[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H5034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2115
      ELIMINATING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IS NOT THE WAY TO GO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chabot). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the bill that has been under consideration on 
the floor of the House for the past few hours has been dealing with the 
defense of our Nation, and no one in this Chamber would think of 
unilaterally disarming our country militarily. So why is it, then, that 
the Republican leadership now proposes to eliminate in the budget 
debates coming up during the next 2 days the Department of Commerce and 
so unilaterally disarm us economically? Because this Department of 
Commerce under, first, Secretary Ron Brown and now his successor, this 
Department of Commerce has been turned into an efficient juggernaut 
advancing U.S. interests here and abroad economically.
  Mr. Speaker, if I were a business leader in this country, a small- or 
mid-size business leader particularly, but also a CEO of a large 
corporation, I would be very, very concerned about this move to take 
the one agency in the Federal Government that has become very effective 
at promoting U.S. commerce and jobs and exports and dismantling it and 
eliminating some of its functions and shipping some of the functions 
off to other agencies and departments where there is not a smooth fit.
  For instance, what would be eliminated or phased out? The advanced 
technology program. Well, certainly we do not need technology in our 
economy, do we? The manufacturing extension partnerships is like the 
old agricultural extension program for rural areas. This is 
manufacturing extension, and it can be for rural areas but urban areas 
as well, particularly benefiting small-and mid-size businesses.
  They would eliminate the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration. 
Tourism is becoming one of the fastest growing industries in our 
country. The National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration. They would take the Economic Development 
Administration, which has been crucial in my State of West Virginia as 
well as every State in this country, they would take it and move it to 
the Small Business Administration, believing it would take only 25 
employees to administer its many millions of dollars worth of grants.
  The irony to this of course is the SBA, the Small Business 
Administration, and the EDA are not a compatible fit. The Small 
Business Administration deals with small business, and individual small 
businesses. The EDA, the Economic Development Administration, deals 
with the infrastructure that is necessary to help businesses grow. But 
it is not the same function at all.
  Mr. Speaker, as I say, the business community should be greatly 
concerned. It should be greatly concerned at the idea that the 
International Trade Administration could be greatly phased down. For 
instance, it is estimated that half the State offices would have to be 
eliminated. It would reduce the support for the U.S. business 
community. It would terminate domestic services in one-half the States. 
It would lessen the ability to protect U.S. industries against unfair 
practices, such as dumping.
  There are many, many areas of the Department of Commerce which would 
be, of course, either phased out or phased down or eliminated under 
this proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to look at the achievements that 
the United States Department of Commerce, this department that is now 
sought to be eliminated over the next couple of days in the Republican 
leadership budget, I think it is very important to look at some of the 
accomplishments. Ron Brown was a heck of a leader for the United States 
and for the Department of Commerce. He created the first-ever national 
export strategy which brought $80 billion worth of business deals, that 
is right, deals, contracts signed, jobs created, on the bottom line. 
That is what the Department of Commerce has been doing these last 3 
years.

  He championed the role of civilian technology by entering into $1.5 
billion of public-private partnerships, roughly a 50-50 split, 220 of 
these, to advance technology, increase the number of manufacturing 
extension centers in this country from 7 to 60. They benefit small- and 
mid-size businesses. U.S. merchandise exports went up 26 percent in 3 
years, from 1993 to 1995.
  He hosted the first-ever White House conference on travel and 
tourism. This is what you want a Department of Commerce to be doing. 
This is what you want a Government agency to be doing, to be working in 
public-private partnerships, to be bringing home the bacon, to be 
creating jobs, working with the private sector. That is what our 
Department of Commerce has been doing.
  So, what is the solution? What is the answer? Well, the bean counters 
on the other side now say eliminate the Department of Commerce, 
eliminate the Economic Development Administration, which, with its $2.5 
million of assistance to the Swearingen project in Martinsburg, WV, 
helped leverage $130 million of investment so that the first jet 
manufacturing center in this country in many, many years is under 
construction right now and will create 800 jobs, good-paying jobs, when 
it is created.
  That is what the Department of Commerce can do and is doing across 
this country. Their answer? Eliminate it, phase it out, break it up, 
ship it off. We do not like coordinated approaches. We do not like 
efficiency. We do not like somebody going out and actually bringing 
home the business. That is what this is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the motivations; there are no bad 
motivations. It may be a philosophical difference. Maybe they do not 
like success. Maybe it is just that they think that Government should 
not be involved in this type of activity. Eliminating the Department of 
Commerce is not the way to go.

                          ____________________