[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 130 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7873-H7879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR H.R. 1127, NATIONAL MONUMENT FAIRNESS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet 
next Monday, September 29, to grant a rule which may limit the 
amendments which may be offered to H.R. 1127, the National Monument 
Fairness Act; that is, the Monument Antiquities Act.
  Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies 
and a brief explanation of the amendment by noon on Monday, September 
29, to the Committee on Rules, at room H-312 in the Capitol.
  H.R. 1127 was ordered reported by the Committee on Resources on June 
25, and the report was filed on July 21. Amendments should be drafted 
to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Resources.
  Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to make sure 
that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the 
Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments 
comply with the Rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules also is planning to meet the same 
evening, on Monday, September 29 to grant a rule which may restrict 
amendments for consideration of H.R. 1370, the Export-Import Bank 
Reauthorization bill.
  Any Member contemplating any amendments should submit 55 copies of 
the amendment and a brief explanation to the Committee on Rules in H-
312 of the Capitol no later than noon on Monday, September 29.
  Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported, 
copies of which will be available in the document room.
  I thank the membership for their consideration.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order of the Committee, it is in 
order to consider amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 38, line 22, after ``$21,700,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 11, after ``$28,490,000'' insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me at this point thank both the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] and Members from both sides of the aisle for their commitment 
to fairness. I think that is the right thing to do, and I appreciate 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a tripartisan amendment sponsored by 
progressives and conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and an 
Independent.
  Mr. Chairman, in my view, our current trade policy is a disaster. 
This year we are going to run up a $200 billion merchandise trade 
deficit, the largest in our history, and it is a deficit that is going 
to cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. But, Mr. Chairman, as 
serious as the economic implications of our trade policy are, this 
amendment deals with an issue that is even more important.
  This amendment deals with democracy and national sovereignty and the 
right of the American people, through their local, State and nationally 
elected bodies, to make legislation which the American people believe 
is in their best interests.
  The Members of Congress who are cosponsoring this legislation have 
different political points of view. We disagree on everything, but we 
agree that it is the people of the United States of America who should 
decide the important issues and not people in the World Trade 
Organization meeting behind closed doors in Switzerland who should make 
those decisions and who should override legislation that we pass, that 
State government passes, that local government passes.

                              {time}  1800

  Briefly stated, what is some of the legislation that is being 
threatened, that has been threatened? The WTO, through the urging of 
Venezuela, forced changes in our Clean Air Act. Mexico forced changes 
in the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  Southeast Asian countries have filed complaints against American 
restrictions on shrimp. A Massachusetts law promoting democracy in 
Burma, which has also been passed by many cities all over America, is 
now being brought before the WTO by the European Union and Japan. If 
Massachusetts loses that case, they must take their law off of the 
books or risk being punished by trade sanctions.
  The bottom line here is that no matter what Members' political views 
are, and I disagree with Helms-Burton, voted against it, want to see it 
repealed, but I want to see that debate take place here in Congress, 
and not have somebody through the WTO overrule it. That is the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the very distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As 
chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, I object to the policy which 
motivates the original supporters of the amendment, who feel that 
additional resources should be provided to the U.S. Trade 
Representative to identify the effect of the multilateral agreement on 
investments [MAI] on State and local laws. I do not believe that the 
funds should be used for this purpose. I am concerned about the use of 
these funds for any purpose which might alter the progress of the 
Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
  The MAI is the first comprehensive multilateral agreement on 
investments. However, it is not entirely new. The MAI builds on over 
1,000, bilateral investment treaties already in force around the world. 
Most of those agreements include investor-to-state dispute settlement 
procedures. The agreement will not force the United States to lower 
standards, and it will not prevent Congress from regulating the 
behavior of companies, nor are we agreeing to a dispute settlement 
process that can force changes in U.S. law. There will be no loss of 
sovereignty under the MAI.
  This amendment would deter progress on developing international rules 
for investment that mirror our international rules for trade by which 
U.S. companies and their workers have benefited from fairness, 
openness, and transparency.
  I therefore strongly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H7874]]

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. We have to be honest with 
the American people. These trade agreements have a profound effect on 
them, and they have a profound effect on local, State, and Federal 
laws. That is why the gentleman from Vermont has offered this 
amendment.
  There is great concern that the United States laws, which lawmakers 
in Congress, State legislatures, and localities have worked hard to 
establish and pass, continue to be overturned by faceless bureaucrats 
during trade negotiations. These bureaucrats could be in the World 
Trade Organization or they could be anywhere.
  What can we do, as elected representatives of this great Nation? We 
will stand up for the laws that are on the books. Many of us would 
obviously like to stop this constant disregard for U.S. laws, but we 
are limited in our ability to make such a stand during consideration of 
appropriations bills, and now we have an opportunity.
  Make no mistake about it, this vote is a miniature GATT Fast Track 
II. What we are saying here today is if Members vote for this, they are 
saying we should transfer money out of the administration of the 
Commerce Department to the U.S. Trade Representative, and let this 
department look at the impact of the World Trade Organization on 
Members' local and State laws. Members cannot be against that. They 
have a fiduciary relationship with the people in their districts to 
say, is the World Trade Organization impacting my congressional 
district?
  The President of the United States is talking up here on the Hill 
about pushing fast track. But many of us in this congressional House 
feel strongly that we need to have an early vote. I applaud the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for going ahead and putting this 
in place.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  We in the Congress have a serious responsibility to make sure that 
the principles of American Federalism are not trampled in the rush to 
approve new trade agreements under fast track. I support the Sanders 
amendment because we need to send U.S. trade negotiators a clear signal 
that Congress cares deeply about the fundamental precepts of American 
sovereignty.
  We have worked hard to build a consensus around clean air, safe 
drinking water, and a pure safe food supply. We should not give it up. 
Vote ``yes'' on the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Ney].
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say very quickly that we realize there is a 
give and take when we are dealing with the world and trade policies, 
but most of it has been a take from this country. What is going to 
happen in Switzerland is going to affect township trustees, county 
commissioners, Governors, and citizens of the United States.
  This is a commonsense approach, it is a commonsense amendment. All it 
wants to do is to simply say we should inform people. People have a 
right to know in this country. We should support the Sanders amendment. 
It is the right thing to do for America, it is the right thing to do to 
inform people in our society.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, we need a national economic policy which 
protects our nation. We need a national economic policy which respects 
and reestablishes America as a sovereign Nation. We need a national 
economic policy which places the interests of the American people first 
among all international trade agreements.
  But the World Trade Organization ruled against U.S. regulations on 
clean air, U.S. consumer protections. They ruled violated WTO rules. 
The WTO ruled against regulations on hormone-treated beef. Now is the 
time to take a stand on behalf of our rights as a people to self-
determination.
  The WTO does not care about the rights of the American people. The 
WTO does not care about the rights of our workers, about our 
environment. It is the American Congress which must stand up for the 
people. Outside of America, the international community does not care. 
We, the Congress, must protect we, the people.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask, as I read the amendment, this would add $1 
million to the U.S. Trade Representative's office to continue the good 
work they are doing in terms of representing us and furthering the 
globalization of our economy, and the progress of our domestic 
production. I do not see, I am baffled by some of the things that are 
being said. But the amendment itself is only a $1 million increase to 
the U.S. Trade Representative's office. If that is what it does, I do 
not have a problem with it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Sanders amendment. There is an alarm bell going off all over the United 
States, and some people can hear it on the right, and some people can 
hear it on the left, and some people are ignoring the alarm bell. Other 
people are trying to set the fire.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is we are being rushed time and again 
into conceding the authority that was vested in us by the Constitution 
of the United States to multinational organizations in the name of 
creating some global trading system, in the name of facilitating global 
and international commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, I may have my disagreements with the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] on issues of labor and the environment, but the 
last thing I want to do is grant authority to some international 
organization, none of whom will be voted on by the American people, to 
make these decisions.
  We will rue the day when we have granted authority to someone who has 
no obligation to the voters of the United States to make these 
decisions. Big business today may think they are getting something in 
the environmental area or the labor area, but all the American people 
will suffer a loss of freedom if we give it away to these international 
organizations.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we need to unearth and understand any 
provisions of any pending trade agreements which might undermine the 
sovereignty of the United States or our many States or our local 
governments. According to Renato Ruggiero, Director General of the WTO, 
in referencing the pending MAI agreement, we are writing the 
Constitution of a single economy. That is the man in charge. He is 
saying, the Constitution of a single economy. That is not our 
Constitution. It is not compliant with our Constitution or our 
sovereignty.
  They have so far challenged the Helms-Burton law, the Clean Air Act, 
a Massachusetts law that is promoting democracy in Burma, and 
restrictions on shrimp, and buy-America provisions and buy-Oregon 
provisions, or buy-California or buy-Arizona provisions will all be 
held to be non-compliant with this MAI.
  We are asking for $1 million to the United States Trade 
Representative to have them fully investigate, unearth, and report to 
us in the Congress, the representatives of the people of this country, 
what the reality of these agreements and these threats are, so we may 
be more fully informed. Mr. Chairman, I have one agreement with the 
gentleman from Virginia, we should have this money and we should know 
what we are voting on.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watkins].
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I agreed with many 
things that have been said by the minority side concerning this 
amendment. I would like to clarify some matters, though. I think 
emotionally some people get carried away.
  I know the gentleman from Ohio stated that it was the WTO that put

[[Page H7875]]

the embargo against the growth hormone on beef. That is not true. Mr. 
Chairman, that was a unilateral decision by the European Union after 
the GATT negotiations. Our own USTR did push for a penalty on the 
unfair trade barrier being placed against growth hormones. I have been 
fighting the battle to lift the growth hormone ban for 7 months. I have 
been fighting, pounding the table, becoming obnoxious about this unfair 
trade barrier. We must have stronger people to negotiate and fight for 
the United States position.
  The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, if it had not been for the WTO 
finally recognizing and ruling against this unfair trade practice 
placed upon our beef producers by the European Union we would not have 
a world decision in our favor. It took several years by the USTR and 7 
months of my own effort and we have to go through a 90-day appeal. Mr. 
Chairman, I am thankful under that circumstance the WTO was there to 
help, or rule against the European Union--125 million unfair trade 
balance against our beef producers. I think our beef people are going 
to reap a lot of benefit from it.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Virginia pointed out, this 
amendment is very different than the debate that we have been having 
here tonight. Let us understand what it is and what it is not. The 
amendment would shift $1 million from the Department of Commerce to the 
U.S. Trade Representative's Office, period. That is all it does. The 
rhetoric is about a lot of other stuff, but the rhetoric has nothing to 
do with the actual amendment.
  Since we have just gotten an amended budget request from the 
President on the USTR to add money to USTR, it may be not a bad idea. 
If this amendment passes, we will certainly use it for that purpose, 
since the USTR needs the money to hire some attorneys to carry out 
their activities, but certainly not anything dealing with this.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. No, I do not have the time to yield. The gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has his own time. He got 5 extra minutes on the 
earlier motion.
  Let me just clarify a few other things about what is being proposed. 
The earlier ``Dear Colleague'' letter that Members received from some 
of the sponsors, talked about this is dealing with the multilateral 
agreement on investment. In fact, it talked about the role that the 
multilateral agreement, or MIA as we will call it, has with the World 
Trade Organization, or WTO. But there is not any link between the MIA 
and the WTO. To say there is a link between those two is simply 
incorrect.
  The fact is, however, that the new multilateral agreement on 
investments builds upon 1,000 bilateral investment agreements that are 
already in force around the world. All of those agreements have some 
kind of investor dispute settlement mechanism in them. Most of them are 
done through the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of 
Investment Disputes. The center has been in existence since 1966. It is 
one of the primary forces for settling these kinds of disputes.
  We have to have something to settle disputes when investors get into 
some kind a dispute. This is the first comprehensive multilateral 
investment agreement that we have had, and in that sense it is new, but 
it is certainly high time. We have an increasingly complex world of 
trade out there, an increasing complex economic situation, and we have 
to have agreements and we have to have institutions that can deal with 
settling disputes. That is why we have this multilateral agreement on 
investments, and that is why we need to have some kind of mechanism for 
dealing with these.
  Let us talk a little bit about what the WTO has done and what the WTO 
has not done. There is a lot of confusion about that. People say that 
we are giving up our sovereignty to this organization. But we don't. 
The WTO is like a lot of other institutions; we have them in a whole 
range of other areas for settling disputes when disputes arise.
  We have an increasing amount of trade in the world, so we have an 
increasing amount of disputes in the world. The first five cases that 
we have taken to the WTO we have won. We won against Japan on their 
liquor taxes. We won against Canada on their restrictions on magazines. 
We won against the European Union on their banana imports. We won 
against the European Union on their hormone ban. And we won against 
India on their patent law.
  As a result of having been able to threaten actions in the WTO, we 
have gotten significant settlements in other disputes with Korea, with 
the European Union, with Japan, with Portugal, with Pakistan, with 
Turkey, with Hungary, a whole variety of them.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying this: This issue does 
not have anything to do with the WTO at all. The rhetoric may, but 
certainly the amendment does not. This amendment is about policy. It 
suggests a major policy change. Thus is the reason why we should not 
debate this kind of thing on appropriation bills. It is the kind of 
thing that needs to be considered very carefully, in a very complex 
proposal in the authorizing committee, and I would urge us to not be 
misled by the rhetoric we have heard here today.
  (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 
1 minute.)


                    Legislative Schedule For Tonight

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, a lot of Members are asking about the 
schedule for the evening. We have been discussing that with leadership 
on both sides. Here is the intention at the moment as to how to 
proceed: We would intend that the vote on this matter be rolled and 
combined with the vote on the next amendment, which I understand is the 
EDA amendment.
  If that is so, then Members would have roughly an hour between now 
and when the votes would be taken. At that time, there would be the two 
votes, presumably, unless there is a motion to rise or some other 
procedural motion that takes place. That is the intent of leadership at 
this point in time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] anticipate that the EDA vote would be taken first and be a 15-
minute vote and that the vote on this amendment would be taken second?
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, either way. I have no real 
preference. I have no preference. If anyone has a preference, I am 
open.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do. I would 
prefer if we could vote this after the debate. We will be finished in a 
few minutes. Let us vote it, Members are here, and then go off to 
dinner.
  Mr. ROGERS. I have no problem with that.
  Do I understand the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] to say that 
he would prefer not to roll his vote until the EDA vote?
  Mr. SANDERS. I prefer to vote it right after the debate, which will 
end in a few minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. I would hope that the gentleman could accommodate Members 
and perhaps combine the two votes so that we would have some time off 
between votes.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of instructing Members who 
are here and those who are not, I would remind the chairman and those 
Members that there may be procedural votes called in between the 
substantive amendments that may be voted on as well.
  So I doubt very seriously that there will be an hour's worth of time 
that people would be able to be gone.
  Mr. ROGERS. I would regret that. I would hope that we could proceed 
with the business of the House and cease the endless motions to rise 
and the like. I would hope that we can accommodate the Members and let 
everyone have a few minutes of time perhaps for other duties.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who yields time under the Sanders amendment?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 1

[[Page H7876]]

minute and 45 seconds, and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we have just one speaker and we have the 
right to close. So I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] just 
gave us a preview of his speech on Fast Track. I do not know what he 
knows about the WTO.
  I have just spent the last year dealing with the WTO on one of those 
issues that he just alluded to, the one that had to do with the 
European Union. In our country, we have the opportunity to go to the 
meetings, we can go to committee meetings, we can come to this 
Congress, we can go to school boards and our state legislatures.
  We do not know who is making the decisions at the WTO. We do not know 
who is on the panel. Nobody is going to send us a notice. Nobody is 
going to give us a telephone call. We do not have the opportunity to 
give our point of view.
  I want to tell my colleagues, they just made a decision that is going 
to cause the drug lords in the Caribbean to take over where the banana 
trade has been knocked out by the WTO, and we are going to see dope and 
those drugs in the districts that we represent in America.
  Support this. At least we can get a report on what they are doing, 
what they are supposed to do. And perhaps we can all get educated about 
the WTO so that we will not go down the line that we apparently are 
going down to allow them to make decisions about this country and our 
laws.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me in fact talk about the intent of this amendment. Because I am 
the author of the amendment, I know something about its intent. If we 
had the ability, we would have brought forth limitation amendments to 
stop the USTR from doing what they are doing. But we could not do that. 
So the intent here is to transfer $1 million from Commerce to the USTR 
only for two purposes:
  First, to do a much better job of informing all Members of Congress 
when a formal trade complaint is filed or threatened at the WTO or 
other international bodies or when entering into new trade agreements 
which would compel the repeal or changes in our current national, 
State, local, tribal, territorial, or D.C. laws.
  Second, to do a much better job of defending and arguing in support 
of our existing trade and trade-related laws that are in dispute 
between the WTO and other international bodies. This is as far as we 
can go.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for the amendment. The 
public has the right to know this information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
has expired.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] may wish his 
amendment did that, but it does not do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I think that many of the arguments that have been made by a 
number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are very well-
intentioned. But frankly, they are in large part based on fear.
  If one looks at the World Trade Organization, we know what a horrible 
acronym that is out there. There are many people who believe that the 
World Trade Organization is going to take over the United States of 
America. But the fact is, I ask people to name one single instance of 
where U.S. sovereignty or the sovereignty of any State has been 
jeopardized, and the fact is it has not.
  We also, Mr. Chairman, need to look at the fact that there is no tie 
whatsoever between the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI 
and the WTO. It seems to me that as we look at where we are going, I 
want as much information out as possible. But the United States of 
America is the world's only complete superpower of the military, 
economically and geopolitically.
  I happen to have a great deal of confidence. My colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] just talked about how closed 
this is. The fact is, the United States of America is represented there 
as the world's preeminent leader.
  I believe that we need to do everything that we possibly can to break 
down barriers. I think that Members on both sides of this aisle want us 
to embark on agreements which will reduce the burden of taxes on our 
working Americans and on the people.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I have very limited time, and I am in the midst of my 
closing remarks. Did the gentleman from Oregon have a chance to speak?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I did. I would love to rebut.
  Mr. DREIER. That is why I have been given the opportunity to close 
here, and I appreciate having the chance to do that.
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that as we look at where we are headed, 
this is well-intentioned, but the fact is I think that it would 
undermine our attempt to proceed with our attempts in those 1,000 
agreements that are in the process of moving ahead so that we can cut 
that burden.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this and hope my colleagues will join in 
doing that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the gentleman's amendment. Every time the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative commits this Nation to the provisions of an 
international trade agreement, they potentially bind American citizens 
to changes in dozens of Federal, State, or local laws. What makes 
matters worse is that, if the agreement has been negotiated under fast-
track authority, the elected representatives of those people have no 
opportunity to amend the legislation implementing the agreement.
  Let me give you some examples of why this amendment is so important. 
In 1991, the fishing industry in Mexico decided it did not approve of 
the United States law protecting the thousands of dolphins slaughtered 
each year in the Pacific tuna fishery. Mexico challenged that law under 
the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and a panel of 
unselected trade bureaucrats, meeting behind closed doors in Geneva, 
decided our popular law, enacted by an open democratic process, was a 
barrier to free trade. They told us to change it--and this year, amid 
massive controversy and in spite of tremendous opposition from the 
American people, we did. Mexico and the GATT got their way, and more 
dolphins will die this year as a result.
  In 1993, right after the administration assured us that our entry 
into the newly created World Trade Organization would not require any 
weakening of United States environmental protection laws, Venezuela 
challenged EPA regulations issued under the Clean Air Act, claiming 
that the regulations discriminated against foreign refiners. Even 
though Venezuela's gasoline produces more smog-emitting chemicals than 
American refiners are permitted to sell, in 1996 the WTO ordered the 
United States to change its regulations because they were a barrier to 
free trade, and EPA is now rewriting the regulations.
  Today, the United States is fighting similar challenges behind closed 
doors in Geneva. Several Asian countries have challenged a provision of 
our Endangered Species Act that protects sea turtles. On the human 
rights front, the United States is currently defending a Massachusetts 
law prohibiting companies that do business with the State government 
from also doing business with the oppressive regime in Burma. Clearly, 
even State laws are subject to challenge by other nations under WTO 
rules.
  Now let me point to the latest, and perhaps most egregious, example 
of how our laws can be held hostage by foreign-owned corporations. 
Included in the fast-track request sent to Congress last week by the 
President is a little-known item called the Multilateral Agreement on 
Investment. The MAI has been under negotiation by the developed nations 
of the world for the past 2 years, but these negotiations have been 
kept so secret that no one could confirm their existence until this 
past April. According to the director of the World Trade Organization, 
the MAI is ``the constitution of a single global economy.''
  Here in my hand is a list of the State laws that could be challenged 
under the MAI as inconsistent with the agreement. They range from 
California laws promoting investment in facilities for processing 
recycled materials to Alaska laws limiting permits for mineral 
extraction on public lands. Federal statutes affected

[[Page H7877]]

would include laws providing special incentives for minority-owned 
businesses or for companies that employ local workers.
  Trade agreements are no longer about lowering tariffs or eliminating 
quotas. They cover everything from the contents of the milk our 
children drink to the way we manage our fisheries. It's time to update 
the way we approve of these agreements as well.
  The democratically elected members of the Congress and State 
legislatures have a right to know whether the trade agreements that 
this or any other administration commits us to have an impact on our 
laws, and for that very important reason I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
will be postponed.


              Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. De Fazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. DeFazio moves that the Committee do now rise.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If they give us the vote, I withdraw the motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed 
to vote the amendment up or down right now.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont to renew his request for a recorded vote on his amendment at 
this time?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion to rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the proceedings on the motion to 
rise are vacated.
  There was no objection.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 356, 
noes 64, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 452]

                               AYES--356

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--64

     Archer
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Christensen
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Everett
     Fawell
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Goss
     Granger
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Johnson (CT)
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCrery
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pickett
     Porter
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Sanford
     Shaw
     Skeen
     Snyder
     Thomas
     White

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bonilla
     Collins
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Lazio
     Rogan
     Schiff
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1849

  Messrs. PACKARD, SNYDER, DICKS, CANNON, WHITE, KENNEDY of 
Massachusetts, and Mr. HOYER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BUNNING, EHLERS, TALENT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BLUNT, and Mr. 
GREENWOOD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Becerra

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Becerra moves that the Committee do now rise.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 107, 
noes 294, not voting 32, as follows:

[[Page H7878]]

                             [Roll No. 453]

                               AYES--107

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                               NOES--294

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Armey
     Ballenger
     Bonilla
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Collins
     Doyle
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Largent
     Lazio
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Wamp
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1909

  Mrs. CLAYTON and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the open portion of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, Public Law 91-304, and such laws that were in effect 
     immediately before September 30, 1982, and for trade 
     adjustment assistance, $340,000,000: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this 
     heading may be used directly or indirectly for attorneys' or 
     consultants' fees in connection with securing grants and 
     contracts made by the Economic Development Administration: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary of Commerce may provide financial 
     assistance for projects to be located on military 
     installations closed or scheduled for closure or realignment 
     to grantees eligible for assistance under the Public Works 
     and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, without it 
     being required that the grantee have title or ability to 
     obtain a lease for the property, for the useful life of the 
     project, when in the opinion of the Secretary of Commerce, 
     such financial assistance is necessary for the economic 
     development of the area: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Commerce may, as the Secretary considers appropriate, 
     consult with the Secretary of Defense regarding the title to 
     land on military installations closed or scheduled for 
     closure or realignment.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 18.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Page 42, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $90,000,000)''.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thought we were proceeding under a time 
agreement, are we not?
  The CHAIRMAN. There was an objection heard on the unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. But previous to that, we had an agreement on time, did 
we not?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the gentleman, it had 
not come to the floor yet. I am perfectly agreeable to the time 
agreement.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thought that was already in agreement. I thank the 
Chairman.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, it has become an annual ritual, like the 
swallows returning to Capistrano, that we in the bill increase the 
amount of money to be designated for the Economic Development 
Administration, and every year I come down here with some of my 
colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and try to do away with the Economic 
Development Administration.
  I am not trying to do that this year, but I am trying to bring the 
amount of money back to some kind of a reasonable figure, if we think 
we even need it. This is a wasteful agency and an agency that we will 
get rid of eventually; whether it is this year or next year, we will 
eventually, but at this point I am just trying to cut back to some kind 
of reason.
  This is an amendment that is sometimes hard on friendships. The 
agency has been on the chopping block for years, but it has survived 
not on the merits of the program, because the program has few merits, 
but it survives because it makes Representatives and Senators look 
good.

[[Page H7879]]

  Mr. Chairman, the Heritage Foundation calls the EDA the No. 1 Federal 
boondoggle which could be eliminated tomorrow without hurting anyone at 
all, and they are right. The EDA duplicates the activities of 62 other 
community development programs and 340 Federal economic development-
related programs administered by 13 separate agencies. We simply do not 
need it, first of all; and second, it does not work.
  Now, when we have a problem around here and we do not want to make a 
decision, what do we do? We say, well, let us get the GAO to do a study 
of it to get the facts so we will know what to do. Well, the GAO has 
done a study of the EDA, and it says that it has had a very small 
effect on income growth rates during the period that the aid was 
received and no significant effects in the 3 years after the aid 
ceased. This does not compute to the good-paying, long-term jobs the 
EDA is said to create.
  Mr. Chairman, the value of this program that will be argued here 
tonight is fiction. The Senate received testimony to this effect in 
June of this year, and consequently had decided to appropriate only 
$250 million, I say only, but it is a lot of money, more than I would 
want, but it said, they have said $250 million to the EDA. We have gone 
far above that. I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment and 
bring the EDA's funding in line with the Senate bill.
  This has been a target of Presidents, this has been a target of 
almost every think tank that has looked at it and tried to evaluate it. 
It has been a target of the GAO. Instead of getting rid of it, let us 
at least bring it down to the Senate level.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This is an amendment to drastically 
cut the Economic Development Administration, and I strongly urge a 
``no'' vote.
  We debated the issue of EDA on this bill last year and the year 
before and the year before, and on and on. Last year 328 Members of 
this body, a majority of Republicans and Democrats, voted resoundingly 
to support the work of the EDA and to reject this cut. I urge the House 
again to defeat the Hefley amendment.
  If we do not vote this amendment down, we will be depriving hard-hit 
communities in every State in this country of the vital assistance 
these programs provide. EDA gives our poorest urban and rural areas the 
tools to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, to create new 
jobs, expand their local tax base, and leverage private investment. It 
gives them a hand, not a handout.
  If one's town is hard hit by sudden and severe job losses when a 
plant shuts down, EDA is the place to go. If one's community has been 
devastated by a natural disaster, like the recent floods this year in 
the Midwest, EDA is the place one can turn to. If one's district has 
suffered from cutbacks in the defense industry, EDA is the only Federal 
program dedicated to helping your community retool its economy. If my 
colleagues do not believe me, ask California.
  Critics of the program fail to recognize that the EDA has been 
reformed, reduced, and streamlined over the last 3 years. This bill 
cuts EDA funding by 15 percent below the current level. Due to the 
congressional oversight by both the authorizing committee of this body 
and the Committee on Appropriations, EDA's grants are truly targeted to 
the most distressed areas. The development and selection of projects 
has been moved out of Washington and back toward the local and State 
levels, and EDA's bureaucracy has been cut by over one-third in the 
last 2 years.
  In addition, since the vote last year, the House has continued to 
demonstrate its support for EDA programs. Our colleagues in the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will soon approve an EDA 
reauthorization bill that reforms the programs and responds to the past 
criticisms of this program.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly, there are communities that do not need help. 
They have infrastructure, they have industry, they have access to 
education, and all the requirements for a healthy regional economy. 
Other areas, that must rely on us and EDA to help them cope with job 
loss and defense cuts and other economic disasters, need us. They are 
the ones that need our help. They are the ones who are turning to us 
for our vote.
  So I urge Members to do as they did last year and the year before and 
the year before by an overwhelming margin. Vote down this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaTourette] assumed the chair.

                          ____________________