[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1327-S1328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              PROHIBITION OF INCENTIVES FOR RELOCATION ACT

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few moments to 
comment on the Prohibition of Incentives for Relocation Act, introduced 
yesterday by my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. I strongly 
support and am an original cosponsor of this legislation, the passage 
of which is of great importance to workers in Wisconsin and all across 
the country.
  For the third consecutive Congress, we have introduced this 
legislation to amend the Housing and Community Development Act to 
prohibit the use of Federal funds, directly or indirectly, for business 
relocation activities that encourage States and communities to steal 
jobs from one another.
  My background is in business. I know well that in today's tough 
economic environment, it is commonplace for businesses to relocate or 
downsize their operations in order to maintain a competitive edge. In 
so doing, some choose to leave one location in favor of another 
location in a different State. However painful, mobility and 
adaptability have become important business survival tactics. But 
there's a catch: in some instances, relocation activities have been 
partially subsidized or underwritten by Federal funds. In other words, 
while it appeared that Federal moneys were fueling job creation in one 
community, the flip side of the coin revealed that those moneys were 
fueling job losses elsewhere.
  Mr. President, that is just plain wrong; wrong in terms of fairness; 
wrong because it violates the spirit of the law. And it's public policy 
without vision: if States start fighting each other for jobs, instead 
of creating employment opportunities from the ground up, any regional 
or national economic cooperation will be lost.
  This issue was first brought to our attention in 1994 when Briggs & 
Stratton Corporation announced plans to relocate 2,000 jobs from 
Milwaukee to other locations, including two that had used Federal 
community development funds to expand their operations. We introduced 
this legislation then, and in 1995 a version of the bill was adopted as 
an amendment to an appropriations bill. Although our amendment was 
dropped in conference, the final bill did include language requesting 
that the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] report to 
Congress on the costs and benefits of maintaining an information 
database on this issue.
  We are still waiting for HUD's report, but the need to act is no less 
significant today than it was in 1994. In fact, in December 1996, the 
Wisconsin State Journal reported that the communications director for 
the Michigan Jobs Commission had stated, and I quote, ``we will 
aggressively pursue Wisconsin companies for relocation into Michigan.''
  Mr. President, we were disheartened by Michigan's attitude to say the 
least, and we contacted then-HUD Secretary Cisneros, Assistant 
Secretary Singerman at the Economic Development Administration [EDA] 
and Administrator Lader at the Small Business Administration [SBA] to 
urge all three to be vigilant when distributing Federal funds. We 
wanted to be sure that their agencies were not inadvertently 
encouraging Michigan to steal jobs from Wisconsin. I am pleased to 
report that Assistant Secretary Singerman responded by affirming EDA's 
sensitivity to the issue and want to add that both EDA and SBA are 
already governed by antijob piracy provisions. We are simply proposing 
that these types of provisions govern HUD programs as well.

[[Page S1328]]

  Our attention to this matter is imperative. Community development for 
all Americans is best achieved by promoting new growth, rather than 
promoting job raids between hard-pressed communities. I urge my 
colleagues to take this issue seriously by acting upon this legislation 
as soon as possible.

                          ____________________