[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]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 166, an
amendment on H.R. 2442, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``no.''
amendment offered by mr. walker
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: After section 129, add the
following new section:
Sec. 130. The Administrator may, in consultation with and
approval of other Federal agencies with jurisdiction over the
matters involved, waive Federal regulations which interfere
with economic development.
point of order
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] as it
violates clause 7 of rule XVI. That rule requires that amendments to
the text be germane to the subject matter contained therein.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would require the
Administrator of the Economic Development Administration to waive
Federal regulations; that is, all Federal regulations such as the Clean
Air Act, et cetera, and to do so in consultation with and approval of
other Federal agencies.
There is nothing in the base text of the bill that speaks to this
issue, Mr. Chairman, and, in addition, the amendment goes well beyond
the scope of the bill and the current regulatory responsibilities of
the Economic Development Administration.
As such, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane to the base text,
and I insist upon my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] wish
to be heard on his point of order?
Mr. WALKER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a very, very broad
bill with regard to economic development going to the entire economy of
the United States as described in the section of the bill delineating
the coverage, and so in this case the coverage is very broad.
{time} 1320
All this particular amendment does is to assure that the
Administrator, in conjunction with other Federal agencies with
jurisdiction over the matters involved, may waive Federal regulations
that interfere with economic development. So it is only regulations; it
does not change law in any way. It is all matters within the
jurisdiction of the administration. It is within the Administrator's
duties because it relates only to economic development, and ``economic
development'' would be defined as the very broad-based issues that are
raised in the original bill. So I believe that there is jurisdiction
here.
Beyond that, under the amendment the Administrator could not act
without the agreement of the other Federal agencies. So there is
nothing in the amendment saying that something could be changed unless
the other Federal agencies agreed with it. But what it would do is
allow a one-stop shopping center in the Federal Government for those
who have regulatory problems to get those regulatory problems waived.
So I do believe the amendment is germane, Mr. Chairman, and I urge
the Chair to approve the offering of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] wish
to be heard further on the point of order?
Mr. WISE. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
To reply further, my subcommittee will be delighted to know that our
jurisdiction goes to the entire economy of the United States. Actually,
the bill itself goes only to the Economic Development Administration.
The amendment goes well beyond the scope of this bill, affecting all
Federal interests.
For the reasons I have stated both here and in my previous remarks,
Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is not germane, and I insist
further on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Torres). The Chair is prepared to rule on the point
of order.
The Chair would state that the amendment seeks to accomplish the
waiver of any Federal regulation promulgated under any Federal law
which might have the effect of interfering with economic development.
As such, the amendment may involve actions by agencies and change of
regulations pursuant to laws not within the jurisdiction of the
reporting committees and beyond the purview of the Economic Development
Administration.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
amendment offered by mr. walker
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment number 2.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: After Section 129, add the
following new section:
SEC. 130. REGULATORY RELIEF.
The Administrator shall, upon petition from an entity
impacted adversely by federal regulations on matters of
economic development as described in this Act, notify the
departments and agencies involved with promulgating and
administering those regulations and suggest to those
departments and agencies that regulations be waived which
interfere with economic development. Nothing in this section
shall affect the ability of the Administrator to carry out
his duties otherwise provided by law.
Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that really does get in
the way of economic development in this country is the myriad of
regulations that have been written at the Federal, State, and local
level which take the power out of the hands of entrepreneurs to create
an economy and create jobs.
This is an attempt in this amendment to assure that there is a place
to come in the Federal Government to get some relief from Federal
regulations. Essentially, this amendment does not go as far as the one
that was just ruled out of order because it does not give the
Administrator the ability to waive Federal regulations that are getting
in the way of economic development. That would be preferable because it
would be of tremendous help. Where there is an individual regulation
that may have been written for all the right reasons and may have
general applicability and be a good thing, but where the specific
applicability of it is interfering with the ability to create jobs,
then the Administrator would be able to waive that. This amendment does
not go that far.
What it does do is it creates an advocate for regulatory relief
within the Federal Government. At the present time there is no place
where communities can come, where businesses can come, or where
individuals can come within the Federal Government to seek to have
regulatory relief.
With this amendment, we would create in the Office of the
Administrator of EDA a place where you could get some help, because
what this amendment says is, if you feel that regulations of the
Federal Government are adversely impacting on your ability to create
jobs or to pursue economic development, you can now come to the
Administrator; you would petition him, and he would go to the
individual agencies involved, notify them of your problem, and also
suggest to them that the regulations which interfere with economic
development be waived. So you have now created a place in Government of
an advocate for economic development, and we would begin to weigh the
two things, I think, on a more rational basis. Instead of simply having
regulations out there that no one can get to, you would now have
someone within the Government saying that the creation of jobs here is
an important thing and, therefore, we ought to look at the regulatory
impact that this individual or this entity has about the way the
regulations are stopping economic development.
I think this provides at least a piece of regulatory relief. It does
not get nearly as far as most of us would like to go, but it is a way
of moving toward regulatory relief and assuring for the most time that
we would have an advocate within the Government for stopping
regulations which interfere with the ability to create jobs.
This is the kind of thing middle class America is looking for. Middle
class America wants to be assured that their Government is not just
creating laws and regulations that wipe out their ability to get jobs.
In this case we will have created now an advocate for middle class
America in terms of having the jobs created if Federal regulations have
to be gotten out of the way in order for those jobs to be provided.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered here a very, very
efficacious amendment, one that moved us in the right direction.
One of the complaints that I hear most often as people are
contemplating economic development and as communities are contemplating
economic development is about the very obstacles that the Federal
Government itself presents. If this amendment, as I read it and
understand it, will move us to a position where we will have an
opportunity to at least talk about resolving some of the conflicts that
the Feds present as we try to develop economically, this amendment will
have rendered a very great service.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Emerson]. He helps make my point, because it is extremely important to
recognize that if someone out in the country would have a complaint of
regulatory problems, the Administrator under this amendment would have
to go to bat for that person. So for the first time we would have an
ability for the country to have some impact in Washington at the moment
they ran into major regulatory problems.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is something that has been looked for by
employers, whether they be public or private employers, across the
country.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly like to rise in support of this
amendment. In fact, there is strong precedent for this type of
decisionmaking to proceed now on the Federal level.
I have right here a book that has been issued by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Agriculture
called ``Building Communities Together, Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities Application Guide.''
In fact, in one chapter it states under ``Overcoming Federal
Barriers'' the following:
A primary goal of this initiative is to review the
commitment to cooperation among the Federal Government,
States, and localities.
To accomplish this goal we will work with all communities
that have submitted a strategic plan for change, even if they
do not receive Empowerment Zones or Enterprise Community
designation.
The strategic point of this paragraph, though, reads as follows: ``We
will strive to overcome programmatic, regulatory, and statutory
impediments to encourage more effective economic, human, physical,
environmental, and community development activities.''
So I think the gentleman's amendment relative to the Economic
Development Agency is very consistent with movements that are taking
place throughout the Federal Government, and I thank the gentleman for
offering this very valuable amendment to plug a hole and initiate a
very important discussion on the reauthorization of the EDA.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this matter was presented to me just a short time ago.
Upon reviewing the material contained in this second amendment offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], I want to announce
that our side has no objection, and I would ask that we move to a vote
on the amendment. We will accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410,
noes 10, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 167]
AYES--410
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--10
Applegate
Engel
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
McKinney
Nadler
Oberstar
Sabo
Stark
NOT VOTING--17
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Blackwell
Cunningham
Dingell
Flake
Grandy
Hoagland
McDermott
Meek
Parker
Porter
Ridge
Sharp
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Whitten
{time} 1350
Messrs. GIBBONS, LEVIN, and SWIFT changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________