[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.
____________________