the deficit, and we always lose. We do always lose, so that 
is why we have combined all these cuts, $550 billion over a 5-year 
period, so we could vote up or down on one piece of legislation, and 
this exact amendment was included in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 
1994.
  I would just say to the Members that if we do not try to get a handle 
somewhere on how we are going to reduce spending, our children and our 
grandchildren are going to suffer. There is no longer any way that we 
can continue to ask the American taxpayers to put more revenues into 
the Federal Treasury through more taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come to say no a few times on these 
programs that have outlived themselves.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose the Hefley 
amendment and other amendments to eliminate funding authorizations for 
the Economic Development Administration [EDA] and instead support EDA's 
reauthorization. I commend the Subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and the ranking Republican, the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] for addressing the many needs 
of rural America in this important legislation.
  This bill adequately addresses many of the past criticisms of the 
EDA. For instance, the grandfathering of eligibility resulting in over 
85 percent of the country being eligible has been eliminated. I believe 
that a honest, good-faith effort has been made to reach a compromise on 
this bill. I am not advocating that it is a perfect bill, but I can 
tell you from first-hand, hands-on experience that the EDA in my 
district has been crucial in providing needed funds to many of the 
small, rural communities in Southern Missouri.
  The partnership that has developed over the years between the 
Economic Development Administration and local county and municipal 
officials and organizations has been exemplary. There is not a day that 
goes by that I do not receive a phone call from a community urging me 
to support their application for a most fundamental element of 
infrastructure a sewer system, or a business incubator, or an access 
road for an industrial park. Many of these communities are simply not 
able to contribute all of the capital investment needed for these 
projects. In these cases, the EDA has been able to step in and provide 
the necessary matching federal funds for that particular project.
  Mr. Chairman, my district was one affected by the Midwest floods last 
summer. Then it was hit with flash floods that took several lives and 
devasted much of the same region. As we continue to recover and 
relocate, the EDA has come forward to be a full partner in assisting 
many small communities to restore infrastructure that had been damaged. 
I am not talking about frivolous projects. I am talking about 
legitimate public works and economic development projects that have 
helped small businesses and rural communities get back on their feet.
  I realize that the EDA must improve its efficiency. It must continue 
to streamline its application process and work more closely with local 
officials. But I believe that this bill will move them in that 
direction. The EDA needs the tools that this bill provides if it is to 
continue to improve and become more proficient. I strongly support H.R. 
2442, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment. Let me 
tell you why. I am going to mention a four-letter word, and do not get 
nervous. Here is a four-letter word we can all use in polite company. 
It is called jobs. What is more important in America today than helping 
people who are unemployed obtain employment, helping people who are 
underemployed obtain a job?
  Jobs is indeed, and it should be, our favorite four letter word in 
this Chamber. And with the Economic Development Administration, we have 
an agency of the Federal government whose sole purpose is to advance 
that agenda, that is, the jobs agenda, for America.
  We all know, we have been victims in my district and many other 
districts to the downsizing, they call it, of the military. All across 
this country, military installations are being closed or are being 
significantly reduced. Sadly to say, in my own district, I am losing 
about 5,000 jobs because the Air Force is reducing the size of Griffiss 
Air Force Base. But I understand that. I do not particularly like it. I 
understand it.
  So what are we going to do? Are we going to put our tail between our 
legs and say there is nothing we can do? No, we are marching on the 
Philadelphia office of the Economic Development Administration, with 
plans in hand. We are saying to the EDA, look, it is your mission to 
help us. We want to work with you.
  Guess what? They are doing a pretty darn good job. A very good job. 
There is hope in my community and there is hope in communities all 
across the country that have been victimized by a significant loss of 
employment opportunities because we have the Economic Development 
Administration.
  I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but I will tell you what. 
The regional administrator of EDA in Philadelphia, a fellow named Jack 
Corrigan, and, incidentally, I happen to be a Republican and kind of 
proud of it, he happens to be a Democrat, I have a relationship with 
him. I almost say my daily prayers to him, because he is a guy who 
dedicates his role and his staff to working with communities, to help 
communities pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. That is 
critically important.
  We have in my district and in districts like mine all over the 
country industrial parks, business parks, scenes of employment 
opportunities that were made possible because EDA had the wisdom to 
approve some grants for water lines and sewer lines for the necessary 
infrastructure that local governments cannot afford to pay for, 
particularly local governments that are really hurting because the jobs 
are fleeting elsewhere around the country.
  Let me tell you something, colleagues. I am offering you a real good 
buy. $386 million for the next fiscal year for the Economic Development 
Administration, to help us with our primary mission of helping America 
create more jobs and more opportunity. Because the bottom line is this: 
What do the American people want? Do the American people want a handout 
from Washington? That is not what they want. The American people want 
from Washington opportunity. They want a hand up. Let us give them a 
hand up.
  This agency is important. I strongly support it. I strongly oppose 
the amendment. I want to praise the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from West Virginia, [Mr. Wise], and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York, [Ms. Molinari]. They are 
enlightened, they are farsighted, they are bringing us a good bill. 
They deserve in a bipartisan manner our strongest support.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the 
gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, just in a very brief summary here, I said 
at the outset that every one would have examples. Yes, the EDA has done 
some good things. There is no question about that. I did not say that 
some good wasn't done. I did not say, as someone suggested, that the 
United States does not need economic development. I said they do not 
need the Economic Development Agency. And I said that this is not an 
efficient way to provide that economic development.
  This is a place to park dollars so that Members can say to their 
constituents, ``Look what I can do for you.'' We have gone over year 
after year the examples of the parking garages and the stockyard 
development in Fort Worth and on and on.
  One of the speakers said that he gets calls from all kinds of people 
saying support this project and support that project. And that is our 
mentality up here, that whatever your little project is throughout the 
United States, whether it be a sewer system or whatever it be, that the 
Federal Government ought to pay for it. It is your system. But somehow 
or other, the Federal Government ought to pay for it.
  Another thing in the bill that I think we ought to be aware of when 
we throw around the figure $386 million, is there is also a phrase in 
there that says ``and such additional amounts.'' That has been scored, 
and the cost of this bill that we are trying to eliminate is $422 
million, not $386 million.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. First of all I want to praise the preceding speaker, 
because he has been in the front ranks of those fighting to eliminate 
Government waste. As a matter of fact, the gentleman was very 
supportive of my effort to eliminate funding for the superconducting 
super collider. And that one little vote saved the taxpayers of America 
about $9 billion. Not million, billion with a B, over the next 5 years.
  But in this instance, I disagree respectfully with my distinguished 
colleague. Because he says we need an economic development in America, 
but we do not need an Economic Development Agency. What are we supposed 
to be? Are we supposed to be involved in group prayer? Pray for jobs 
from on high? No. We have to earn those jobs. We have got to work hard 
to get them.
  The gentleman said he is sick and tired of the mentality of saying 
the feds ought to pay for everything. Guess what? I agree with him. I 
am sick and tired of the mentality that will says the feds ought to pay 
everything.
  Guess what? Under the EDA, the feds do not pay for everything. We 
have a good solid working partnership with State and local governments. 
That is the type of partnership we should encourage.
  So I respectfully disagree with my colleague, for whom I have the 
highest regard, because I know he is in the front ranks of those 
fighting to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Government. In this 
instance I think he is a little bit off the mark, but I look forward to 
working with him in future endeavors.
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment.
  The EDA is particularly important today as we struggle to adjust to 
profound changes in two major sectors of our economy: our rural, 
resource-based economy, and our military economy.
  The EDA is playing a lead role in the defense conversion process, a 
role that will grow more important as more communities face base 
closure. To terminate this agency is to greatly endanger the ability of 
base closure communities to adapt to new economic realities.
  This reauthorization increases the agency's flexibility in responding 
to immediate needs faced by communities whose economies are linked to 
defense conversion efforts.
  This bill will allow communities, like Fairfield and Napa in the 
vicinity of Mare Island Naval Shipyard, to receive economic development 
grants through title IX before they have clear title to the land. With 
title IX grants, local communities can invest in infrastructure 
improvements without delay and avoid the deterioration accelerated by 
vacancy.
  This bill will also guarantee assistance of a resident EDA defense 
conversion expert for each State facing base closures: an expert to 
help communities through the process. EDA will funnel $80 million to 
hard-hit communities specifically for defense conversion assistance. 
EDA's role is a key component of our national strategy to convert our 
economy from reliance on defense investment. We must not gut the 
agency.
  EDA is also a front-line agency in assisting communities affected by 
natural disaster. EDA's assistance to Point Arena, a town of roughly 
400 people on the north coast of California in my district, is a prime 
example of its critical postdisaster role. Point Arena is a fishing 
community that symbolizes the pioneer spirit in America. Harbormaster 
Bill Pettigrew recently wrote me describing EDA's importance:

       In January of 1983, an ``El Nino''-generated storm sent 
     waves into Arena Cove of such height that the pier was 
     totally destroyed. The result was the loss of a vibrant 
     salmon fishing port that had received up to 100,000 pounds of 
     product a day. Stores in town failed and were boarded up. The 
     timber industry was starting to downsize at the same time and 
     Point Arena became a severely depressed economic area.
       The City of Point Arena joined forces with five different 
     Federal and State agencies in 1985 to rebuild the pier. With 
     a two and a half million dollar investment, the pier re-
     opened in April 1987. The Economic Development Administration 
     (EDA) was the single largest grantor with a commitment of 
     $875,000.
       Following the ``Grand Opening'' in 1987, the once seasonal 
     port has operated ``year-round,'' creating many new jobs both 
     in the Cove proper and downtown. Support facilities, stores, 
     restaurants and private development have flourished. The 
     fiscal year 1989-1990 saw Arena Cove become the nation's 
     second largest port for receiving sea urchins with a total 
     poundage exceeding 8.2 million pounds across the dock, 98% of 
     this a United States export commodity going to Japan.

  Mr. Pettigrew recently confided to me that ``without the EDA, Point 
Arena would not exist today. We could never have coordinated the 
various agencies or achieved the level of funding necessary without the 
EDA's assistance.''
  To terminate EDA is to deprive communities affected by natural 
disaster of a powerful resource to help them rebuild their communities.
  Finally, EDA is often the only financial resource for small 
communities expanding and diversifying their economic base. Many 
communities in my district are so small and have so few economic 
resources that they have nowhere else to turn.
  In Eureka, a major port development project is under way. The port's 
expansion plays a critical role in creating new jobs through industrial 
diversification and expansion of tourism.
  The city and harbor district simply cannot finance the improvements 
alone. The State of California cannot finance the entire project. No 
private investment funds the entire project. Faced with a declining 
natural resource base and a declining revenue base, the city of Eureka 
has one place to turn: the EDA.
  This is the most relevant point. Where are small, poor communities to 
turn when they want to expand their economic base to attract new 
industries? Are we simply to abandon these communities to struggle on 
day-to-day to their eventual death? Or are we going to take a small 
amount of Federal moneys and give these communities some alternatives.
  EDA is not a pork-barrel agency doling out moneys to congressional 
districts. The EDA helps small communities survive, providing hope and 
opportunity.
  EDA has 30 years of experience in helping communities transform their 
distressed economies. We can't afford to give up such critical 
expertise at this juncture.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hefley amendment. It is short-
sighted and fails to recognize the importance of this agency.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to lend my voice to the bipartisan opposition to 
the Hefley amendment to terminate the Economic Development Agency and 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal in the course of this debate 
about the EDA and what it does and does not accomplish. I would like to 
take this opportunity to briefly share the experience of the district I 
represent.
  The city of Fort Worth is currently working with the EDA on an $11.8 
million grant for economic development. This grant is the centerpiece 
of the renovation and the restoration of an economically depressed area 
of our city. The EDA has been working hand-in-glove with our community, 
and this restoration enjoys strong local support and financial backing. 
Fort Worth and local private investors have contributed more than $25 
million to this restoration to leverage the Federal contribution by 
more than 2 to 1. This is a good example of a public-private 
partnership that is working well and should be encouraged.
  Without this help from the EDA this area of Fort Worth would continue 
to struggle, becoming a further drain on the local, State, and Federal 
Governments. According to the 1990 U.S. census 49.4 percent of the 
households in this area have an income below the poverty line and the 
unemployment rate in this area is over 12 percent.
  However, with this help from the EDA and the hard work and vision of 
a number of community leaders, this area is turning around, bringing 
hope to its citizens. There is little question that this investment by 
the Federal Government is well worth it and will pay great dividends. 
The people of Fort Worth are grateful for the help from the EDA and 
they have put their money behind it. In tight budget times this is the 
type of program that should survive. I am sure a number of the Members 
have similar stories about the good work of the EDA in their area.
  There are plenty of areas in the Federal Government in serious need 
of reform and I have supported many Federal Government cutbacks. But 
the EDA should not fall in that category. It is doing its job and doing 
it well, and I truly believe that it is a big mistake to do anything 
that will jeopardize the future of this agency.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the compromise reached 
between the House Banking Committee and the House Public Works and 
Transportation Committee to reauthorize the Economic Development 
Administration. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
oppose Congressman Hefley's amendment to terminate the EDA.
  The two series of EDA grants contained in this legislation--both the 
public works and economic adjustment grants--are vital to our efforts 
to restore economically distressed areas like the cities of Paterson 
and Passaic, which are located in my congressional district in northern 
New Jersey. Communities like these need to have investment in their 
infrastructure in order to attract new business and industry and to 
create more jobs for the people who live there.
  It is essential that we provide these distressed communities the 
support they need to rebuild their infrastructure and address the long-
term problems created by economic deterioration, high unemployment, 
massive plant closures, and defense industry cutbacks.
  Many of the problems that have plagued the EDA for the past 12 years 
have been corrected in the compromise bill we have before us today. We 
have improved upon the grant criteria; we have improved the procedures 
for processing applications; we have clearly defined EDA's mission; and 
we have made sure that applicants who receive EDA moneys have 
established long-term strategies to best address local economic 
problems.
  This legislation is a modest investment in America's future, and it 
deserves your support.
  I want to thank Chairman Kanjorski for all his efforts to bring this 
compromise measure to the floor today, and I urge all my colleagues to 
oppose any amendments which would undermine the EDA authorization 
levels or reforms that have been incorporated into this bill.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment. I 
want to address some of the concerns that the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Hefley] has brought up. I want to first visit history a little 
bit.
  The gentleman states that the program has not been reauthorized for 
about a dozen years and that that should be some kind of evidence that 
it is obsolete. The gentleman needs to remember that the reason it has 
not been reauthorized is because both Presidents Reagan and Bush said 
they would veto the reauthorization should it come to their desk, but 
significantly, particularly in this House of Representatives, a 
majority of Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and 
Democrats, kept the EDA alive through the appropriations process. Why? 
Because a majority of this House and a majority, obviously, of the 
Senate recognized the significance and the importance of the Economic 
Development Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman refers to a loan default problem and, 
indeed, he is correct. There was one in the late 1970's. That is why a 
majority of this House and a majority of the other body stopped funding 
the loan program, and so it has been moribund all these many years.
  Indeed, in the legislation before us today there is no 
reauthorization of the loan program. Instead, what there is is a study 
to be completed and a report to be made to Congress suggesting whether 
or not such a program can be put together and how it would avoid the 
problems of the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat, there is no loan program such as the 
gentleman is talking about in this bill. There is a revolving loan 
program that has been in existence and has worked satisfactorily, and 
thanks to the contributions of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Collins], that program has been made more flexible in the nature that I 
think most people think would be important, at the same time keeping 
its accountability.
  There has been, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] 
acknowledges this, there has been significant tightening up of the 
program to meet some of the complaints that have been made over the 
past dozen years. For instance, whereas the EDA was often criticized 
for applying, being able to apply, to 80 percent of the country, today 
it would be 45 percent of the country with the new criteria.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. Chairman, there is a simplified application process, and so that 
we do not have to make many of these communities jump through hoops. 
Something that I though was important was that the EDA university 
centers are now required to be evaluated once every 2 years to make 
sure that indeed they are working.
  Mr. Chairman, the loan program has been eliminated that the gentleman 
complained about. There have been other things made as well to try and 
bring that greater accountability to the EDA.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to reject this. The gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert], eloquently spoke about the regional director 
in Philadelphia, Mr. Corrigan, who I also find to be the finest in the 
EDA tradition. I might point out that he was brought to Washington 
under Republican administrations to assist. There was a high degree of 
professionalism maintained through various administrations, and indeed 
one of the best EDA administrators that I ran into was Bonnie Newman, 
appointed under the Reagan administration, who disagreed with the 
program but said, ``It is my job to run it and to run it effectively.''
  Mr. Chairman, the EDA has continued to assist those communities on a 
bipartisan or, better said, nonpartisan basis. I would just urge 
Members to reject this amendment and to do so overwhelmingly. In fact, 
I think it is a statement to the strength of the EDA, the bipartisan 
debate we have heard in favor of retaining the EDA. I would urge that 
because every one of us has a situation that we can recount about the 
EDA.
  How many of my colleagues have had to deal with natural disasters, 
and unfortunately we can never tell when we are going to have to deal 
with a natural disaster, in Florida, in California, in Hawaii, in my 
own State of West Virginia in 1985.
  How many of my colleagues are having to deal presently with the pain 
of defense closings, a military base closing, a realignment, or the 
significant downsizing of a defense plant? EDA's role has increased 
significantly to adapt with that.
  How many of my colleagues are trying to put together that deal that 
will bring 200, 300, maybe 1,000 jobs to their area, to a hard hit, 
economically devastated area, and need just that final linchpin, and 
the final linchpin could be a water system or a sewer system.
  Mr. Chairman, that is EDA. It puts it together, it makes it happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of this amendment and I am going 
to repeat something I said yesterday.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent Mr. WISE was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. WISE. When a Member has a military base closing, who is it they 
are going to call? They are going to call the EDA.
  When a Member has a flood, an earthquake, a tornado and their 
businesses are devastated, who are they going to call? They are going 
to call the EDA.
  When a Member is trying to put that deal together, the industrial 
park, that business moving in, who are they going to call? It is going 
to be the EDA.
  Mr. Chairman, we all call upon the EDA because we have found it to be 
extremely effective and responsive. I urge rejection of the Hefley 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 319, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                                AYES--97

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Calvert
     Castle
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Mann
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--319

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Becerra
     Blackwell
     Flake
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Grandy
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Lightfoot
     McCurdy
     Mfume
     Parker
     Payne (VA)
     Ridge
     Sharp
     Solomon
     Stokes
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington

                              {time}  1147

  Messrs. GORDON, LANCASTER, and LAUGHLIN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MOORHEAD and Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. TRAFICANT: At the end of section 
     129 add the following:
       The Secretary of Commerce shall provide to each recipient 
     of such funds notice of the requirements specified in this 
     section and information on methods to comply with such 
     requirements.
       At the end of section 213 add the following:
       The Appalachian Regional Commission shall provide to each 
     recipient of such funds notice of the requirements specified 
     in this section and information on methods to comply with 
     such requirements.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment deals specifically with 
anyone getting funds under this bill.
  While Members keep losing jobs in their district, this amendment says 
anyone receiving funds under the bill would in fact receive a notice 
that there are some buy American provisions and that individuals follow 
those buy American provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have reviewed the 
gentleman's amendment to revise the buy American section of the 
compromise substitute. It is my understanding this amendment would 
require the Secretary of Commerce to notify recipients of Economic 
Development Administration grants of the buy American provisions of the 
act.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's longstanding defense of 
American workers and would say his amendment is certainly acceptable to 
our side.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking 
member, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].

                              {time}  1150

  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, as always I am delighted to accept the 
very constructive changes brought forth by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant]. We do not intend to object to this amendment at all.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Molinari] for her help.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic 
Growth and Credit Formation of the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], and I compliment him on behalf of 
the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs for carrying on 
this effort every year which paves the way to protect American jobs as 
we dispense Federal funds to create American jobs; so, I join in 
support of his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will restate that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] was agreed to. Does 
the gentleman now move to strike the last word?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a brief 
colloquy.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have been working for some time to 
establish a program whereby nonprofit corporations could be provided 
with funds directly from the EDA so that they can provide economic 
assistance to small businesses.
  As my colleagues know, I represent an area that has been devastated 
by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Economic development in areas such 
as mine will depend largely on small business. That is why I believe it 
is vital that nonprofit economic development corporations be given all 
the assistance possible.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation before us 
today includes a provision that will allow the EDA to provide Federal 
assistance directly to nonprofit economic development corporations that 
I had, in fact, recommended.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] not only for his inquiry but for 
all of his efforts to reauthorize EDA and the Appalachian Regional 
Commission. He has certainly been a leader of our committee's efforts 
to improve these economic development programs.
  At the gentleman from Ohio's suggestion, the substitute amendment 
allows public and private nonprofit organizations to be eligible 
recipients of EDA grants. By expanding the number of eligible 
organizations, Congress will increase competition for EDA funding and 
will result in better services being provided to distressed 
communities. Again I thank the gentleman for his foresight on this 
issue.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I want to thank my esteemed colleague from West 
Virginia for working with me to ensure that this important provision 
was included in the final version of the bill.
  I want to also thank the gentleman for placing in the bill a 
provision that directs the EDA to study all of EDA's financing tools--
including unfunded programs that were originally authorized under title 
II of the Economic Development Act.
  One of the title II programs that I strongly support would allow the 
EDA to buy down the interest rates on economic development loans to 
small businesses. This is an initiative that I brought to the Congress 
for 7 years. I strongly support this program, and I would hope that in 
studying their financing tools the EDA would find a way to implement 
this worthwhile title II program.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
would continue to yield, as the gentleman stated, section 117 of the 
substitute amendment requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a 
study of innovative economic financing tools. Under this provision, EDA 
will review its title II authorities and other financing tools to 
determine what role these tools could play to complement EDA's grant 
authorities. We expect EDA to review all financing tools including the 
buy down of interest rates which the gentleman strongly supports. 
Within 1 year, the Secretary shall report to Congress on the results of 
the study and make recommendations on whether financing programs should 
be authorized.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. As the gentleman knows, Mr. Chairman, for several 
years I have been promoting actively the interest rate subsidy program 
and would hope that next year this program will receive authorization 
and funding.
  I believe the Congress cannot just give money to cities to spend it 
the way they want, but we could buy down interest rates when the banks 
make a loan.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], and I call to his attention that in the 
three instances that he mentioned in the EDA bill it was the Committee 
on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs' amendment inserted into the bill 
that changed the conditions that go along with his proposals. We agree 
with him on the nonprofit corporations. It will assist many agencies 
across America that are nonprofit in nature to be participants with EDA 
funding, and we also originally included in the actual funding for 
equity and for loans, but it has been converted by an agreement between 
the two committees to a study on that process, and we look forward over 
the next year, in working through that study process, so that we 
actually authorize direct loans and equity financing for economic 
development purposes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my bill would perhaps 
be reviewed for a hearing next year, and let me say this, Congress:
  We do not have enough money to give every troubled city, but we could 
buy down interest rates. The banks do it the old-fashioned way. The 
banks put up their money to help some economic development, and I am 
going to ask that that be brought for a hearing next year and that bill 
be given some consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] for all the help they have 
given me on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Insert after section 129 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 130. OVERALL CAP ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                   EDA

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or any 
     other provision of law, not more than $412,000,000 is 
     authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 1995 
     and 1996 to carry out the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the funding included in H.R. 2442 for the 
Economic Development Administration is $10 million above the 
President's request for fiscal year 1995.
  The amendment I have at the desk would cut the additional $10 million 
from the EDA and restore the President's funding level.
  It is no secret that I am not a fan of the EDA. I think the program 
is ripe for abuse.
  I am also not a fan of our convoluted appropriation process. We 
budget, we authorize and we appropriate. Then we conference and 
reconcile. At each step, the spending seems to grow.
  The authorization for the EDA is a good example. The President sent 
his budget request to Congress, and he asked for a significant increase 
for the EDA.
  Then the Banking and Public Works Committees got together to craft a 
bill, and they added a little more.
  The summer, the appropriations will get their shot.
  Finally, we will probably pass an emergency appropriation bill this 
fall that will include still more spending.
  In the end, its little wonder we have had continuous deficits for the 
past 25 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an attempt to stem that tide by 
rolling back the spending level for the EDA to the level budgeted by 
the President.
  As it is, the President's budget projects a $165 billion deficit. 
There is no reason to increase that deficit, even if its just $10 
million.
  The amendment I have at the desk will cut a total of $10 million from 
the EDA's funding for next year.
  This cut includes $3 million from the salaries and expenses account, 
$3 million from the grants for public works and development facilities, 
$2 million from the technical assistance and economic development 
planning, and $2 million from the special economic development and 
adjustment assistance authorization.
  In case someone is worried that these cuts are too draconian, I would 
point out that if my amendment is adopted, total spending by the EDA 
will increase by $163 million over the amount provided in last year's 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriation bill.
  Authorization for the salaries and expenses portion alone will 
increase by almost $10 million.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts $10 million from a program whose 
funding has practically doubled in the last 2 years, it restores the 
President's budget level for the EDA, and I hope the Members will 
support it.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] to cut EDA funding, and it 
has a bit of a siren song to it. It says, ``Well, what you're doing is 
cutting. You're cutting down to the administration's request.''
  I think we need to put this in perspective. First of all, the maximum 
amount, I believe, that the gentleman is talking about is $7 million. 
But the bipartisan substitute that is before us specifically authorizes 
an estimated amount of $306 million for the Economic Development 
Administration for each of the fiscal years 1995 and 1996. The 
substitute also authorizes additional sums, as may be necessary, for 
natural disasters or defense conversion.
  Now the problem has come up, or at least in the gentleman's mind, 
because CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has estimated that an 
additional $80 million may be appropriate, may be necessary, for these 
economic development activities. Remember these are natural disasters 
and defense closings, and the CBO has scored that as possibly requiring 
up to $80 million. Therefore the compromise substitute specifically 
authorizes $306 million, and the CBO is estimating that the substitute 
authorizes an estimated total of 386 million EDA's programs.
  I think we ought to look at a couple of points. First of all, the 
authorized amount here is a bipartisan product. It came out of the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation by a largely bipartisan 
vote, and, second, it is of course the Committee on Appropriations that 
has the ultimate check on this, and so it will decide how much is 
appropriated up to the authorized limit.
  Second, the bipartisan compromise is fiscally responsible. The 
specific authorization, and this is an important point, is already $16 
million below this year's appropriation, and it is $73 million below 
the President's fiscal 1995 budget request.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat that.

                              {time}  1200

  So let me repeat. The specific authorization level for the EDA, as 
provided in the compromise, is $16 million below the current year's 
appropriations and $73 million below the President's fiscal year 1995 
budget request.
  Now, if we assume that EDA receives the entire $80 million estimated 
for natural disasters and defense conversion activities, the compromise 
substitute approximately equals the President's fiscal year 1995 budget 
request. There is about a $7 million difference at most. Moreover, our 
substitute does not increase EDA's authorization for fiscal year 1996; 
it keeps it on a flat line.
  I also might point out an interesting note of history. To equal the 
EDA's budgets in 1992 dollars of 1966 and 1967, we would have to 
combine all the EDA budgets for the last 10 years.
  The real issue here is the language, ``Such sums as may be 
necessary'' in title IX. Title IX is how EDA responds to natural 
disasters, economic dislocations, and military defense closures. The 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has not been able to 
predict for us a year ahead how many hurricanes, how many earthquakes, 
how many fires, how many floods, and how many tsunamis they are going 
to have in a given year so we could authorize that appropriate amount. 
We just do not know, and as many will recall, a couple of years ago we 
had a real rash of natural disasters.
  By the same token, while we know how many military base closings 
there are going to be, it is hard to trace the economic effect of all 
those. To give an example, when a base closing is projected in one 
State, we know that in another State far away it affects the business 
of a subcontractor supplying material to that base. By the same token, 
how many of you have businesses in your districts that are 
subcontractors to major defense contractors?
  So it takes a while for the ripple effect of an economic dislocation 
in one area to roll through to other areas. That is the reason for the 
``such sums as may be necessary'' language. Once again, though, the 
Committee on Appropriations still has the final decision on this.
  So as this House defeated by a large vote the previous amendment to 
eliminate the EDA, I urge that this amendment be rejected so that the 
EDA can continue to respond in the limited way it is now able to 
respond to those base closings, to those natural disasters, and to 
those other economic dislocations that take place.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I rise 
simply to echo the points that have been raised by the chairman of this 
subcommittee. In fact, his point is well taken that we oftentimes stand 
at points of criticism for failing to adequately project and plan for 
the needs of our Nation.
  What we attempted to do in crafting this bill and reaching a bottom 
line of financial assistance was to understand that we will never 
adequately understand the needs that will impact a community, as 
established in, say, May, by the end of December. And unfortunately, 
last year was a cruel reminder of how little control we have over this 
Earth and, therefore, how little control we have over the needs that 
may be brought forth by communities undergoing such tragedies as the 
floods in the Midwest, the earthquakes, the fire disasters, and, yes, 
in fact, the base closures. Certainly, I stand here as one who wishes I 
could predict how the Base Closures Commission set to begin in the very 
near future will impact communities and those that are now dealing with 
only understanding the disastrous effects on their economies of prior 
base closures.
  So this is not something that was done in order to create more pork 
or to deal capriciously with the bottom line that we recognized, 
unfortunately, that we cannot often control in these United States, and 
we want to be able to respond to as many communities as possible.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, just to deal with the figures the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] talked about, we can talk about the fact 
that this number comes from here and that number comes from there, but 
the bottom line is that when we figure it up, the President came in 
with a request for $412 million. The Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation got hold of it and raised the figure to $441 million. 
Then the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs dealt with it, 
and they reached the figure of $402 million. The compromise was $422 
million, and, yes, in that $422 million there is the CBO's scoring for 
$80 million as kind of a contingency sum, such funds as may be 
necessary. But we know in this body that when we have floods on the 
Mississippi River or we have earthquakes in Los Angeles, we have 
special appropriations to add to this.
  So in estimating that this $80 million will be enough, we do not know 
whether it will be enough. Every year it seems like we have a disaster 
somewhere of some kind. There will probably be even more.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we are talking here of $10 million in addition to 
what the President has requested, and I am simply asking that we bring 
it back to the President's request.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the desire of the proponent of the 
amendment to constrain the expenses in the budget, and I sympathize 
with that. But here we are in a multiyear authorization and we are 
talking about how many base closures there will be by the next and the 
following year. Nobody really knows. How many natural disasters will 
there be over the next 3 years? Nobody really knows.
  I would suggest that the authority that has been granted to use such 
other sums is absolutely essential so that if a natural disaster occurs 
or an emergency occurs, there does not have to be a hesitancy. When the 
gentleman talks about additional appropriations, those are 
appropriations; those are not authorizations. We are asking for the 
authority here for authorization for appropriated money when it is made 
to be exercised or spent in a certain fashion. So we no longer have the 
Committee on Appropriations of the House controlling areas like the 
Economic Development Administration but, in fact, we have had the good 
foresight to authorize what we want to do and direct that being done.
  I would call my colleagues' attention to an example, however, to show 
just how distinctly different this year's authorization is from past 
authorizations. If we look at 1980, some 15 years ago, the EDA was 
actually funded at a level of $513 million. Today that amount of 
funding, in accordance with the value of the dollar, would be 
$1,049,000,000, and in reality we are only authorizing $386 million. So 
we are some 65 percent lower than what the actual funding would be if 
we had stayed at 1980 spending levels. I do not think we can be any 
more frugal or responsible economically than that, and I would suggest, 
rather than deluding ourselves, that the important principle on the 
gentleman's amendment as to why it should not be adopted is what we are 
trying to do to get responsibility in this House, which is, in fact, to 
authorize and have those authorities followed by the executive branch 
so we can get control over the expenditures of the Government.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote down the gentleman's 
amendment in its present form.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. APPLEGATE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it is a 
bad amendment. EDA, as ARC and others, has been good for America. The 
U.S. taxpayers pay out $14 billion of their hard-earned money to other 
countries of the world. Three billion dollars goes to Israel, over $2 
billion to Egypt, almost $1.5 billion to Russia, $600 million to 
Eastern Europe, $526 million to Turkey, $284 million to Greece, and on 
down and on down. American taxpayer dollars are going out to these 
other countries of the world to do the very same thing that we are 
asking American taxpayers to pay into EDA to help us.
  We send billions and billions of dollars to all of these other 
countries to defend them militarily. We are losing our young people's 
lives. And yet we do not want to spend $300 million in economic 
development in the United States. Back in the United States, this 
program has helped many, many communities who have been hit 
economically.
  We do it to increase jobs. We do it to retain jobs. I have used EDA 
in my area. I saved an aluminum company recently that hires over 2,000 
people. If it was not for the fact that we needed this money to bring 
in some infrastructure, we may not have been able to do it.
  We are losing them because of the base closures. We are looking at 
hundreds of jobs in my district that are going out, and they are going 
out all over the country.
  Who is there to pick up the pieces when the Government closes your 
base? We are losing them because of bad trade policy. And let me talk a 
little bit about that.
  You know, these countries of the world that we are trying to help, 
they are closing their borders. They are not allowing our American 
productivity to go into their countries. They subsidize them. We give 
them most favored nation status when they want to send their stuff into 
the United States so our American consumers can buy it. That means that 
they cut down on the amount of the tariff. Let me tell you, they do not 
cut any tariff off of American products. We got to sell ours at the 
highest figure.
  So our jobs are going overseas. Who is going to be there to help pick 
up those pieces?
  I am telling you, things are not all good. We are losing our jobs, 
our economy is hurting, and yet American taxpayer dollars are going 
overseas. American taxpayer dollars are under siege, not to help 
Americans who put that in.
  These so-called free traders are hurting this country. And I say to 
them, your trade policies are killing America. They are hurting 
American jobs, American businesses, the ability to pay taxes, to feed 
families, to clothe their children, to educate the kids. These are the 
kind of programs that we want to see retained. Do not turn your back on 
the American taxpayer now. Give them the support that they need, and 
reject this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 244, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--171

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Andrews (TX)
     Becerra
     Blackwell
     DeFazio
     Dornan
     Flake
     Frost
     Grandy
     Hoagland
     Hoyer
     McCurdy
     Mfume
     Murtha
     Parker
     Ridge
     Roth
     Sharp
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Whitten
     Williams

                              {time}  1235

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Roth for, with Mr. Hoagland against.

  Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________